BILL TO REFORM THE IRISH MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
A commission had been appointed to inquire into the state of the corporations in Ireland, and the royal speech had intimated that the subject would be brought forward during this session. Acting upon this report and intimation, Mr. O’Loghlen, attorney-general for Ireland, introduced a bill for the better regulation of Irish municipal corporations. In doing so he entered into many details to show the limited and exclusive nature of the corporations, and the abuses to which this had led. He proposed to remedy the abuses which had crept into the system, by a bill similar to those already adopted for England and Scotland. In regard to the seven largest towns—Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Kilkenny, Belfast, Galway, and Waterford—it was proposed that every inhabitant possessing the £10 franchise under the provisions of the Irish reform act, should be entitled to vote in the election of municipal offices. As regarded all boroughs containing a population of less than 20,000 inhabitants, it was farther proposed that every occupier of a £5 house should be entitled to vote in the election of municipal officers. With regard to councillors, the qualification in the seven large boroughs was to consist in having property worth £1000, and in the other towns, property worth £5000. In the seven large boroughs, and likewise in Londonderry, Sligo, Dungannon, and Drogheda, where the population exceeded 15,000, there would be a division of wards. Aldermen, likewise, were to be elected by the inhabitants, and were to consist of the councillors who had the greatest number of votes at the election. One half of the councillors and aldermen were to retire every three years; and in the seven large boroughs, the council was to have the power of electing sheriffs, subject to the approval of the lord-lieutenant. The bill further declared that a commission of the peace might be granted in any large borough if the lord-lieutenant thought fit, and in other towns the mayor for the time being would be the magistrate of the borough. It was likewise intended to preserve to the inhabitants of the Irish corporate towns the right of proceeding summarily by petition in cases of misapplication of public funds, instead of leaving them to the ordinary tedious process of the law, and to retain the courts in the nature of courts of conscience, and the right of their suitors to proceed by attachment. It was further proposed that government should have the power of obliging the council, if either or both the persons first chosen were not approved of, to proceed to the election of some other persons, and not, as in the case of Dublin, re-elect the same person. All the other provisions were similar to those comprised in the English bill. The bill was allowed to be read a second time on the 29th of February without opposition; but Sir Robert Peel took occasion to state the views taken of this particular mode of reforming Irish corporations by himself and the party to which he adhered. He avowed that it was not possible to defend the corporation system which existed in Ireland; but he contended that the bill would not be a remedy for the evils. Although the views of the Conservatives, as explained by Sir Robert Peel, did not allow them to oppose the second reading of the bill, yet when the motion was made that the house should go into committee, Lord Francis Egerton moved that the committee should be empowered to make provision for the abolition of corporations in Ireland, and for such arrangements as might be necessary on their abolition, for securing the efficient and impartial administration of justice, and the peace and good government of cities and towns in Ireland. His lordship said, that in substituting abolition for the process of restoration proposed by ministers, he was not withholding from Ireland any of the benefits intended to be conferred on the other parts of the kingdom by their new municipal institutions; and lie argued generally that there was much in the situation of that country, and in the state of its society, which distinguished it from England and other nations, and which might render it, in certain cases, an unfit recipient for institutions not essential in themselves to good government, and only valuable as being machinery for that purpose. His motion was seconded by Mr. Lefroy. The bill was defended by Lords John Russell, Morpeth, and Hawick, Mr. O’Connell, and other members; and was attacked by Lord Stanley, Mr. Sergeant Jackson, and Sirs Henry Hardinge and James Graham. Mr. O’Connell insisted that Ireland must have justice; and she would not have it if she was not treated as England and Scotland had been treated. Lord Stanley said, that he felt some hesitation in receiving Mr. O’Connell as the plenipotentiary of the people of Ireland to treat with the British parliament. Lord John Russell closed the debate on Lord Francis Egerton’s motion. On a division the motion was lost by a majority of three hundred and seven against two hundred and forty-three. In the committee none of the provisions of the bill underwent any important alteration, except the allowing of sheriff’s in the large boroughs to be chosen by the town-councils. Ministers listened to the objections urged against this, and retained the nomination of these officers in the power of the crown. The bill was finally passed on the 28th of March, after another debate, by a majority of two hundred and sixty to one hundred and ninety-nine.
