XXXI. 1833.

CHAP. entirely abolished out of the twenty-two in Ireland, as being deemed superfluous, adverting to the numbers of the persons of the Episcopal persuasion in Ireland.* And in regard to lands belonging to bishoprics, it was provided that the bishop should be bound to grant leases for ever at a corn-rent, upon six years' purchase being tendered to him. The quit-rent to the bishops was £100,000 1 Ann. Reg. a-year, the real value to the occupant £600,000. This 87,90; Parl. Would create a fund which he estimated at £3,000,000 sterling, which was to be at the disposal of Parliament for the service of the State.1

1833, 84,

Deb. xv.

567, 576.

46.

against it

vatives.

This bill met with a very strong opposition in ParliaArgument ment, from the Conservative members, as involving the by Conser- principle of the spoliation of Church property, the beginning of all the evils of the French Revolution; from the Radicals and Roman Catholic members, as not going far enough, and promising no substantial relief to the country. On the part of the Conservatives it was urged by Sir R. Inglis, Sir R. Peel, and Mr Goulburn: "The tendency of this bill, its obvious intention, is not to obviate any existing abuses, but simply to gratify the spleen of the Government and the Roman Catholics at the Established Church. It is a mistake to say that the removal of church cess will relieve the Catholic tenantry; it will only put money in the pockets of the landlords, nineteen twentieths of whom are Episcopalian, upon whom the burden

*The following was stated at this time as the relative proportions of the members of the different religious persuasions in Ireland, but it was not founded on any Government enumeration; and being mainly founded on the information of ecclesiastical parties interested, it is not altogether to be relied

The sees proposed to be reduced were Dromore, Clogher, Raphoe, Elphin, Clonfert, Killala, Kildare, Cork, Waterford, and Ossory. - Parl. Deb., xv. 567, 570.

XXXI.

1833.

now does and ought to fall. What will it avail the pea- CHAP. sants that the bishops are abolished? They are supported entirely by church lands, and are a burden on no one they are resident, and supposing some of them have little to do, still they spend their revenues in the country, which cannot be said of the great majority of the lay proprietors. The logic of the bill is-Ireland is languishing for want of a numerous body of resident proprietors who may spend their incomes on their estates: we will abate the evil by extinguishing ten who spend at present £40,000 or £50,000 a-year on their properties!' Moreover, five of the bishoprics proposed to be abolished are taken from a part of the country where the majority of the people are Protestants, and the Episcopal duties are as heavy and important as in any part of England.

47.

"The other part of the bill is still more objectionable, and should be resisted to the very uttermost, for it goes Continued. directly to a confiscation of church property, and that too in a way based upon the most flagrant injustice. A fund of no less than £3,000,000 is to be created by forcing the bishops to sell their lands to the incumbents at a third of their real value; and not content with this violent step, the money so acquired is not to be applied to purposes of religion, charity, or education, but to the service of the State! It will probably be carried to the credit of the consolidated fund, or be applied in extinction of the National Debt. What is this but confiscating church property to temporal purposes? the very first step taken in the French, Spanish, and Neapolitan revolutions, and the parent of all the iniquities and miseries which followed. The taxation of the clergy according to a graduated scale, is if possible still more iniquitous. When one class is singled out for peculiar and exclusive taxation, it is generally the richest one which is selected; but here it is the poorest, the most destitute, the most injured class in the community which is subjected to this grinding oppression. The income-tax was thrown off by

XXXI.

1833.

CHAP. the nation because it imposed a burden insupportable in time of peace on the earnings of industry, even in the modified form of 5 per cent. It is now to be reimposed in a graduated scale varying from 5 to 15 per cent upon one peculiar class, in consideration of that class being the most destitute and suffering in the community, against which, with persevering hostility, the whole efforts of the combination against tithes have with fatal effect been directed. And whom is the burden thus cruelly and iniquitously imposed, intended to relieve? The 1 Parl. Deb. landlords by whom it is at present really borne, the proper parties to sustain it, and against whom, as yet, at least, no hostile combination has been directed." 1

xviii. 761,

784.

