« PreviousContinue »
place on the clauses suspending the severe in refusing payment. The Habeas Corpus act, and protecting mischief was increased, moreover, those who should act under the by the other alteration which had bill, but they were both carried by taken out of the bill all acts large majorities. Mr. O'Connell's of conspiracy to prevent the payobjection that, under the act, any ment of tithe.— The Lord Chanplace might be made a gaol, was cellor admitted, that all that could obviated by a proviso, that per- be said in favour of the proviso was, sons arrested should not be de- that it was innocent, because it tained in any place, not a public must be absolutely inoperative. He gaol, longer than twenty-four hours wished to treat with deference after apprehension.
every proposition which proceeded On the 29th of March, the bill from the other House of Parliawas read a third time, and passed by ment; but he was compelled to say, a majority of 345 to 86, and was that, after much and anxious deliimmediately sent back to the Peers beration, he could not possibly disfor their concurrence in the altera- cover anything that could be said tions which had been made by the in favour or in vindication of it; Commons. Their lordships took and, had he been in the other House them into consideration on the 1st of Parliament, he should have felt of April. The conservative peers the greatest reluctance to give it expressed much dissatisfaction with his humble assent. It was, he resome of the amendments, and more peated, absolutely inoperative, and particularly with the proviso, that could not produce the slightest no district should be proclaimeú effect in crippling the powers of merely because tithes were not paid the clause of which it was intended in it. The duke of Wellington, to be a modification. The lordthe duke of Buckingham, lord lieutenant might proclaim any disRowden, and the bishop of Lon- trict, if it were disturbed or insubdon, considered it as being al- ordinate - that was the leading most equally mischievous with a enactment of the clause; but then declaration, that no tithe should be came the proviso that the district paid in Ireland ; and it would have should not be proclaimed merely been better to have done so at once, because tithes should have been than, by drawing so invidious a peaceably withheld in it. Why distinction between this and other say tithes only? Why not say species of property, to connive at rent? Why not say the King's the injustice to which the Irish taxes? Why not say a man's lawclergy were subjected by the bill. ful debts? He really considered It was now, in fact, announced to it to be wasting their lordships' the people of Ireland, that a come time to argue against it. This, bination for the non-payment of however, he must say, that, though tithes was the only combination indefensible, it was harmless. No against property that was to be ex- man's rights could be interfered cepted from this bill. The people with or injured by it; and, thereof Ireland would think, that the fore, he was not prepared, upon proviso had been inserted for some this amendment alone, to dissent purpose, and that purpose they from the other House of Parliawould hold to be the encourage- ment. Then it was said that, ment of the tithe-resisters to pere though there was nothing of subVOL. LXXV.
stance in the clause, yet it gave an prejudicially affected by it, he indication that Parliament had dif: would urge their lordships to acferent feelings on the subject of quiesce in it. The earl of Hartithes from that which it had, and rowby moved, as an amendment, ought to have, upon the subject which seemed to him calculated to of tithes. Now, he looked upon take the sting out of the clause this as hypercriticism. He could by depriving it of its exclusive and discover nothing in the rest of the partial character, to add, that act which gave the least reason to neither should any district be prosuppose that Parliament was not claimed merely for non-payment determined, so long as the law re- of rent or taxes. The amendment mained as it did; to secure to was lost by 85 to 45. property of every description all Along with this, the leadthe rights and privileges which it ing measure, goveroment carried enjoyed at present. In regard to through another bill for the more the second amendment-the re- impartial trial of offences in Irestriction on courts-martial by ex- land. It rested on the same fourcluding front their jurisdiction cer- dation with the Coercion Act, viz. tain offences cognizable under the the necessity of extraordinary meastatute of the 27th of George Ill. sures to prevent crime from trion full and mature consideration, he umphing over the law. By its was now prepared to say, that those provisions power was given to cases were well and properly ex- change the venue from the county cepted from the courts-martial. in which the offence had been comBy that amendment the other mitted, not merely to an adjoining House had rather improved than county, but to the county, or city, injured the bill; for offences of of Dublin. The removal was to combination and conspiracy were take place, by an order of the Court the most difficult, he would not say of King's Bench, granted on aftifor juries, but even for judges, to davits proving that intimidation decide