A harder battle was, however, to be fought in the lords. On the second reading Lord Lyndhurst expressed his willingness to go into committee, but not with the intention of preserving the bill in all its present features. He did not deny that evils existed in the Irish corporations, but he wished to see some scheme adopted which would not only remove those evils, but prevent the recurrence of others of a similar kind. The present bill, however, was a bill to extend the system of exclusion, and to aggravate all the violations to which justice was now exposed. The town-councils would not consist of persons anxious for the preservation of peace and the security of property, but would be filled with men of the anti-church and Catholic party, advocates of the repeal of the union, and of the separation of British and Irish interests. His lordship argued that the five-pound qualification would increase agitation, would aggrandise radical interests. If excitement, he said, prevailed in Ireland at the election of members of parliament, how far more prevalent would be the excitement which would attend the elections of this bill. His lordship looked also, with alarm, at the formidable power which the priesthood would gain by this bill; and the town-councils, he contended, would be confined to a party of inflammatory demagogues: justice itself would be poisoned at its source, and corporate property devoted to anything but its legitimate purposes. He concluded by sketching a plan similar to that which had been proposed in the commons by Sir Robert Peel, and which he, or some of those with whom he acted, would propose should be inserted in the bill in place of the clauses containing the new corporations. The house went into committee on the 26th of April, when Lord Fitzgerald moved, as had been done in the commons, “That it be an instruction to the committee to make provision for the abolition of such corporations, and for such arrangements as may be necessary on their abolition for securing the efficient and impartial administration of justice, and the peace and good government of cities and towns in Ireland.” The lord-chancellor and Lords Holland and Melbourne spoke against this motion; and Lords Abinger and Lyndhurst supported it.. The motion was carried by a majority of two hundred and three against one hundred and nineteen. The committee proceeded on the 9th of May, and the first clause, repealing “all acts, charters, and customs inconsistent with this act,” was agreed to; and the existing corporations were thus abolished. Lord Lyndhurst moved certain amendments on the second clause, which reserved the rights of freemen; and after some debate these were carried by a majority of one hundred and seven against fifty-three. Another debate and division took place on the 22nd clause, which enacted that the boroughs should have a mayor, and a certain number of councillors and aldermen, as they were arranged in the schedules. This was struck out. And on the third reading of the bill, the Duke of Richmond proposed limiting the bill to seven of the largest towns. This motion, it was said, was not made by any arrangement or communication with the ministry. Government had never intended to preclude itself from inquiring to what towns corporate powers should be extended. What they were most anxious to preserve was, the corporation principle in Ireland. If that were maintained, the Marquis of Lansdowne said, he should not argue that corporations ought to be continued in the small towns: if any difference was to be made, it ought to be in favour of the large towns, because it was there that corporations must be useful if they were good for anything. The motion, however, was negatived; and the bill, having thus been brought into the form which the minority in the lower house had endeavoured to give it, was sent down on the 19th of May to the commons.