48.

nell's speech

Mr O'Connell's speech on the bill was so curious and Mr O'Con- characteristic that part of it must be given in his own on the bill. Words: "Lord Althorpe's estimate of the revenue of the Church of Ireland is a base delusion. The Government plan is one which only removes church cess, but relieves no other burden or grievance, and does not even suspend the war against the poor man's pigs and tenth potato. Why then do I so warmly approve the measure so far as it goes? Because it recognises an admirable principle from which now he cannot shrink; namely, that where there are no spiritual wants, there is to be no spiritual receiver of tithes and church rentals, and therefore I hail it with satisfaction. Indeed, Ministers have already acted on that principle. They have kept the vacant bishopric of Waterford like a dummy hand in whist, not filled by any actual person, and yet open to an occupant. On this excellent principle of no work, no pay, the noble lord has promised us ten other dummies in the Irish Church, and thus the property of these ten do-nothings will be available to the purposes of the State. To say otherwise, and maintain that the property of the Church should be applied only to ecclesiastical purposes, is a fantastical assertion which the common sense of every intelligent person in the country will reject with

XXXI.

1833.

scorn. Having made the admission of these excellent CHAP. principles, they may invest their ecclesiastical commission with as many cobweb forms as they please; that admission 1 Parl. Deb. cannot be eluded, and will produce much more benefit xix. 647; (and I am anxious this should be understood elsewhere) 1833, 91. than may be apparent on the face of it." 1

Ann. Reg.

49.

of Ministers

It may readily be believed Ministers did not implicitly adopt this dangerous argument in support of the bill; Argument but it was urged by Earl Grey, Lord Althorpe, and Mr in its supStanley : "There is no ground for denying the authority port. of Parliament to interfere with the property of the Church, as is proposed to be done by this bill. It is from an act of Parliament that the Church derived its power over the bishops' leases; and what an act of Parliament had given, an act of Parliament may take away. Being debarred by law from granting leases beyond twenty-one years, the bishop indemnified himself by perpetually renewing the leases, and taking a fine at each renewal. As this bill gives the Church the power of granting leases in perpetuity, it is a very great benefit to the tenant, and the Church would not be injured. The Church would receive and the tenant pay the same as at present; but an estate in perpetuity, instead of one for a time limited, being carved out by the bill, a large fund is created; and is there any injustice in its being applied by the State to secular purposes?

50.

"With regard again to the diminution in the number of bishops, the bill does not suppress bishoprics, it only con- Continued. solidates them. It effects an extension of dioceses in those cases where one bishop appears adequate to the duties heretofore performed by two; and in all countries and in all ages, similar alterations on the ecclesiastical establishment have been repeatedly made, without exciting any attention. It has been done in Italy and Spain, countries the most subject to ecclesiastical influence. The primate and bishops of Ireland had, when consulted on the subject, given it as their opinion, that if church cess was to be abolished, the least objectionable mode of sup

1833.

CHAP. plying the deficiency would be by diminishing the number XXXI. of bishops. No man can deny that twelve bishops are sufficient for Ireland, a country containing only 1400 benefices, and not more than, at the utmost, a million of Episcopalian inhabitants. In the extensive diocese of Chester there are 1200 benefices; the highest number any bishop will have in his diocese will be 179. In England there are 22 bishoprics and 12,000 parishes; 1 Parl. Deb. in Ireland, at present, there are 22 bishoprics and arch854; Ann. bishoprics for 1400 benefices. The disproportion is glaring, and nothing in the whole constitution more obviously and loudly calls for reformation." 1

xviii. 787,

Reg. 1833,

100, 103.

51.

the bill

through both Houses.

The second reading of the bill was carried by a majoProgress of rity of 317 to 78, which may be considered as a pretty fair test of the relative strength of the Liberals and Conservatives in the Reform Parliament. But several of the members in the majority, who usually supported Ministers, declared at the time that they would in committee vote for the application of the surplus fund to ecclesiastical, not secular, purposes; and so strong was the feeling on this subject, that Mr Stanley, in committee, proposed that the surplus fund should be applied to ecclesiastical purposes only, and that beneficed clergymen in possession should be exempted from the progressive income-tax, which should attach only to persons vested after the date of the bill. By these changes, which were stigmatised by Mr O'Connell " as the basest act which a national assembly could sanction," the bill was deprived of the most objectionable features in the eyes of the Conservatives, and all who were attached to the Established Church; and it was read a third time, and passed on the 8th July, by a majority of 274 to 94. In the Peers a more serious opposition was anticipated, as the Conservative party, notwithstanding the numerous peers created by the Whigs since their accession to office three years before, had still a majority in that House. In effect, although the second reading was carried in the Peers by 157 to 98, so

July 8.