on, of any which came into had been used towards prosecutors, our courts of justice, and were, witnesses, or jurors, and provision therefore, in his opinion, wisely ex- was made for allowing a party cluded from the decision of military tried in Dublin his expences, if he tribunals. Again, in the 27th was acquitted. It was opposed in clause, there was an exception from the Commons by the Irish memthis exception, by which, if the bers who had fought so obstinately combination for the non-payment against the Coercion act, and on of tithe was accompanied by threats the same grounds that no intior violence, it was brought back midation existed, or had been under the jurisdiction of the court- proved, and they called for a select martial. - Earl Grey, too, admitted committee to establish that such that the proviso was far from being was truly the case. unobjectionable. But, as it would On the 10th of April, the lordbe wholly inoperative in point of lieutenant issued a proclamation fact in the light contemplated suppressing the association of Irish by its opponents, and as the church Volunteers, the association itself property would be much better having previously passed a vote protected by the bill, while the that, “ from the period it shall be Collection of tithes would not be dissolved by legislative coercion, all its acts and functions shall be confi- published by authority in illustraded to one individual—the parent of tion of its efficacy. his country — Daniel O'Connell,”
County of Carlow in March, 19-in May, 4. that learned person thus becoming County of Kildare, . ditto, 90 - ditto, 17.
County of Kilkenny, ditto, 121 - ditto, 15. in his own person the whole army King's County, .. ditio, 32 - ditto, 22. of Irish Volunteers. So soon as County of Longford, ditto, 9 - ditto, .
Connty of Louth, ditto, 37 - ditto, 7. the act had received the royal Queen's County, . • ditto, 87 - dinto, 38. assent, the lord-lieutenant pro
County of Westmeath, ditto, 53 - ditto, 21.
County of Wexford, ditto, 25- ditto, 4. claimed the county of Kilkenny, County of Wicklow, ditto, II- elitto, 1. and the city itself, to be in
County of Meath, · dito, 56 - ditto, 29. such a state of disturbance and
Total 479 16. insubordination as to require the The discussions on the Coercion application of the provisions of the act had produced many personal act. This proclamation was bitter- conflicts in debate between Mr. ly attacked by Mr. O'Connell, in O'Connell and the more devoted the House of Commons (April of his followers, and the Irish 17th), in so far as it was extended secretary. The former seemed to to the citř of Kilkenny, in which regard Mr. Stanley with bitter he said there was no more disturb- individual hostility. The reason ance than in Dublin ; but the pro- of this temper was perhaps to be priety of including the city was de found in the belief, that he was fended on the ground, that a great more determined than some of riumber of persons who were not his colleagues were suspected to be, only suspected, but known to be not to give up the Irish protestant implicated in Whitefeet outrages, church to be plundered by the were inhabitants of Kilkenny and Catholic repealers; and it was in its suburbs. If the town had not no degree mitigated by the energy been included in the proclamation, and effect with which the secretary, it would have become a place of in debate not only repelled these refuge for these individuals; they assaults, but carried the war into might have been absent nightly the enemy's country, much in on their marauding excursions, the same spirit in which that and there would have been no enemy had waged it. The bill means of applying to them the having passed the Commons, Mr. provisions of the act. Even in Stanley, accepted the more tranKilkenny, it was not found néceso quil office of Colonial Secretary, sary to bring a single court-mar- which had become vacant by vistial into action. The more daring count Goderich being made Lord outrages diminished, and the fol Privy Seal, and advanced a step loting list of offences during the in the peerage by being created month of March which preceded, earl of Ripon. Sir John Cam and the month of May which fol- Hobhouse became Irish secretary. lowed, the passing of the act, was
Bill for regulating the Irish Church, introduced into the House of Com. mons— Ministers refuse a delay of a week between the bringing in of the Bill and the Second Reading-Second Reading opposed on the ground that the Bill, being a Tax Bill, ought to have originated in a Committee of the whole House-Committee appointed to report on this question, and reports against the Bill-Resolutions agreed to, and Bill read a first time Question whether it could be read a second time without a royal message-Debate on the Second Reading → Second Reading carried – Instruction moved, to take away all the temporalities of the Irish Church, rejected-In Committee, Motion to exclude the Irish bishops from Parliament - Ministers abandon the provision for applying part of the funds to purposes not ecclesiastical -Debate thereon, and omission of the Clause-Carried— Bill passed, the Irish opposition members non voting against it - Motion for a call. of the House on the day of the Second Reading of the Bill in the House of Lords, opposed by Ministers, and lost.