In moving that the lords’ amendments should be printed, Lord John Russell stated that, however willing he might be to come to some arrangement in regard to the constitution of the franchise, he would never consent to deprive Ireland of municipal government altogether, thereby stigmatising and degrading its people. The Radicals were very violent, boldly maintaining that there required an “organic change” in the house of lords. The amendments were moved, by Lord John Russell, to be taken into consideration on the 9th of June. The bill, he said, as amended, contained little or nothing of the bill which had been sent up to the lords. Out of one hundred and forty clauses, one hundred and six had been in substance omitted, while eighteen others had been introduced. A bill had been put up for regulating and renewing corporations in Ireland on the same conditions as in England and Scotland; they had received back a bill which abolished them entirely, but which preserved to many of the persons who held office in these bodies all the power and profit of their situations. In order to meet the concurrence of the lords, however, instead of abolishing the whole of the corporations, it was proposed that the larger towns, originally divided between schedules A and B should be placed in one, and that all the clauses for the government of corporate towns should be restored to the bill, with the view of applying them to these particular towns. These towns would be Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Gal way, Kilkenny, Limerick, Waterford, Clonmel, Drogheda, Londonderry, Sligo, and Carrickfergus. In regard to the other towns, he would not give them corporations; but at the same time he would not leave them subject to the provisions of the lords’ bill. He proposed rather, that the provisions of the act of 1828 should be applied immediately to twenty-two of the towns in schedule C, and that so soon as the five-pound householders in these towns had chosen commissioners, the corporate property, and the right of appointing to the necessary offices should vest in the commissioners. There would be commissioners elected by the inhabitants, instead of being appointed by the lord-lieutenant. In regard to the remaining boroughs of schedule C, as they possessed but little property, he would neither subject them to the expense of a corporation, nor compel them to elect commissioners under the act of 1828; but would leave it to them to have recourse to the latter, if they thought fit. The lords had made other alterations in other clauses of the bill, regarding the granting of quarter-sessions, &c.; but these alterations did not impair the spirit of the original bill, and therefore he would not quarrel with them. The difference which still remained between them was one of principle—should there be municipal governments or not? He thought that municipal government, placed on a popular basis, and under popular control, was excellent and useful in itself; and that in Ireland it would tend to public tranquillity, by assuaging jealousies, and removing causes of discontent. His lordship concluded by moving the rejection of the amendment of the lords on the fourth clause, which implied the continuance of corporations, and which the peers had therefore expunged. This motion led to another debate of two days’ duration, in which all the topics previously discussed were again brought forward; superadded to which were many reflections on the house of lords, and on Lord Lyndhurst in particular. On a division, the motion to reject the amendment on the lords was carried by three hundred and twenty-four against one hundred and twenty-eight; and on the 13th and 14th of June, the bill was brought back to the shape proposed by ministers in so far as regarded corporations being limited to the twelve towns mentioned by Lord John Russell. Subsequently, a committee was appointed to draw up the reasons of the house for not agreeing to the amendment of the peers; and the amended bill was delivered to the lords at a conference on the 17th of June. On the 27th, Lord Melbourne moved that the amendments of the commons should be agreed to, which motion was met by a direct negative by Lord Lyndhurst. The motion was lost by a majority of two hundred and twenty against one hundred and twenty-one; and the bill was then sent back to the commons, with the reasons of the lords for adhering to their own amendments. Finally, on the 30th of June, Lord John Russell moved, and the house agreed, that the amendment should be taken into consideration that day three months, and thus the bill was dropped.
THE IRISH TITHE-BILL.
WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837
Another great party measure was the Irish tithe-bill. Ministers reintroduced this measure on the 25th of April. It was brought forward by Lord Morpeth, the Irish secretary, who moved this resolution:—“That it is expedient to commute the composition of tithes in Ireland into a rent-charge, payable by the owners of the estate, and to make further provisions for the better regulation of ecclesiastical dues and revenues.” In opening the scheme which ministers intended to incorporate in their bill, Lord Morpeth announced that the principle of appropriation would still be declared and acted on. The bill, he said, would follow the uniform precedent of three previous bills, and he believed of four successive administrations, in converting the tithe-composition into a rent-charge, payable by the owners of the first estate of inheritance, as it was termed. The bill would also preserve those terms of commutation which, in the bill of last year, had been adopted by both houses of parliament, by conferring a deduction of thirty per cent, upon those subject to the payment of the tithe-composition. He would not propose any contribution from the national funds towards payment of the arrears of former years; and, on the other hand, he would abandon all claims for repayment of the sums which had been advanced to tithe-owners under the million act, and which amounted to £637,000. Ministers proposed, he said, to entrust the collection of rent-charges to the board of woods and forests for a period of seven years, and thereafter until parliament should otherwise determine. The bill would also contain the provisions for allowing a revaluation of the present tithe-composition in the cases and under the limitations specified in the bill of last year. These were the arrangements to be enacted in regard to existing incumbents. As regarded the future regulation of the church revenues, government felt that they could not abandon those declarations and principles with which they entered upon office; that they could not shake off the engagement under which they conceived themselves to stand, of doing justice to the Irish nation; and the terms of that virtual and most honourable compact they conceived to be that if, in the future disposition of the revenues of the Irish church, something superfluous for its legitimate and becoming uses should arise, they should, after the satisfaction of all existing interests, apply that superfluity to the religious and moral education of the people. He felt that he might consider the principle as established and conceded, that parliament had a right to deal with the revenues of the church, if it should think them superfluous for church purposes; so long as the resolution adopted by the present parliament stood upon their books unrepealed, he had a right to think that that principle was admitted. It was now proposed by government, he continued, that on any future vacancy of a benefice, providing, as before, compensation for the patronage of private individuals in possession of the avowson, the lord-lieutenant should direct the board of ecclesiastical commissioners, now sitting in Dublin, to submit to the privy-council a report containing all particulars concerning such benefice; and a committee of the privy-council would be established with a view to this especial purpose, consisting exclusively of members of the established church, and named by his majesty. Power would be given to this committee to alter the boundaries of vacant benefices, subject to such modifications as subsequent vacancies of contiguous benefices might render advisable to carry into effect. Since the year 1718 the lord-lieutenant and the privy-council had united two hundred and eighty-nine parishes, consisting of the union of two or more parishes. The committee, after fixing the boundaries, were to apportion such income as they might think proper relative to the duties of the future incumbents, but within certain limitations. Where the number of the members of the established church varied from 500 to 1000, the income would be £300; and where the number varied from 1000 to 3000, the income would be £400. Where the number of Protestants amounted to 3000 and upwards, the income would be raised to £500; but wherever the number was below 50, it was proposed to assign to the incumbent an income not exceeding £100. After thus providing for the Protestant establishment, his lordship said that there would still be a considerable surplus of ecclesiastical revenue. The tithes payable to the clergy at present were £511,000, which, remitting thirty per cent, left a rent-charge of £353,000. The ministers’ money might be stated at £10,000, without the expenses of collection; the private bounty fund, £5000; glebe-lands, clear revenue, £86,500; total, £459,550. There were 1385 benefices in Ireland, a considerable number of which were sinecures, not merely from the circumstance of having no members of the church of England within their locality, but also from the fact that they were in the hands of the dignitaries of the church, who performed little or no service in them. There were also many which had been suppressed by the church-temporalities act, divine service not having been performed in them for three years. Perhaps the number necessary to keep up would be about 1250. It was intended, indeed, under this bill, to give power to the privy-council to constitute new benefices in Ireland, of which they were likely to avail themselves to some extent. The whole payment to be made to the clergy of the 1250 benefices he calculated at £361,928, thus leaving a surplus of £97,612. This was a larger surplus than he had hoped for last year; but as the committee of the privy-council would, in certain cases, have the power to constitute new