The Year 1869 page 3

When the bill reached the House of Lords, it found a tribunal disposed to view it with unfriendly eyes, and to subject it to a searching criticism. A question put to the Government by a noble lord before the Easter recess indicated the temper which largely prevailed in the Upper House. Lord Redesdale asked whether the Ministry in tended to propose any alteration in the Coronation Oath, since according to the present form, as taken by Her Majesty at her accession, the sovereign undertook to maintain "to the utmost of his power," not merely the Church, but the Churches of his dominions in all their rights, the oath having been so modified at the date of the Union that the sovereign thenceforward was obliged to swear to maintain the United Church in the possession of all its rights and privileges. Lord Granville replied, on the part of the Government, that he entered with reluctance into the line of inquiry started by the noble lord. He conceived, however, that the Coronation Oath was somewhat in the nature of a compact between sovereign and people, and that if the people, through Parliament, expressed its wish and determination to modify the terms of the compact, the sovereign was thereby constitutionally released from the obligation of observing it more strictly than the altered mind of Parliament desired. Legislation would be ridiculous, whether the principle of the noble lord or that adopted by the Government were preferred. If the Government were right that the sovereign was released by the voice of the people, as shown by the votes of Parliament, then the passing of a bill in both Houses on the particular point in question, and its presentation to Her Majesty for her assent, relieved her ipso facto from the obligations of the oath. But if, as the noble lord seemed to think, there were some abstract obligation ®n the sovereign, something between her and her God, which no arrangement or compromise between her and her subjects could alter, it was clear that any bill altering the oath would be utterly inefficacious.

The chief brunt of the opposition to the bill in the House of Lords fell on the Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr. Tait) and Lord Cairns. Warned, however, by the large majorities which had carried the bill through every stage in the Commons, the party of resistance renounced the idea of opposing the second reading, but indulged the hope that they would be able so to cut up and re-fashion the bill in committee, in the direction of granting more favourable terms to the Irish Church, that the disendowing clauses of the Ac'; at any rate would become little more than nominal. Of course, there were many Tory lords who hoisted the flag of " No surrender," and would not yield a foot; nor could the Irish representative bishops be expected to be parties to their own political annihilation. An eloquent, and in every way remarkable, speech against the bill was made by the Bishop of Peterborough (Dr. Magee), who had been recently translated to that see from an Irish deanery by the Government of Mr. Disraeli. The Bishop probed the sores of Ireland deeply, and told the Government that they would get no thanks from the Irish people unless they carried the expropriation of land much farther than the present bill proposed to carry it. " How stands the case? " ho argued. "At the time of the Rebellion, England confiscated large estates belonging to the Celtic rebels. On nine-tenths of those estates England planted laymen; oil the remaining tenth she planted Anglican pastors. Now I ask this one question: Was the confiscation of the land of the rebels just or unjust? If it was unjust, then undo it all. If, in the name of justice, you are to trace back so far the roots of things in Irish history; if you are to make your resolutions in the sacred name of justice, then, in the name of that justice, give back to the descendants of those owners the confiscated estates that you took from them. But do not mock them - for it is mocking them - by telling them that Protestant ascendancy is an evil thing. And then, how do you propose to deal with it? By telling them their land is divided into nine-tenths and one-tenth - the nine-tenths in the hands of the Protestant landlords, and the one-tenth in the hands of the Protestant clergy - and we propose to satisfy their demand for justice by ousting from the land the one proprietor, who is the most popular, most constantly resident, and least offensive, while you retain, in all the bitter injustice of their original tenure, the proprietors who are the most detested, and whose possessions they most covet. Do your lordships imagine that the Irish people will be satisfied with that? Do not forget that you have to deal with the most quick-witted people in Europe - people whose eyes are intently fixed on this question - and do you think that they will feel other than the most bitter disappointment when you tell them that you are about to tear down the hateful flag of Protestant ascendancy, and they find that you only tear off a single corner of it - or about the fortieth part of the whole? The Irish peasant has already given his answer to your offer of pacification - your pacification consisting in refusing him the land which he does want, and giving him the destruction of the Church, which he does not - the Irish peasant writes his answer, and a terrible answer it is, in that dread handwriting which it needs no Daniel to interpret, and which so often makes English statesmen tremble; and in that answer lie teller you that he will be satisfied with nothing else than the possession of the land - which I do the members of Her Majesty's Government the justice to believe they have no intention to give."

