Page images
PDF
EPUB

their favour, they were extremely unlike some of the Roman Catholics of the present day, who had met the largest concessions of Parliament with reproaches and revilings, as if they wished to prove how much they differed from their ancestors, and to make up for their exuberance of loyalty and attachment to their country. He believed that Mr. Lucas, and those who had spoken with him, did not carry with them the great body of the Roman Catholics. In discussing these subjects, he thought that the oaths ought not to be a bar to debate, nor the argument drawn from the Act of Union pushed too far; because there was nothing in that Act to prevent a change, if the great body of the people of Ireland desired a change. Having said so much, Lord John came to the practical question, and confessed that the experience of the last few years had not been lost upon him. Some years ago he had proposed a compromise, but no one would consent to it; and he had been compelled, therefore, to consider what course Parliament should take-how it could remedy that which was alleged as a grievance. "I am sorry to think (said he) that while I cannot hold that the present state of things is, in its apparent arrangement, satisfactory, I see the greatest difficulties. greatest objections more than that, I see no small peril in the alterations that have been proposed. There are only two modes obviously in which ecclesiastical equality-for that is the important questioncan be attained. The one is the total abolition of the revenues of the Established Church of Ireland. I am not prepared to take that course. I never shall be willing to consent to the total abolition of the

the

revenues of the Established Church of Ireland. Putting aside the great change it would make-the violation of engagements it would make,-setting aside these matters, I cannot but think that you could not abolish the revenues of the Established Church of Ireland without striking at the root of ecclesiastical endowments, and violating the great principle upon which all our endowments are founded. That may be a wrong principle-I mean the principle of ecclesiastical endowments; but it is one I am in favour of, which has been hitherto maintained by the Parliament of this country, and I cannot believe that you could abolish it in Ireland without leading in other parts of the United Kingdom to a similar abolition. Then let us consider whether we can at present make a new distribution of the revenues of the Established Church according to number. Dividing them according to number. you would give by far the greater part of those revenues to the Roman Catholic Church. In so doing you would be acting according to principle according to the principle you have adopted in other cases, as the late Mr. O'Connell frequently put the contrast before us, as you have the Presbyterian religion in Scotland, so you would have the Roman Catholic religion endowed in Ireland. If the Roman Catholic Church resembled the Presbyterian Church in Scotland, although it would not be just that the Roman Catholics should have, as the Presbyterians in Scotland have, a national church entirely devoted to them, yet I can imagine that a large endowment should be given to the Roman Catholic Church; but, unfortunately, ecclesiastical equality would not be

thereby increased." Lord John Russell then proceeded to say, that the Roman Catholic clergy, looking at their proceedings in this country as well as in foreign countries, and considering that they were under the direction of a foreign head, aimed at a political power which appeared to him to be at variance with a due attachment to the Crown of this country, to the general cause of liberty, and to the duties which a subject of the State should perform. "I am convinced (said he) that if the Roman Catholic clergy had increased power given to them, and if they, as ecclesiastics, were to exercise greater control and greater political influence than they do now, that power would not be exercised in accordance with the general freedom that prevails in this country, and that neither in respect to political power nor upon other subjects would they favour that general freedom of discussion and that activity and energy of the human mind which belong to the spirit of the constitution of this country.(Loud and general cheering.) I do not think that in that respect they are upon a par with the Presbyterians of Scotland. The Presbyterians of Scotland, the Wesley ans of this country, and the Established Church of this country and of Scotland, all no doubt exercise a certain influence over their congregations; but that influence which they thus exercise over their congregations must be compatible with a certain freedom of the mind -must be compatible with a certain spirit of inquiry, which the ministers of these churches do not dare to overstep, and, if they did overstep it, that influence would be destroyed. I am obliged, then, to conclude most unwillingly to conclude, but most decidedly-that

[ocr errors]

the endowment of the Roman Catholic religion in Ireland in the place of the endowment of the Protestant Church in that country, in connection with the State, is not an object which the Parliament of this country ought to adopt or to sanction." (Cheers.) He must look at what was passing in Belgium, Sardinia, and various countries in Europe; and "regard the influence which, if not exercised, has been attempted to be exercised in the United Kingdom of these late years; and seeing these things, resist a proposal for the abolition of the Church of Ireland." (Cheers.)