benefices, this surplus would be likely to undergo some alteration. It would also be remembered that no part of the surplus could be expected to be realised for some time to come, from the necessity of satisfying vested interests, and of making other important arrangements. After satisfying all the charges that must be met, it was proposed to have the remainder paid into the consolidated fund, upon which a charge of £50,000 per annum was to be fixed, for the purpose of supplying religious and moral education to the people of Ireland. The second reading was delayed till the 1st of June, when Lord Stanley, who had previously given notice of his intention, moved this amendment:—“That leave be given to bring in a bill for the conversion of tithe into a rent-charge, and for the redemption thereof, and for the better distribution of ecclesiastical revenues in Ireland.” In reply, Lord John Eussell reminded the house that he had expressed his willingness to allow Lord Stanley to bring in his bill as a substantive measure; but when it was moved as an amendment on the original motion before them, it was merely a new form of opposing the second reading of the government bill, and raising the question on the principle of that bill. They had been appealed to as gentlemen, but he hoped they were something more; that they were representatives of popular feelings and popular interests—representatives, not of local bodies, but of the whole empire, including the six millions of Roman Catholics in Ireland. In conclusion, Lord John Russell said that it had been asked, whether he meant the income of the glebe-lands generally, or in part, to go towards giving glebe to the Roman Catholic church? He gave a distinct answer in the negative; government had no intention of providing, out of any surplus of glebe-lands in Ireland, glebe-lands for the Roman Catholic church. The debate continued by adjournment on the 2nd and 3rd of June, the ministerial measure being defended by Lord Morpeth, the chancellor of the exchequer, Messrs. O’Connell, Shiel, Ward, and others; and that of Lord Stanley being supported by Sergeant Jackson, Sirs James Graham, and E. Peel, and Mr. Lefroy, and others. The most remarkable speeches delivered in this debate were those of Mr. O’Connell and Sir Robert Peel. The debate was closed by the chancellor of the exchequer, who complained that the opposition fixed upon ministers all the opinions of those who supported the bill. On a division, ministers had a majority of thirty-nine; the votes for the second reading being three hundred, and for Lord Stanley’s amendment, two hundred and sixty-one. A motion was made on the 1st of July for going into committee on the bill, on which day the ultimate designs and the real wishes of the Papists were disclosed by Mr. Crawford, who moved the following resolutions:—“1. That it is expedient that tithes, and all compositions for tithes in Ireland should cease, and be for ever extinguished, compensations being first made for all existing interests, whether lay or ecclesiastical; and that it is also expedient that measures should be adopted to render the revenues of the church lands more productive, and more available for the support of the working clergy of the establishment; and that all persons not in communion with the established church of Ireland should be relieved from all assessment for its support. 2. That it is expedient that the moneys necessary for the aforesaid compensation (estimated at £2,500,000) should be advanced out of the public revenue, and afterwards repaid by instalments from the proceeds of a tax to be imposed on profit-rents; such tax to cease and determine as soon as the said debt shall be paid.” These resolutions, however, were rejected by a majority of fifty-one against eighteen. In the committee the Irish leader betrayed his conviction that it would be impossible either to pass the bill, or to make it the means of raising any popular excitement against the house of lords. On the discussion of the first clause, he said, that to discuss anything was only waste of time; for it was clear that no measure for the pacification of Ireland, whether respecting tithes or anything else, was likely to pass. Any bill containing solid relief was sure to be destroyed; they were legislating in despair. He himself intended to have proposed several amendments; but he should not do so, as there could be no doubt the lords would throw out the bill. The only debate which took place in the committee arose on the question, whether the appropriation clause should stand part of the bill. The arguments adopted were a repetition of all that had been formerly urged, diversified with a few new illustrations, and some acrimony of expression. The clause was retained on a division by a majority of two hundred and ninety against two hundred and sixty-four. The bill was finally read a third time, and passed on the 15th of July.
The second reading was moved in the lords on the 22nd of July. Lord Melbourne briefly explained its provisions, observing that it was not necessary for him to go into any lengthened argument on the subject. It was read a second time without opposition, the Duke of Wellington declaring that he was prepared to consider it in committee, with a view to make such amendments as might render it consistent with the interests of the church and the people. The house went into committee on the 25th, and the bill was passed on the 28th. When passed, however, all the provisions for what was called appropriation were struck out, and all the other important arrangements in the bill were modified. By the bill the clergy were only to receive seventy per cent.; the lords raised it to seventy-five; they raised also the minimum stipend to be paid in any benefice to £300. In this shape the bill was sent down to the commons.