After having laboured to prove that the bill was unjust and impolitic, the Bishop denounced it with withering sarcasm as ungenerous. " "What a magnanimous sight! The first thing that this magnanimous British nation does in the performance of this act of justice and penitence, is to put into her pocket the annual sum she has been in the habit of paying to Maynooth, and to compensate Maynooth out of the funds of the Irish Church. The Presbyterian members for Scotland, while joining in this exercise of magnanimity, forgot the horror of Popery which was so largely relied on, and so loudly expressed, at the last elections in Scotland. They have changed their mind, on the theory that a bribe to Popery is nothing if preceded by plunder of the Protestant Episcopacy. Putting two sins together, they make one good action. Throughout its provisions this bill is characterised by a hard and niggardly spirit. I am surprised by the injustice and impolicy of the measure, but I am still more astonished at its intense shabbiness. It is a small and pitiful bill. It is not worthy of a great nation. This great nation in its act of magnanimity and penitence has done the talking, but has put the sackcloth and ashes on the Irish Church, and made the fasting be performed by the poor vergers and organists."

The opponents of the measure were not sufficiently numerous to prevent the second reading, which was. carried (June 19), by a majority of 33. But now the real work of the adversaries of the bill began. The Archbishop of Canterbury moved that the Ulster glebes be regarded in the light of private endowments, and made over to the disestablished Church; and this was carried. The same prelate moved that the preamble be altered by the insertion of 1872 as the legal date of disestablishment, instead of 1871. This amendment also was carried by a large majority. Lord Carnarvon moved and carried an amendment to the clause respecting the redemption of life annuities, giving considerably more favourable terms to the Church. Lord Salisbury proposed and carried an amendment, by which the delivery of the glebe-houses to the Church would be made free of the building charges resting upon them. On the motion of Lord Cairns, the House made an important alteration in the preamble of the bill, wherein it was stated that no part of the surplus was to be devoted to religious or denominational purposes, but that it should be wholly applied to the relief of unavoidable calamities and infirmities. Lord Cairn» moved, and successfully, that the whole question as to the disposal of the surplus should be reserved for the decision of a future Parliament. The question of the date was then again brought up, it being understood that the Irish clergy were themselves opposed to the postponement of the date of disestablishment as pro posed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. On the motion of Lord Cairns, the 1st May, 1871, was finally agreed to.

The object and effect of all the amendments hitherto described was to secure for the Church, after disestablishment, a large portion of its property, in addition to the sums required for the satisfaction of life-interests. Many peers saw clearly that if passed in this way, the bill, besides causing dissatisfaction among English Dissenters, would arouse feelings of disappointment and indignation among Irish Roman Catholics, who had been led to expect that the disendowment would be real and bond fide, no less than the disestablishment. Attempts were therefore made to keep the balance even by applying a portion of the surplus to the use and benefit of the Roman Catholic and Presbyterian Churches in Ireland. A proposal of the Duke of Cleveland tending in this direction was rejected; but just before the bill was read a third time, Earl Stanhope moved and carried an amendment, authorising a certain measure of " concurrent endowment." By this amendment, the clause conveying the glebe-houses to the disestablished clergy received an enlarged scope, so that it should be in the power of the Commissioners to make provision for residences, in cases where they were wanting, for Roman Catholic priests and Presbyterian ministers, as well as for Protestant Episcopalian bishops and clergy. The Government, bound by their election pledges to the Dissenters, strenuously opposed this amendment; Lord Granard also, professing to speak for his Catholic countrymen in Ireland, refused his consent to it. On the other hand, Lord Dunraven, a Catholic peer, supported it; and Earl Russell expressed an opinion in its favour, drily remarking, that he doubted whether there would be much feeling of religious equality in Ireland so long as the Protestant clergy were comfortably housed, and the Roman Catholic priests lived in hovels. Lord Stanhope's amendment was carried by a harrow majority, and the bill was then read a third time and passed, a protest being first signed by Lord Derby and forty-three temporal and two spiritual peers.

