Page images
PDF

Member for Dublin was empowered to make that proposal, and had the means of performing it, he should feel very much disposed to agree to it. But he could not consent to impose on the clergy the whole of the pecuniary penalty on account of those arrears. His noble Friend (Lord Stanley) proposed, that part should be borne by the landlords. With the utmost respect for the opinions of his noble Friend, he doubted the justice of throwing upon the landlord part of the payment due on account of arrears. As far as the gentlemen of Ireland were concerned, upon whom this burden was thrown, he would not remit one shilling. He would recommend, that they should be all brought before the Court of Exchequer and compelled to pay. He was perfectly convinced that the Irish landlords, who had felt the inconvenience of encouraging agitation to resist a due legal demand would not give much trouble, if the clergy civilly enforced their demand. And as to remitting one shilling, nothing, in his opinion, could be more fatal. They had, therefore, to deal only with the occupying tenant. If the Treasury would advance to the clergy, out of the public funds, seventy-five per cent, upon the amount of their arrears and if they would be content to recover fifty per cent, from the tithe payer, he would consent to such an arrangement. The only evil attending it appeared to him to be the necessity of recovering it from the occupying teuants. But upon the whole he decidedly objected to making the clergy solely responsible for the amount of the arrears. He doubted the justice of imposing any part of the liability upon the landlords. And if he were sure that the bonus of twenty-five per cent, would insure the peaceable settlement of this question, he doubted whether it would not be the best course to meet the difficulties of the case.

Mr. Sheil said, that the right lion. Baronet had, in the course of his speech, adverted to him in rather a pointed manner. He should not be provoked in consequence of this, more than to suggest to the right hon. Baronet himself, that perhaps some appointments had been made, when he was in power, of Gentlemen as distinguished for the vehemence of their partisanship, at least, as he was, not perhaps upon the question of the Church, but upon others quite as exciting in Ireland. But he would not, by pursuing this subject, interfere with the just and whole

some spirit that appeared to prevail. It appeared to him to be agreed upon by all sides, in the first place, that the sum advanced to the clergy should be remitted to them, and that, to the extent of that remission, a remission by the clergy should be granted. The next point for consideration was, whether the surplus of the sura which had been originally granted for the pacification of Ireland, should be applied to the purpose for which it had been originally intended? The right hon. Member for Launceston (Sir H. Hardinge), proposed, in 1835, that the surplus should be appropriated to the payment of all arrears, and when the Whigs came into office they adopted the proposition, not of remitting what had beefi advanced, but of giving up the surplus of the million, amounting to 307,000/. to the settlement of arrears. Thus were the Whigs and Conservatives agreed upon these two most important points, namely, the remission of the money that had been advanced and the further grant of 307,000/. He could not conceive why the Whig Government should recede from that point. No name had been suggested; not a single individual connected with the Government had ventured to state any reason for the difference in the course taken in 1835, and that proposed to be taken now. He thought he had made out a case, founded on the conduct of the Whig and Conservative Governments, for the grant of the remainder of the million; but as to the liquidation of the arrears that bad accrued beyond this, he was not insensible to the difficulty of inducing English Members to agree to a further grant. He thought, that when they were applying this balance to the liquidation of arrears, they ought to distinguish between the various classes of arrears. He was of opinion, that the landlord who had received his rent, and with it the tithe, ought to be allowed no remission, not a single farthing. Supposing he let his land at 40s. the acre, and that 3s. were to be paid to the parson, and he received the 40s., only 37s. of it belonged to him, and he was bound to pay the balance to the clergyman. He thought this was but common justice, and he was not liable to the imputation which the right hon. Baronet had insinuated against him without the slightest foundation, namely, that he had refused to pay his tithes. He had been unable to recover his tithe, as was the case with other pro

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]

prietors greater than himself, and in support of this he might refer to the statement of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley), who was a landlord in Tipperary, and who had made considerable abatements to his tenants. Every body knew, that there was not a better landlord than the noble Lord. He would not be so unjust as to withhold his testimony to the high merit of the noble Lord on that point. The noble Lord had stated, that he had made an abatement to his tenants, and that he had fixed the rent with reference to tithes, at a certain sum; and that he had great difficulty in enforcing payment. But others had not the same means of enforcing payment as the noble Lord, because the noble Lord gave a beneficial interest to his tenants, who were also tenants at will. He had, therefore, the power of removing them, and of course he had the power of obtaining the balance due to him for tithe, whilst others had not that power. But what was the condition of other landlords? A noble Earl in another place (Earl Roden), had given a description of the condition of a Protestant gentleman, one of the olden time, with an income nominally of 5,000/. ayear, who, however, never got more than 700/. a-year for his support. The Earl of Roden had declared, that many men of this class would be crushed by the operation of the poor-law. If the poor-law would crush such men, how much more would the compelling them to pay tithes which they had not obtained, crush them? Suppose land to be let at 20s. the acre, and supposing, and he spoke from experience, that the tithe was 3s., the tenant paid 17s. to the landlord, but refused to pay the tithes, and the landlord, who had to pay the 3s. to the clergyman, would in fact receive only 14s. the acre for his land. This was a statement of facts, and every Gentleman who belonged to that part of Ireland (Tipperary) could corroborate this statement. There were three classes of persons whom the House ought to consider. There was the landlord, who received his tithes; there was the proprietor of the fee-simple in possession of the fee-simple. Let them pay their tithes; it was but fair, because they received it; but the landlords who, in point of law were liable, who de jure were liable, but who de facto had not received their tithes, were entitled to the indulgence of the House. Let them remember