Mr. Bright was met by ironical cheers and laughter from the Opposition, when he expressed the sorrow with which he had heard the speech of Lord John Russell. These manifestations were continued as he contrasted the past career of Lord John Russell with the present, cheered as he had been by those who sat opposite, and listened to with silence by those who sat behind him. Mr. Bright then proceeded to argue, at great length, that in Irish affairs the opinion of the majority in Ireland ought to be more consulted, as had been done in the case of the Canadians by yielding the Clergy Reserves.

Mr. J. D. Fitzgerald, amidst loud cries of "Divide," vindicated the constitutional demeanour of the Irish members from the attacks of Lord John Russell.

Mr. Moore having replied, the House divided, and rejected the motion by 240 against 98.

In consequence of the opinions respecting the Roman Catholic Church, expressed by Lord John Russell in his speech on this occasion, Mr. Keogh, the Solicitor-General of Ireland, and Messrs. Mon

sell and Sadleir, Lords of the Treasury, resigned their offices. A correspondeuce ensued between the Earl of Aberdeen and Mr. Monsell, which resulted in the three honourable Members withdrawing their resignations; this correspondence contained the reasons and explanations which induced the resignations and their withdrawal. In a letter, written on the 2nd of June, to Lord Aberdeen by Mr. Monsell, he said, "he was not present in the House of Commons on the previous night, but had learned from the news papers, that in the course of a discussion upon the Ecclesiastical Revenues of Ireland, Lord John Russell, who is the organ of the Government in the House of Commons, spoke of the Roman Catho lic Church in a manner which could not fail to be most offensive to members of that communion. His lordship described not individual members of the Roman Catholic Church, but that Church itself, under the direction of its head,' as hostile to free institutions and disloyal to civil governments, and therefore the qualification which his lordship added to his censure could not apply to any one who, like myself, are in deep and thorough unity of sentiment and spirit with that Church and its head." Mr. Monsell added, that no minister having expressed dissent from Lord John Russell's opinions, they had gone forth as the opinions of the Government, and therefore he could not, with honour, remain a Member of a government professing such opinions. Lord Aberdeen, in his reply, dated the 3rd of June, expresses his great concern at receiving the tender of resignation, and said, "I have to inform you

that while the vote on that occasion had the sanction of Government, the reasons for that vote given by Lord John Russell, and the sentiments of which you complain, are not shared in by me, nor by many of my colleagues. I wish this to be distinctly understood, as I might otherwise be justly charged with a departure from those feelings which, both in and out of office, I have held and still hold with regard to the Roman Catholic body, and the open avowal of which had appeared to several Roman Catholic gentlemen to justify them in accepting office under the Government. Words spoken in the heat of debate are liable to be misapprehended, and Lord John Russell desires me to say, that he did not impute want of loyalty to the Roman Catholics, and that he expressly said that political and social equality ought to be maintained." Lord Aberdeen added, that a similar communication had been made to Messrs. Keogh and Sadleir, and he trusted that after this explanation Mr. Monsell would not persevere in an intention, which would be to him (Lord Aberdeen) the cause of sincere regret. To this letter Mr. Monsell replied, on the 4th of June, that the above explanation showed that the sentiments of which he complained were not those of Lord Aberdeen's Government. Mr. Monsell could not conceal from himself, however, "that even the frank and generous consistency with which his lordship had acted on the occasion, may prove insufficient in some quarters to allay the apprehension which has been excited; with me, however, it is otherwise;" and he concluded by saying, he had no hesitation in acceding to his lordship's

wishes, by withdrawing his resignation.

In the House of Commons, on the 26th of May, Dr. R. Phillimore moved for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the laws respecting church-rates. He premised that there could be no question now that under the existing law it was the bounden duty of every parishioner to contribute to the repair of the fabric of the parish church; and that this obligation, which extended over lands, goods, and stock in trade, could be legally enforced. This extensive obligation was traced to the fact or assumption, that the church and the State were identical. Before the Reformation, no legal difference of opinion was acknowledged, nor was dissent contemplated in the eye of the law. After the Reformation, there were statutes enforcing the strictest uniformity, even so late as the Canons of 1603. The principle received a shock in the time of Charles the First; but was renewed again in all its vigour under Charles the Second. It was not until the time of William and Mary that the Toleration Act was passed; but before the conclusion of the reign of George the Third, Dissent reached a degree of toleration which amounted to a legal recognition. There still remained some relics of a former state; but under Queen Victoria marriages were allowed before the Registrar; and lastly, there was the Act of last year rendering no longer necessary the registration of meetinghouses in any Ecclesiastical Court. Now, whereas before 1830 no single instance existed of churchrates being resisted on the ground of principle, since that date contests have been numerous; one of

