ceived in the interests of the church. A considerable sum was expected to be derived from the grant of perpetual leases of church lands; and the question was naturally raised, how was it to be disposed of? Admitting the first claims of the church, - what was to become of any surplus, after satisfying the needs of the establishment? On one side, it was maintained that the property of the church was inalienable; and that nothing but its redistribution, for ecclesiastical purposes, could be suffered. On the other, it was contended that the church had no claim to the increased value given to her lands by an Act of Parliament; and that, in any case, the legislature was free to dispose of church revenues for the public benefit. The bill provided that the moneys accruing from the grant of these perpetuities should be applied, in the first instance, in redemption of charges upon parishes, for building churches; and any surplus, to such purposes as Parliament might hereafter direct. Ministers, fearing that the recognition of this principle of appropriation, even in so vague a form, would endanger their measure in the House of Lords, abandoned it in committee, June 21st, to the disgust of Mr. O'Connell and his followers, and of many members of the liberal party. Mr. O'Connell asked what benefit the Irish people could now hope to derive from the measure, beyond the remission of the church cess? The church establishment would indeed be reduced; but the people would not save a single shilling by the reduction. In truth, however, the clause had not expressly declared that the revenues of the church were applicable to state purposes. Its retention would not have affirmed the principle: its omission did not surrender any rights which the legislature might, hereafter, think fit to exercise. Whenever the surplus should actually arise, Parliament might determine its appropriation. Yet both parties otherwise interpreted its significance; and it became the main question at

1 Clause 147.

1833.

2 Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., xviii. 1073; Ann. Reg., 1833, p. 104.

issue between the friends and opponents of the church, who each foresaw, in the recognition of an abstract principle, the ultimate alienation of the revenues of the Irish establishment. For the present, a concession being made to the fears of the church party, the bill was agreed to by both Houses.1 But the conflict of parties, upon the controverted principle, was by no means averted.

Church in Ireland: Mr. Ward's

In the next session, Mr. Ward, in a speech of singular ability, called upon the House of Commons to affirm a resolution that the church establishment motion, May in Ireland exceeded the spiritual wants of the 27th, 1834. Protestant population; and that, it being the right of the state to regulate the distribution of church property, the temporal possessions of the church in Ireland ought to be reduced. This resolution not only asserted the principle of appropriation, but disturbed the recent settlement of the ecclesiastical establishment in Ireland. It was fraught with political difficulties. The cabinet had already been divided upon the principles involved in this motion; and the discussion was interrupted for some days by the resignation of Mr. Stanley, Sir James Graham, the Duke of Richmond, and the Earl of Ripon. The embarrassment of ministers was increased by a personal declaration of the King against innovations in the church, in reply to an address of the Irish Superseded bishops and clergy. The motion, however, was by appoint successfully met by the appointment of a commiscommission, sion to inquire into the revenues and duties of the church, and the general state of religious instruction in Ireland. Hitherto there had been no certain information either as to the revenues of the church, or the numbers of different religious communions in the country; and ministers argued that, until these facts had been ascertained, it could not with propriety be affirmed that the establishment

ment

June 24,

1834.

1 Church Temporalities (Ireland) Act, 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 37.

2 Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., xxiii. 1368.

May 28th, 1834; Ann. Reg., 1834, 43.

was excessive. At the same time, the appointment of the commission implied that Parliament would be prepared to deal with any surplus which might be proved to exist after providing for the wants of the Protestant population. On these grounds the previous question was moved, and carried by a large majority.1

Lords debate

ation, June

A few days afterwards, the propriety of issuing this commission, and the rights of the state over the distribution of church property, were warmly de- on appropri bated in the House of Lords. While one party 6th, 1834. foresaw spoliation as the necessary result of the proposed inquiry, and the other disclaimed any intentions hostile to the church, it was agreed on all sides that such an inquiry assumed a discretionary power in the state over the appropriation of church property. Earl Grey boldly avowed that, if it should appear that there was a considerable excess of revenue beyond what was required for the efficiency of the church and the propagation of divine truth," the state would have a right to deal with it with a view to the exigencies of the state and the general interests of the country."