the state of the south of Ireland; let them recollect the meetings that had taken place. He thought he had made out a case for the landlords of Ireland which that House ought to take into account. He was throwing overboard those who had got their tithes—he was throwing aside those who had got possession of the land; but he thought the House ought to take into account those landlords who were liable for tithes, and who had not received one farthing of them. It might be said, let those landlords sue their tenants, and compel them to pay. But he would ask, would not the landlords find it hard to recover these tithes which the state found it so impracticable to obtain with the aid of the police, the military, and all the machinery which the Government could bring to bear upon the recusants? Had not the Government said, that they found it almost impossible to recover the arrears of the million, and if they could not, how could the landlords recover them, surrounded as they were by an excited and hostile peasantry? It was untrue—he begged pardon for using so strong a phrase—it was a mistake to say, that he had not paid his tithes. He had paid a large portion on the simple application of the clergyman to him, and he had in his possession a letter from a clergyman in which he returned him (Mr. Sheil) his thanks for asking him for his account in order that he might discharge it. He was, in fact, willing to pay every farthing of tithes incurred by himself, but he objected to be made responsible for those of his tenants who refused to pay him. But enough about himself—enough of individual cases. What he wished to impress upon the House was this—if they were to have the balance of the million applied to the extinction of the arrears, let them not confine it to the occupying tenant, but grant a portion of it to the landlords who were in the predicament to which he had alluded.

Mr. Hume said, that in his opinion the people of England were about to be defrauded of a large sum in order to support an Establishment which ought to have been reduced long ago, but, at the same time, Ireland and England were in such a situation that every friend of peace must desire to see an end put to agitation. Did the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tarn worth, mean to say, that the sacrifice of 307,000/. would restore peace to Ireland? He begged to remind the House of what had passed a few days ago. His opinion was, that for a while the money might put down agitation, but in a short time agitation would arise again. In his opinion, the interests of England were about to be betrayed. He saw no reason why they should remit arrears of tithe to the amount of 640,000/., with the additional sum of 307,000/., unless upon the conditions which were pointed out on the Ministerial side of the House, when they succeeded in 1835 in ousting the Government. Let the Church be reduced, let the reforms that were then pointed out be adopted, and let the surplus arising, after the purposes of the Church should have been provided for, be applied to the repayment of the million, and he should be willing to consent to it, but beyond that he did not think, that the House of Commons ought to go, and he doubted much whether the people of England would sanction the giving up of a million of money to the landlords of Ireland. The Church of Ireland was rotten at the core —it was an incubus, which ought not and could not maintain its existence in spite of the feelings of the people. He could promise the right, lion. Baronet opposite, that all his expectations of peace would be disappointed unless he agreed to the appropriation clause and the abolition of sinecures in the Church. Until this was done he would never iagree to give one shilling of public money to the clergy of Ireland.

Mr. Sergeant Jackson said, that there was not a more laborious and conscientious body of men than the clergy of Ireland. He denied, also, that they were overpaid; their incomes did not average more than 250/. a year. He took the liberty of saying a few words in explanation of what appeared to him to be the meaning of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, in reference to the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary. In touching upon this point he must frankly bear testimony to the gentlemanly deportment which invariably distinguished the part which the hon. and learned Gentleman took in their discussions. The hon. and learned Gentleman never allowed his political feelings to carry him out of the strict line of straightforward and gentlemanly dealing. As the observation struck him, however, the right hon. Baronet had not objected to the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary, on ac

count of his being a partisan; but had complained of her Majesty's government that they had promoted parties who had been engaged not only in the violation of the law themselves, but in encouraging others to violate it. The hon. and learned Member fell under this description, for he surely could not forget the speeches which he had made in Tipperary and elsewhere invoking resistance to the claims of the Church, and calling for its entire abolition. It had been declared by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin that Ireland never was in such a state of imminent danger as at the present moment—that she was like a charged volcano ready to burst forih at any moment. And was this the slate to which Ireland was reduced in spite of all the kind and healing measures, all the popular proceedings, of the new Government of that country? He feared, indeed, that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin spoke truly, when he said, that Ireland was in a bad state. But why was it so? It was because the Government had not taken the proper and obvious means to enforce obedience and respect to the law; on the contrary, they had not only winked at repeated violations of it, but had actually from time to time promoted the very men who had been guilty of them. He knew of two parties who had been foremost in resisting the law in the matter of tithes, and who had subsequently been promoted to offices in the Exchequer Court. He could assure the House, that in consequence of such proceedings as these it was a received opinion in Ireland that the Government of the country was merging into the hands of the hon. and learned member for Dublin, that at his bidding the magistracy was cleared out, and the police made use of, not as the legitimate means of protecting the peace of the country, but as a ready source of patronage in the hands of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Lord John Russell said, the first proposition made by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin was, that some arrangement should be made respecting the arrears due upon the advance made on account of the tithe properties, in order to their total discharge. Another question had since then been started respecting the portion of the million which had been actually advanced to the tithe-owners, and not repaid, Now, upon this subject he,

« PreviousContinue »