W H ILE carrying through a conclusion the premises of which
these measures for the restor- had probably been, in their own ation of public tranquillity in Ire minds, that such an establishment land, ministers had uniformly ad. is the appropriation of money to mitted that there were grievances in an object which they did not value that country, which ought to be re- looked on the property of the moved, and had declared that they church as a fund which might be were ready to propose expedients seized for what they called the for their redress. At the head of purposes of the state. The gothese grievances had always been vernment resolved to steer a midplaced the Irish church, standing in dle course, conceding much, but the unpopular predicament of pos. not conceding all. sessing the property of a wealthy On the 12th of February (apnational establishment, while the parently to render more palatable great majority of the people be- the approaching introduction of longed, not merely to a different, the Coercion bill), lord Althorp but to a hostile faith, whose clergy opened, in the lower House, the had once been the possessors of measures which ministers intended that opulence. The object of the to pursue in regard to the Irish repealers was to pare it down to church. He began by stating, nothing, while they disclaimed any that although, comparing the wish to see its property bestowed amount of the Church establishon their own religion. Others, ment in Ireland with that of the not Irishmen, regarding every re- church establishment in England, ligious establishment as an evil the amount of the former was in
proportion to the population of the bents had made returns, of the two countries by far the greatest, average value of those benefices there existed, as to the amount where the incumbents had not. of the revenues received by the Now the number of benefices in Irish church, greater exaggerations Ireland was, 1,401 ; of this numthan upon any other political topic ber 1,149 had sent in returns ; that had ever come under his con- from wbich it appeared that their sideration. Until he looked into value was 478,0001. The other the subject, he had exaggerated 252 had not sent in returns, but even to himself the amount of the taking the same average value for revenues of the Irish establish- them as for the other benefices, ment. One great exaggeration 580,0001. would be the whole rerelated to the revenue attached to venue derived from the benefices the different bishoprics of Ireland. of Ireland. Taking it at 600,0001., By the returns of the actual he thought that it would not be amount of revenue received by the placed below its fair value. The bishops of Ireland, it appeared statement then, was briefly this :that the gross amount of all their
Amount of the revenue of revenues was 150,0001., but, owing
bishops' sees - - - £130,000 to the expenses of collection, &c., Revenue of deans and ) the pett amount was not more than chapters, exclusive of 130,000l. It was true that a large
the livings held by them
as prebends tract of country belonged to the
Revenue of the other Irish bishops ; but then it ought benefices of Ireland .. 600,000 not to be forgotten that the Irish bishops had not any beneficial
Total revenues of the interest in it; on the contrary, it
it Irish church - - £732,200 appeared that their tenants and He, therefore, thought that he lessees had full five-sixths of the should be justified in stating that value of that land. The esti. all the revenues of the church of mated amount of the annual value Ireland applicable to the support of those lands was 600,0001. Of of the ministers of that church did this sum the bishops did not them, not exceed 800,0001. and there selves receive more than 100,0001. could be no doubt - without enThe whole amount of revenue be tering into any argument with longing to the deans and chapters those who thought there should be was 23,6001.; but the necessary no religious establishment at all expenditure to which this sum was that on these funds the church applied was 21,4001.,—so that the had the first claim. Another fund surplus of 2,2001, was all that was arose from the first fruits of each left for the deans and chapters. benefice, which were applied in As to the amount of value of the England to the augmentation of other benefices in Ireland, returns small livings, and, in Ireland, in had not been received from the in the first instance, to the repair of cumbents of all benefices, but only churches. In both countries, howfrom the greater portion of them. ever, from the change which the The only estimate which he could lapse of time had made in the make of their value was by judg- value of money, the first fruits ing, from the average value of could hardly be said to exist. Mithose benefices where the incum, nisters, therefore, thought it better