Resistance to tithes. Foremost among the evils by which the church and the people were afflicted, was the law of tithes. However impolitic in England, its impolicy was aggravated by the peculiar condition of Ireland. In the one country, tithes were collected from a few thriving farmers, — generally members of the church in the other, they were levied upon vast numbers of cottier tenants, miserably poor, and generally Catholics. Hence, the levy of tithes, in kind, provoked painful conflicts between the clergy and the peasantry. Statesmen had long viewed the law of tithes with anxiety. So far back as 1786, Mr. Pitt had suggested the propriety of a general commutation, as a measure calculated to remove grievances and strengthen the interests of the church. In 1807, the Duke of Bedford, attributing most of the disorders of the country to the rigid exaction of tithes, had recommended their conversion into a land tax, and ultimately into land. Repeated discussions in Parliament had revealed the magnitude of the evils incident to the law. Sir John Newport, in 1822,5 and Sir Henry Parnell in 1823,6 had exposed them. In 1824, Lord Althorp and Mr. Hume had given them a prominent place among the grievances of Ireland. The evils were notorious, and, remaining without correction, grew chronic and incurable. The peasants were taught by their own priesthood, and by a long course of politi cal agitation, to resent the demands of the clergy as unjust: 1 Supra, p. 416. -- 2 In one parish 2001. were contributed by 1600 persons; in another 700l., by no less than two thousand. - Second Report of Commons' Committee, 1832. In a parish in the county of Carlow, out of 446 tithe-payers 221 paid sums under 9d.; and out of a body of 7005, in several parishes, one third paid less than 9d. each. Mr. Littleton's Speech, Feb. 20th, 1834. 3 Letter to the Duke of Rutland; Lord Stanhope's Life of Pitt, i. 319. See also Lord Castlereagh's Corr., iv. 193 (1801). 4 Speech of Lord John Russell, June 23d, 1834; Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., xxiv. 798. Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., vi. 1475; Mr. Hume also, March 4th, 1823; Ibut, viii. 367. 6 Ibid., ix. 1175 7 Ibid., xi. 547, 660. their poverty aggravated the burden; and their numbers rendered the collection of tithes not only difficult but dangerous. It could only be attempted by tithe-proctors, men of desperate character and fortunes, whose hazardous services hardened their hearts against the people, and whose rigorous execution of the law increased its unpopularity. To mitigate these disorders, an Act was passed, in 1824, for the voluntary composition of tithes : but the remedy was partial; and resistance and conflicts continued to increase with the bitterness of the strife that raged between Protestants and Catholics. A length, in 1831, the collection of tithes in many parishes became impracticable. The clergy received the aid of the police, and even of the military; but in vain. Tithe-proctors were murdered; and many lives were lost, in collisions between the police and the peasantry. Men, not unwilling to pay what they knew to be lawful, were intimidated and coerced by the more violent enemies of the church. Tithes could only be collected at the point of the bayonet; and a civil war seemed impending over a country, which for centuries had been wasted by conquests, rebellions, and internecine strife. The clergy shrank from the shedding of blood in their service; and abandoned their claims upon a refractory and desperate people. Provision for 1832-1833. The law was at fault; and the clergy, deprived of their legal maintenance, were starving, or dependent the clergy, upon private charity. That the law must be reviewed, was manifest; but in the mean time, immediate provision was needed for the clergy. The state, unable to protect them in the enforcement of their rights, deemed itself responsible for their sufferings, and extended its helping hand. In 1832, the Lord-lieutenant was empowered to ad vance 60,000l. to the clergy who had been unable to collect the tithes of the previous year; 2 and the government rashly 1 Reports of Committees in Lords and Commors, 1832. Ann. Reg 1831, p. 324; 1832, p. 281. 2 Act 2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 41. undertook to levy the arrears of that year, in repayment of the advance. Their attempt was vain and hopeless. They went forth, with an array of tithe-proctors, police, and military; but the people resisted. Desperate conflicts ensued: many lives were lost: the executive became as hateful as the clergy; but the arrears were not collected. Of 100,000l., 10 more than 12,000l. were recovered, at the cost of tumults and bloodshed. The people were in revolt against the law; and triumphed. The government, confessing their failure, abandoned their fruitless efforts; and in 1833, obtained from Parliament the advance of a million, to maintain the destitute clergy, and cover the arrears of tithes for that and the two previous years. Indemnity for this advance, however, was sought in the form of a land tax, which, it needed little foresight to conjecture, would meet with the same resistance as tithes.2 These were temporary expedients, to meet the immediate exigencies of the Irish clergy; and hitherto the only general measure which the legislature had sanctioned, was one for making the voluntary tithe compositions compulsory and permanent. Irish church Meanwhile, the difficulties of the tithe question were bring.. ing into bold relief the anomalous condition of the Irish church. Resistance to the payment of tithes reform. was accompanied by fierce vituperation of the clergy, and denunciations of a large Protestant establishment in the midst of a Catholic people. The Catholic priests and agitatators would have trampled upon the church as an usurper: the Protestants and Orangemen were prepared to defend her rights with the sword. Lord Grey's government, leaning to neither extreme, recognized the necessity of extensive reforms and reductions in the establishment. Notwithstanding the spoliations of Henry VIII. and Elizabeth, its endow ments were on the ambitious scale of a national church. With fewer members than a moderate diocese in England, it 1 Speech of Mr. Littleton; Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., xx. 342. 2 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 100; Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., xx. 350. 8 2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 119. was governed by no less than four archbishops and eighteen bishops. Other dignitaries enjoyed its temporalities in the same proportion; and many sinecure benefices were without even Protestant flocks. (Ireland) Bill, 1333. Such an establishment could not be defended; and in Church 1833, ministers introduced an extensive measure Temporalities of reform. It suppressed, after the interests of existing incumbents, two archbishoprics and eight separate sees; and reduced the incomes of some of the remaining bishops. All sinecure stalls in cathedrals were abolished, or associated with effective duties. Livings, in which no duties had been performed for three years, were not to be filled up. First fruits were abolished. Church cess, an unpopular impost, similar to church-rates in England, - levied upon Catholics, but managed by Protestant vestries, was discontinued; and the repair of churches provided for out of a graduated tax upon the clergy. Provision was made for the improvement of church lands; for the augmentation of small livings, and for the building of churches and glebe houses, under the superintendence of a commission, by whom the surplus revenues of the church were to be administered.1 So bold were these reforms, that even Mr. O'Connell at first expressed his satisfaction: yet while they discontinued the most prominent abuses of the establishment, they increased its general efficiency. In the opinion of some extreme Tories, indeed, the measure was a violation of the coronation oath and the stipulations of the Union with Ireland: it was an act of spoliation: its principles were revolutionary. But by men of more moderate views, its justice and necessity were generally recognized.2 One principle, however, involved in the scheme became the ground of painful controversy; and long inPrinciple of appropriation. terfered with the progress of other measures con 1 Lord Althorp's Speech, Feb. 12th, 1833; Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., xv. 561. 2 Debate on second reading, May 6th; Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., xvii. 966. 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’Con nell 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.2 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; Aun. Reg., 1833, p. 104. |