2

associated

Meanwhile, the difficulties of the question of Irish tithes were pressing. Ministers had introduced a bill, Irish tithes early in the session, for converting tithes into a with appro land tax, payable to the government by the land- priation. lords, and subject to redemption. When redeemed, the proceeds were to be invested in land for the benefit of the church. The merits of this measure were repeatedly discussed, and the scheme itself materially modified in its prog ress; but the question of appropriation bore a foremost place in the discussions. Mr. O'Connell viewed with alarm a plan securing to the church a perpetual vested interest in

1 For the motion, 120; for the previous question, 396. — Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., xxiv. 10.

2 Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., xxiv. 243.

8 Ibid, 254.

4 Mr. Littleton's Explanation, Feb. 20th, 1834. -Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., xxi. 572.

June 23d, 1834.

tithes, which could no longer be collected; and threatened the landlords with a resistance to rent, when it embraced a covert charge for the maintenance of the Protestant church. Having opposed the measure itself, on its own merits, he endeavored to pledge the House to a resolution, that any surplus of the funds to be raised in lieu of tithes, after providing for vested interests and the spiritual wants of the church, should be appropriated to objects of public utility. Disclaiming any desire to appropriate these funds for Catholic or other religious uses, he proposed that they should be applied to purposes of charity and education. On the part of ministers, Lord Althorp and Lord John Russell again upheld the right of the state to review the distribution of church property, and apply any surplus according to its discretion. Nor did they withhold their opinion, that the proper appropriation would be to kindred purposes, connected with the moral and religious instruction of the people. But they successfully resisted the motion as an abstract proposition, prematurely offered. Soon afterwards, Lord Grey's administration was suddenly dissolved; but the Tithe Bill was continued by Lord Melbourne. Many amendments, however, were made, including one forced upon ministers by Mr. O'Connell, by which the tithe-payer was immediately relieved to the extent of forty per cent. After all these changes, the bill was rejected, on the second reading, by the House of Lords. Again the clergy were left to collect their tithes, under increased difficulties and discouragement. In the next session, Sir Robert Peel had succeeded to the embarrassments of Irish tithes and the appropriation question. As to the first, he offered a practical muting Irish measure for the commutation of tithes into a renttithes, 1835. charge upon the land, with a deduction of twenty

Sir Robert

Peel's meas

ure for com

1 Amendment on going into committee. -Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., xxiv. 734.

2 It was negatived by a majority of 261. Ayes, 99; Noes, 360.- Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., xxiv. 805.

8 Aug. 11th, 1834. Ibid., xxv. 1143.

five per cent.

Provision was also made for its redemption, and the investment of the value in land for the benefit of the church. He further proposed to make up the arrears of tithes in 1834, out of the million already advanced to the clergy. But the commutation of tithes was not yet destined to be treated as a practical measure. It had been associated, in the late session, with the controverted principle of appropriation, which now became the rallying point of parties. It had severed from Lord Grey some of his ablest colleagues, and associated them with the opposite party.

tion question

opposition,

Sir Robert Peel, on accepting office, took an early apportunity of stating that he would not give his " con- Appropriasent to the alienation of church property, in any adopted by part of the United Kingdom, from strictly ecclesi- the Whigs in astical purposes." On the other hand, in the first 1885. discussion upon Irish tithes, Lord John Russell expressed his doubts whether any advantage would result from the abolition of tithe, without a prior decision of the appropriation question; and Mr. O'Connell proclaimed that the word "appropriation would exert a magical influence in Ireland." The Whigs, exasperated by their sudden dismissal,2 were burning to recover their ground; but the liberal measures of the new ministry afforded few assailable points. Sir Robert Peel, however, had taken his stand upon the inviolability of church property; and the assertion of the contrary doctrine served to unite the various sections of the opposition. The Whigs, indeed, were embarrassed by the fact that they had themselves deprecated the adoption of any resolution, until the commission had made its report; and this report was not yet forthcoming. But the exigencies of party demanded a prompt and decisive trial of strength. Lord John Russell, therefore, pressed forward with resolutions affirming that any surplus revenues of the church of Ireland, not required for the spiritual care of its members, should be

1 Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., xxvii. 13.

2 Supra, Vol. I., p. 125.