The bill, as amended by the Lords, came back to the House of Commons; and it became the duty of the Government to consider how far they could give way, in order not to imperil the safety of the bill. In the main it was deemed impossible to accept the measure in the altered form in which it came from the hands of the Lords. Mr. Gladstone announced (July 15) that he should propose to disagree from all the more import ant amendments, with the exception that, in the case of Lord Carnarvon's proposal, the Government would consent to a modification of the original clause, so as to make it slightly more favourable to the clergy. A few amendments of minor importance he was willing to accept. The course proposed by the Prime Minister was approved by the House, and all the more important of the Lords' amendments were rejected by large majorities.

Violent language was heard in the House of Lords when the bill, restored nearly to its original shape, came back to them from the House of Commons. The Marquis of Salisbury said that " his reason for opposing the Government project for appropriating the surplus was that it was false and that it was foolish. In the first place, it implied a partial application of the fund for spiritual teaching; and, in the second place, it was a vain attempt of the House of Commons, which distrusted its own resolution against concurrent endowment, to bind itself, like a drunkard taking the pledge, against changing its mind in the future. In truth, the only argument for it was, that the House of Commons had passed it; and the only reason why that House had done so was, that the Prime Minister had bidden it. Why the Prime Minister bade it he could not search deep enough into the labyrinthine recesses of that mind to detect, unless it were that Mr. Gladstone had desired to give this House a slap on the face. So far from agreeing with the Earl of Shaftesbury's appeal to the House, to waive its amendments in deference to the Commons, he believed this was just an occasion on which it was the duty of this House to interfere between the country and the arrogant will of one man." The motion that the House should insist on its amendment, altering the preamble in relation to the surplus, was carried by a large majority.

The state of things was now very serious. A collision between the two Houses seemed to be on the point of taking place, which would have strained the constitution to the last point of tension. Plans for overcoming the resistance of the Lords were openly propounded and generally discussed. It was said that the Ministry would advise Her Majesty to bring the session immediately to a close, that Parliament would be summoned to meet again for the dispatch of business in the autumn, that Mr. Gladstone's bill for disestablishing the Irish Church would then be passed again by the House of Commons in its original shape, and again be sent up to the House of Lords; and that this process must and would be repeated until that House agreed to pass it. Lord Cairns anxiously watched the rising ferment; upon his shoulders, as at once the best-informed and the most earnest champion of the Irish Church, the burden of its defence chiefly lay; and, with the discernment of a true statesman, lie recognised that it was impossible to push the victory just achieved any further, if any part of the ground which the Lords seemed to have gained was to be secured. In a private conference with Lord Granville he settled the terms of a compromise, in which the Government con ceded, for the sake of peace, more than he had perhaps ventured to hope. On the 22nd July he announced the result of this negotiation to the House. The point about the date he was willing to waive, so that the legal disestablishment would take place, as originally fixed, on the 1st January, 1871. The Government had made various concessions which, while still thinking them inadequate to the justice of the case, he was willing to accept, rather than run the hazard of a collision between the two branches of the Legislature. They consented that the liabilities of incumbents for the salaries of curates should be confined to the case where a curate had been employed for five years. As to diocesan commutation, the Government - which had already added seven per cent, to the amount of the annuities obtainable by commuting incumbents - now agreed to grant five per cent, more; this involved a diminution of the surplus by upwards of £700,000. Better terms for curates had been already conceded. The acceptance of commutation by three- fourths, instead of four-fifths, of the clergy of a diocese was to be held sufficient. The Government had also agreed to exempt from the commutation any residence and land in an incumbent's own occupation, if the incumbent should so desire. Lastly, there was the question of the disposal of the surplus. The Government, on this point, had consented to amend the 68th clause, so that it would provide for the employment of the surplus for the relief of unavoidable calamity, and in such manner as Parliament should hereafter direct.