which was the notorious "Braintree Case." The state of the law was found to be this. There were those who contended that when a rate was to be made for necessary repairs, and for supplying the ordinances of the church, it could be enforced even by a minority of the ratepayers. That was the question upon which the Braintree Case then pending before the House of Lords turned.

Mr. Phillimore cited the evidence of Mr. Baines and Dr. Lushington to show that the great towns did not pay the rates; and that constant feuds arose in parishes, and were conducted with great bitterness. In 1834 the evil was admitted on both sides of the House. In April, 1834, Lord Althorp proposed that a sum of 250,000l. should be secured on the Consolidated Fund, and 50,000l. more upon church lands, in lieu of church-rates. That proposition was rejected, because manifestly it did not afford the relief which the Dissenter required; for, of course, the injustice of which he complained would have been continued so long as he had to pay towards this sum, which was to have been taken out of the Consolidated Fund. In the year 1835, Sir Robert Peel expressed in strong language his firm conviction that another year ought not to be allowed to go by without some adjustment of this much-vexed question. In March, 1837, Mr. Spring Rice, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, proposed the total abolition of church-rates; looking to a better system of management and to pew-rents, to give an increased value to church property. March, 1841, Mr. Easthope brought forward the case of Mr. Baines, condemning the state of the law

In

by which he was imprisoned for non-payment of church-rates; and subsequently the similar case of Mr. Thoroughgood, the Dissenter, was called to the attention of the House. In March, 1845, Mr. Trelawney proposed a resolution recommending the adoption of effectual measures for the abolition of church-rates; when an amendment was moved by Mr. Page Wood, for discharging persons who had been incarcerated for non-payment of this impost. In April, 1851, the House ordered a Select Committee to consider the law of church-rates, and the difference of practice which existed in different parts of the country in the assessment and levying of these rates. The report of that Committee contained no conclusion, but it set forth a very valuable body of evidence.

Mr. Phillimore dissented by anticipation from the amendment about to be moved by Sir William Clay, because the funds saved by the better management of church property ought to be applied to remove spiritual destitution; and the purchase of seats in a church, he rejoiced to say, was illegal.

His own proposition was, that all dissenters should be exempted from the payment of church-rates, by the simple process of stating in writing that they are dissenters from the Church of England, and handing that statement to the churchwardens. The copy of these written statements would be kept by the churchwardens, and their production in any court of justice would be held to be evidence to exempt any dissenter. He further proposed that all persons exempted on this ground should cease to have any right whatever to any church rite, privilege, or ceremony, that is to say,

he should not have any right to compel any clergyman to perform any religious service over him or in his behalf. But if they withdrew their statements, they should, on complying with the obligations of churchmen, be restored to the church. He proposed that persons signifying their dissent should cease to have any right to appear at the church vestries, or to vote upon any question of a churchrate, or upon any question relating to the ecclesiastical management of church property. With regard to churchmen, he proposed that the law should remain as it was, but that the Consistorial Court should decide summarily viva voce, and that there should be only one appeal therefrom on a point of law. He anticipated, he said, censure and animadversion; but he had brought forward this measure as a sincere friend of the church, with a desire that its benefits might be extended throughout the country, and in a belief that it would lay a foundation, whereby peace and happiness, truth and justice, religion and piety, might be established in the realm.

Sir W. Clay then moved his amendment- That this House do resolve itself into a Committee to consider whether church-rates should not be abolished, and provision made for the charges to which such rates are at present applicable from pew-rents, and from the increased value which inquiries instituted by authority of the Crown have shown may be derived under better management from church lands and property.' After dwelling upon the long and eventful history of the "Braintree Case," the still uncertain state of the law for enforcing church-rates, and the vexatious proceedings

[ocr errors]
« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »