Payment of the Catholic Clergy. Church and State.

Chapter XIV.

The Church Question - The Church Establishment a Citadel for the English Garrison - its Failure as an Ecclesiastical Institution - Its Use as a Party Grievance - Value of the Reforms already made - Lord Anglesey’s Church Bill - Defeated by Mr. Stanley - Church Question still unsettled, and at the service of the Factions - Payment of the Catholic Clergy - Separation of Church and State - Letters; from Lord Dacre, Myself - Lord Holland, Mr. O’Connell, Sir H. Hardinge, the Marquis of Anglesey.

Concurrently with the agitation of the Catholic question, and as the complement of it proceeded, an agitation of the question of the Protestant Established Church, and when the former was supposed by short-sighted politicians to have been settled by the Relief Act of 1829, the Church Establishment was suffered to remain in all its monstrous deformity, to protract the distractions of Ireland. It had been fixed upon the country, in the first instance, in accordance with the policy of English rulers, as a citadel for the English garrison, and as such it was continued at the time of the Union, and kept up after the civil disabilities of the Roman Catholics had been removed under the pressure of the fears of the English ministry. That purpose it had, no doubt, served, although in the advancement of every other object, supposed to be attainable by an ecclesiastical system, it had notoriously failed. The religious and moral education of the masses of the people it could not effect, when seven-eighths of the population remained without the pale of its communion. With their secular education it was specially charged, and this it neglected. The Church was accordingly known to the Irish people only through the medium of the exactions of the tithe-proctors, and to the rest of the empire by the barbarous retaliations which those exactions induced.

Here, then, was a grievance ready for the hand of the agitator, than which the most turbulent invention” could scarcely devise any more stimulating, and it was freely used both in the furtherance of the Catholic claims, and, subsequent to the year 1829, with great advantage, now and then, to the contending factions of England; but it must be confessed, with but small benefit to the Irish people. It is very certain that Whigs and Tories, from time to time, mutually turned each other out of Downing-street, by a skilful use of the Irish Church question, and there can also be no doubt that, during the years between 1829 and 1835, while this political game was going on, a vast amount of suffering, and blood-guiltiness, and bitter retaliation, was heaped upon the devoted heads of the Irish people; yet, upon taking a broad political view of the subject, it will be manifest that the result of all this turmoil and misery has been but small.

It is true that the transfer of the immediate incidence of the tithe from the farmer to the landlord has so wrapped up its payment in that of rent, as to deprive the tithe-proctor of his terrors, and to extinguish the power of conjuring tumults which his name formerly possessed in the mouth of an agitator. It is also true that the fixed commutation of the tithe has removed from it the character of being a tax upon improvement which it formerly, in a marked degree, possessed. The power of converting church leases into fee-farms, has also tended to lessen the mischiefs resulting from the uncertainty of the tenure of church lands.

Nevertheless, the legislation both of Whigs and Tories has failed to touch the greatest evils of the Established Church system, and has even added to it some evils that did not before exist. It still stands as a bone of contention to divide Irishmen, to be given as the food of corruption and anti-nationalism to the Protestants, to bind them to the standard of the English garrison, and to be thrown now and then to the Catholics (to be gnawed, not eaten up), in order to sharpen the edge of their hatred to their fellow-countrymen.

The church of a minority is still a part of the State, and sends its four prelates to parliament for no earthly purpose but to keep up irritation in the minds of the prelates of the church of the majority, and to supply a stimulus to their *odium theologicum, *by a direct appeal to their pride. The suppression of ten bishoprics but served to aggravate these feelings, while it removed ten resident proprietors, possessed of considerable means of expenditure, from the country, and handed over their incomes to that worst species of absentee - a board of greedy commissioners, connected with land or people only as birds of prey are connected with their quarry.

The shuffling of the tithe-charge, while it unquestionably produced the good effects upon the popular imagination to which I have alluded, was, nevertheless, productive of no pecuniary relief to the people, and did involve a gift of one-fourth of the national property to the landlords.

I am, myself, a tithe-owner-the lay-rector of several parishes - and am, therefore, interested in taking a Conservative view of the Church question. So strongly, however, have I always felt that a settlement of it is necessary to the general welfare of Ireland, that I have always been, in opinion, a tithe-abolitionist; and so long since as the year 1800, I pressed the subject upon the Duke of Bedford during his lord-lieutenancy, and expressed to him my willingness to surrender that portion of my property for the common good. I have continued ever since to entertain the same sentiments, which I also communicated to Lord Anglesey, and in conjunction with him framed a plan for the total extinction of tithes, which he strongly urged upon his colleagues when the formidable anti-tithe agitation of 1831 and ‘32 forced the subject upon their consideration. *

Our *bill, as Lord Anglesey took pleasure in calling it, went to the entire abolition of tithe, and to the resumption by the State of the church lands, and their letting or sale upon proper commercial principles, in all cases saving existing rights. From calculations which I caused to be made by an eminent notary, it was estimated that the profit derivable from such a management of the 600,000 acres of profitable land held by the Church would have been sufficient to have supported an establishment ample enough for the spiritual wants of Ireland, and to have left a handsome surplus available for the education and relief of the poor, or as a provision for stipends for the Roman Catholic clergy, should the granting of such be thought expedient.

This plan, I confess, did not fully carry out my own views in church matters, as these extended the whole length of complete voluntaryism, and a severance of all connexion between Church and State. Nevertheless, I believe it would have settled the Church question, so far as to determine its use as a factious rallying cry, and I have no doubt it would have been quite as easily carried as the half measures which were adopted. But, in the preference given to these, the genius of Lord Anglesey was overruled by that of his Chief Secretary, Mr. Stanley, and so another sore spot has been kept open on the Irish body politic, ready for the whip of the English ruler whenever it may serve his purpose to excite a domestic broil.

The Church question was, for some years, available in the struggle of parliamentary factions; and, though it has latterly remained dormant, it is, by no means, settled, and there are not wanting indications that it may soon again be put to its former use. The ministerial leaning towards a plan for the subsidization of the Roman Catholic priesthood on the one band, and on the other, the aggressive activity of some of the more ambitious of the latter class (as evinced, for example, in their crusade against education), are portents of evil towards which every true lover of national liberty, and of Ireland, ought to direct an anxious eye.

The payment of the priests from State funds would be the enlistment of another batch of ecclesiastical recruits for the English garrison. It would, indeed, bind another body of clergy to the English, as contra-distinguished from the Irish, interest, but it would not satisfy clerical ambition. The new stipendiaries would taste the sweets of State patronage; but in their new position they would contrast with more bitterness than ever the difference in the degrees of favour shown to them and to their Protestant rivals. They would ask, why are we but yearly hirelings, while the clergy of the church of the minority are beneficed with lands and tithes, and their prelates seated in the upper house of parliament? The stipend would thus become a vantage-ground upon which a new agitation for priestly aggrandisement would be based, and in that agitation, I believe, the pride of the laity, stimulated by their clergy, and overcoming their judgment, would force them to join.

Such, I believe, would be the effect of the stipend, even in the case of the more moderate of the priests, who would at once agree to accept it. Its effect upon the more violent, upon whose acceptance it would seem to be forced, could not be expected to be more beneficial. The clerical ambition to acquire complete control over popular education would not be lessened by making the clergy pecuniarily independent of the people; nor would the desire to enjoy the full dignity of a prelate in a national and State church be diminished in the mind of a Roman Catholic bishop, by a partial connexion with the State, through the medium of the treasury. Both bishops and priests might be made less Irish and more English by subsidization, but they would not thereby be rendered less ambitious or humbler in spirit. A contest of unexampled bitterness would then begin between two State-endowed churches, and the matter indirectly at stake in the quarrel would be the liberties of the flocks of both. Nevertheless, these would join their parties in clamouring, on the one side, for a Roman Catholic bench in the House of Lords and a restoration of benefices and cathedrals to their ancient possessors; on the other, for the inviolability of the rights of conquest; and, on both, for such an ecclesiastical control over national education as would restrict the intellectual development of the people within the measure of church formularies.

The way to obviate these great evils, and to settle the Church question effectually - to avoid the difficulties belonging to a subsidization of the priesthood, and to disengage the all-important question of national education from many of its embarrassments - would, in my opinion, still be to separate all churches alike from the State; to remove the bishops from the House of Lords, where no one imagines they can perform any useful or respectable function; to capitalise the church property, and apply it to purposes of education and charity; and so to let all parties start fair upon their respective missions.

It would then be the interest of all sects to discourage their ministers from interfering in politics ; and as no one set of clergy would be unreasonably exalted by the State, so it would, not be likely that the pride of any body of laymen could be successfully used to stimulate them to attempt an equivalent unreasonable exaltation of a rival priesthood. If it would be too much to expect that this plan would temper the bitterness of religious discord in social life, it would, at least, altogether extinguish it as an element of political warfare, and would thus deprive the English minister of one of the most powerful of the agencies whereby he works out his Irish policy of ruling by division.

The following letters may be interesting, as throwing light upon the views entertained by myself and others during the height of the anti-tithe agitation, and as exhibiting the enlightened policy entertained in reference to the Church question by Lord Anglesey, and the manner in which it was frustrated by the Secretary, who was placed by his colleagues over him:- *

Lord Dacre to Lord Cloncurry.*

Chesterfield-street, February 26th, 1834.

“My dear Lord - I do begin to think that Ireland presents a political problem not to be solved by any known political process. Though I admit the conclusion with reluctance, I can scarcely refuse myself to the conviction that simple, pure, conciliation is insufficient to satisfy the demands of the Catholic population. The spirit of the people will never be laid by such means. Would that the Irish Protestant Church bad not been constituted an integrant part of our Church at the Union! We (the English) who wish fairly, honestly, partially *for *Ireland, may feel disappointment at her want of forbearance; but her impulses are in nature - that cannot be denied.

I thank you for sending me a copy of your proposed bill. I assume that for a time your proposed distribution of the proceeds of the tithes, rolled up in the general land-tax, might have given satisfaction; but some O’Connell or Doyle would soon have analysed your land-tax, to point out the portion of tithe which it would contain; and all the present objections to commutation would have been placed in front of every argument against the collection of the land-tax. Am not I right in supposing that the very basis of your bill would slip from under you, when you enact:-

“That tithe shall not be levied henceforth, and it shall not be lawful to demand any increased rent now charged for land in lieu of them?” How are you, by enactment of law, to prevent a proprietor from obtaining the value of his land? If the proprietor occupies his own land, he would obtain the ordinary profit, plus the tithe which he previously paid to the tithe-owner; and if he lets his land, he ought to receive, in the shape of rent, the ordinary rent plus the tithe which was previously paid oat of the land. No act of parliament, no decree of the fiercest despot, can counteract that necessary truth of political economy. Your bill would therefore start with the simple substitution of land-tax for tithe (which is now to be done under the name of commutation); then, by adding some fractional parts to the charge, you get an aggregate sum, which, I certainly think, you would appropriate satisfactorily for the moment; but still you continue to describe the circle which bewilders us all.

Our poor country is in a lamentable condition! *We *are less clamorous on this side of the water, but our condition is most alarming. Our distress - the agricultural interest - is unbounded. All this is the result of a long course of bad government. I know that the government is influenced by the most honest desire to mitigate our evils, and to remove their causes; but the difficulties that surround them are the accumulation of such a series of errors, that my heart sinks within me when I contemplate them.

Yours, very sincerely,

Dacre.” *

Lord Cloncurry to the People of his Neighbourhood.*

Cootehill, June 29th.

“My dear Friends and Neighbours - Were I at home, and in good health, I should certainly go amongst you this day. Be assured that the same love of Ireland, and the same desire to render her free and happy, fills my heart now that has, for near 50 years, directed every action of my life.

So convinced was I, at all times, of the improper application of tithe in this country, that I wrote and published my opinions against it near 30 years ago, and often since; and this although I was myself a proprietor of that species of property.

But, my friends, I am also a landlord, and, I hope, not a bad one. Remember, I tell you, that if tithe was abolished to-morrow, nine-tenths of the Irish landlords would add the amount to the rent, and the condition of the poor would be anything but improved; for there are more *absentee *landlords than there are parsons.

My opinion is, that tithe should not be abolished, but that it should be paid by the landlords, and applied to the use of the poor and other good purposes: this is my opinion, and will, I hope, soon be the opinion of parliament. The Church has ample funds without tithe; and if she had not, it would still be most unjust for Catholics to pay the Protestant clergy.

Church cess, though of less amount, is a thousand times more offensive and more unjust than tithe. It will, I am certain, be abolished; but until the law be altered I will obey it. I never asked any man to adopt my opinions; but I feel that, for the present, the clergy should not be left to starve, particularly the good, charitable clergy of our neighbourhood.

I believe the time is at hand when the patience, the good-humour, the courage, and determination of the people of Ireland will have its reward; that our many oppressions and grievances, of which tithe is only the tithe, will be put an end to by a reformed parliament and the honestest minister England ever saw. But to secure these advantages we must be peaceable and united, kind to one another, and seek, through the lawful channel, and no other, the restoration of rights too long withheld.

Your affectionate friend and neighbeur,

Cloncurry.” *

Lord Holland to Lord Cloncurry.*

(Private.)

26th February.

“My dear Lord - The objects of *your *bill, as described in your letter, are very desirable. If I thought that *our *bill defeated or impeded any one of them, I should never have supported it. But it endeavours, at least, to *secure, *if not full, adequate payment to the present incumbents, and to provide moderately for their successors. When those two purposes are accomplished, it does not preclude or prohibit the application of part of the commuted land-tax to those of education, improvement, &c.; nor does it present any obstacle to a proper communication between government and the Roman Catholic clergy, or even to a provision for the latter, from any fund except that destined by the bill to the payment, in the first instance, of the Established Church.

Our bill leaves all these objects of yours entirely open-nay, it removes many impediments in the way of a discussion or determination on the remaining points of it. Had we, for instance, mixed up with an act of justice and reform and adjustment affecting the Established clergy, anything like provision for the Catholic priesthood, we should have raised a clamour both here and in Ireland, and have been charged-with as little truth, no doubt, but with ten times the plausibility and effect, as we were about the Education Board - with subverting the Protestant and substituting the Popish faith.

Surely it is prudent to avoid any proceeding which, merely from the form of it, furnishes a handle to the foolish or the malignant for giving such a colour to our policy. By doing what justice or necessity require to be done for the Established Church, separately and previously, we set that question at rest; and when we come to consider matters in which Roman Catholics, lay or clergy, are concerned, can discuss them more successfully on their own merits, as a satisfaction of the claims or a boon to the advantage of one class of our fellow-subjects, not as an encroachment on the rights or a spoliation of the property of any other.

You predict, and I fear too truly, much resistance; and you very feelingly and justly deprecate the consequences. But you do not suggest any proposal that will avert such consequences. They may follow our bill, hut they are not less likely to follow if yours were adopted. They are to be apprehended from the adoption of any land-tax or commutation whatever; and are even more certain and unavoidable if the law is left as it is - the clergy, after the 1st of November next, to their full rights of title or composition, and the government to the obligation of supporting the law.

The alternative is, to leave the legal rights of the subject without protection, *i. e., *in other words, to abandon the functions of a government; or to encounter a resistance formidable in its extent, and fearful in its consequences. What better can be devised, in such a dilemma, than an attempt to mitigate the latter evil - a plan compelling the clergy to purchase additional security by the sacrifice of some portion of unquestionable but unattainable rights, and by an acquiescence in an arrangement, if less profitable, less precarious for them, and infinitely less burthensome and less vexatious to those whose resistance is apprehended.

I see the inconveniences and dangers you allude to, but I do *not *see how you propose to avoid, or even lessen them. Your bill and your letter both admit, by implication, that an abandonment of the law, *i.e., *a refusal to protect unquestionable rights of property, is out of the question. I am sure you would apply your epithets of unjust and unwise to any such dereliction of duty.

1 support the bill from one simple consideration - that it affords some prospect or chance of an amicable settlement of Ireland, which while tithes subsist cannot be accomplished, and which, if they were suppressed by violence and spoliation, with-out equivalent to the sufferers, would be equally impracticable. Commute you must, if you mean to relieve one party and be just to the other yet all commutations will have to encounter more or less resistance; and I think we shall, in our plan, have *reason *and law on our side.

If we leave things as they are, we may have law, but shall have no reason; and if we give up all payment, we shall have neither law nor reason on our side, nor will the people really obtain relief; for, as you say, the Protestant landlord will pay the commutation, by exacting more rent; so will he raise his rent in proportion, on his titheable land becoming tithe-free. Yours ever,

Vassall Holland.”

I believe Lord Wellesley considered the bill very earnestly, and gave it his full sanction and recommendation. His opinion, even exclusive of his station, carries great authority with it; for he has long and deeply reflected on the subject; and, on all *great *matters, has a better judgment, as well as more experience than most men. *

Lord Holland to Lord Cloncurry.*

18th July.

“My dear Lord - I do not think we shall be in committee till *Monday. *We shall carry the second reading easily. You will he satisfied, I think, with the manner in which Lord Grey handled your topic of the Irish incumbents’ oaths and school-keeping. It was really admirable, and singularly opportune, when they are affecting to raise scruples about the coronation oath, and the right of parliament and people to release the king from it - they!! who release themselves from promissory oaths, without the ceremony of any consent of the promisee, and by an evasion as shameless as it is unaccountable.

The end of Grey’s speech will, I am sure, delight you; and had you been in the House, I do think that the virulence with which bishops and Orangemen declaimed against the bill would have raised “the penny.” you value it at to a good pound, and a shilling to boot.

Seriously, the extinction of tithe (even if in the details some injustice be committed), and the abolition of church cess, must remove the two greatest practical grievances your peasantry have to complain of; and, above all, allay that perpetual conflict of interests between Protestant and Catholic, which is the great curse of your country. Till Monday,

Yours ever,

Vassall Holland.” *

Lord Holland to Lord Cloncurry.*

12th February, 1835.

“My dear Lord - Everybody has been so occupied with the elections, that we are greatly in arrear of all other information. Ireland will, I conclude, as usual, form a great feature in the ensuing sessions; and one is naturally anxious to procure a little of that commodity, so rarely exported from your country, called truth. As I consider you a safe banker, I draw upon you for a little, not merely with respect to the aspect of things at the Castle - which, I am assured, is bad enough - but with respect to the actual transactions which have occurred since our mad rejection of the Church bill of last year.

I. Have the clergy received any tithes due in November last, or the arrears of those due before?

2. What have the landlords paid under Goulburn’s or Stanley’s Acts?

3. And what have they paid voluntarily of tithes, which they were not bound to pay by law?

4. What has been received from occupying tenants in the usual course of collecting tithe?

5. Has any part of the arrear to government been paid by the clergy?

On all these topics the government preserve a profound silence; and it is remarkable that though they have been profuse in promises, more or less vague, of Church reform, and corporation reform, and what not, in England, they have not yet said one word on what they intend to do about the Irish Church tithes or arrears! The Crown officers, as far as I recollect, were enjoined, by act of parliament, to exact the payment from the clergy, under the million act, on the 1st of February, 1835, unless an order to suspend the demand was issued from the Treasury. Has there been any such order? And if not, has there been any payment exacted?

I think (perhaps I am wrong) that I have perceived certain symptoms, in the late elections, of a decline of the supremacy of O’Connell over public opinion in Ireland. If so, is it owing to a reaction in favour of Tories or Orange-men, or to an increase of an intermediate and temperate party, who are earnest for redress of grievances, but not disposed to swear allegiance to the “great liberator?” You are, of course, aware that your proxy cannot be entered till you have taken your seat; and still more so, that I shall rejoice when you come to go through that operation, and shall be proud if, when enabled to leave a proxy, you leave it with

Yours sincerely,

Vassall Holland.

P.S. - This about the proxy is said to Leinster as well as yourself. I heard indirectly yesterday from Anglesey, still at Rome a fortnight ago, but less tormented with his painful disorder than he had been. He means to go almost immediately to Leipsic, to consult a German doctor - Hennyman, I think, the father of the homoeopathic system, and a great quack, I dare say. Pray write me at length your notions of what is and what ought to be in Ireland. Poor Lord Darnley died yesterday of a lockjaw, occasioned by a wound in lopping the branches of a tree.” *

Daniel 0’ Connell, Esq. to Lord Cloncurry.*

Darrynane Abbey, 14th December, 1835.

“My Lord - I thank you much for the sound views you gave me of the state of the tithe question; and upon full consideration, I do not hesitate to say that I deem your Lordship’s plan the very best that can be suggested for arriving at a peaceable conclusion to the agitation which tithes have created and continued for near a century. But, alas! what prospect is there of realising that or any other measure useful to Ireland? I wish I could be of any service in carrying it into effect. You should in that case command my very best exertions.

I regret to see that all my efforts appear insufficient to excite to the formation of a “government party” of rank and fortune in Ireland. The odious Orange party rally at once round a Tory party. But see how difficult it is for you to get anything like an exertion for the liberal government. I would submit that a Reform Association, could and 1 think ought, to include peers. There are many peers belonging to the English Reform Association. Indeed, more than one English peer has claimed to be allowed to register as a voter, and such claim has been allowed in more than one instance. The cases have been of English peers *sitting *in the Lords. This fact may, I should hope, influence your judgment as to joining ACTIVELY in an Irish Reform Society. I have the honour to be, with very sincere respect, my Lord,

Your Lordship’s faithful servant,

Daniel O’Connell. *

Lord Holland to Lord Cloncurry.*

South-street, 8th January.

Dear Lord Cloncurry - It is generally very desirable that our friends should attend the meeting of Parliament; and I think it is particularly so, for reasons too long to explain, that you should be there; your absence would disappoint us much.

Your being in good humour is a good sign; and I really think you have no grounds to be otherwise, nor even to imagine that Irish interests would he sacrificed to forward English measures. You must always recollect that by attempting any Irish measures that are strongly reprobated by public opinion in England, we should not forward the interests of one or of the other; and even your tithe arrangement and Church question is I hope more likely to be now settled, and settled well, by having been postponed, than if it had been attempted before the anomalous and revolting details of the Irish Church establishment were laid bare by the reports of the Commissioners, or one-third of the people of England aware of the strength of our case for appropriating, remodelling, and reducing it.

As I was writing this sentence, I was interrupted by our friend Anglesey, who *walked *here, and is himself in better strength and health than he ever was in Ireland, but is on the eve of a journey to Paris, with his son Clarence. That once fine young man is, I sadly fear, in a very bad way; and Lady Anglesey herself is suffering severely. I am afraid, therefore, Anglesey’s spirits are not so good as his health. Why on earth does your countryman abuse him? It is foolish as well as wrong enough to deal so much in Billingsgate as he is apt to do, about his antagonists. It does them no harm, him some, and those he means to support, a great deal; but yet it is intelligible, and has, at least, the excuse of not being unprovoked, and little more than tit for tat; but his retrospective disparagement of others, and of Anglesey especially, is surely gratuitous, unprofitable, and disgusting.

I am quite glad you like John F--- so much; and I quite agree with you and him that he should *ultimately *make himself an Irishman; but I own I think it more prudent in him to wait, for the purpose of coming out on an unencumbered, instead of an encumbered property; and I think it will be quite time enough to buy or to build a house when one of the Ladies (both past 60, and one 67 years old) shall die. I hold nothing to be so really advantageous to your country, or so creditable in it to the individual, as a resident gentleman of landed property, quite unencumbered. I have thought this matter over very often, and solely with reference to John’s comfort and happiness (for I have a real and almost parental affection for him, and he knows it); and the result of my cogitations, reflections, and consultations on the matter is, that it is infinitely better for him to postpone the step he meditates - *ce qui est differé n’est pas perdu; *on the contrary, it will be better *assuré. *With hopes of seeing you on the 4th of next month,

Ever yours,

Vassall Holland.” *

Lord Cioncurry to ---

“*Sir - It being stated in the papers that I was consulted on the subject of tithes by the parishioners of Kill, county of Kildare, of which the Rev. John Warburton is vicar, and that I thought the parishioners were going on legally, I beg leave to say that the statement is untrue; I was not consulted, and I gave no opinion.

Had I been consulted by my poor neighbours, I would have said - Continue to obey the law peaceably and good-humouredly, as you have done for 30 years that I have passed amongst you. Be assured that no man disapproves of the system of tithes and of its appropriation, more than I have ever done, and I hope sincerely that they may be speedily put on a different footing, and applied to far different purposes; and this I know may be effected, not only without diminution to the income of present incumbents, but to the great improvement of the country in wealth, produce, and employment. For such improvement I confidently look to a reformed legislature and the King’s good and enlightened ministers.

But it at the very moment that we may reasonably hope for the redress of many and serious grievances, we set ourselves with blind and foolish violence against the law, and the government whose duty it is to enforce and support the law, must we not appear to the legislature unfit for liberty, and unworthy of attention? Having for generations submitted to wrong, I would not now dash from my lips the cup of right, thereby almost justifying the slanders of our enemies, and diminishing the power of our friends to do us service.

The parish of Kill and my own adjoining parish have long been remarkable for good order and for comfort, for the moderation of a resident parson, and the prosperity of an industrious people; but this never for a moment blinded me to the impolicy or injustice of the tithe system, the extinction of which we should not delay by our own folly, but endeavour to get accomplished by the reformed parliament; and for that purpose the people should return representatives of known and good character-men to whom tests would be as disgusting as unnecessary, but whose lives and circumstances would guarantee their independence, their love of their country, and their knowledge of her interests.” *

Sir Henry (now Lord) Hardinge to Lord Cloncurry.*

Whitehall-place, 4th March, 1835.

My Lord - I wish I could answer your Lordship’s note by at once expressing the readiness of the Government to act on the very kind and humane spirit which has instituted your inquiry.

The Act of Parliament is imperative. We are compelled to make the demand on the tithe-owner, through the collectors of excise; and I am apprehensive we might prejudice the future prospects of the suffering party if we were to assume that the demand is to be relinquished. In a few days the tithe question will be brought forward; and as no letters have been issued directing harsh measures to be taken against the clergy, in default of repayment on the 11th instant, I trust that in effect your Lordship’s very benevolent feeling on this question may eventually be acceded to by the legislature. I am, with much respect,

Your Lordship’s very faithful servant,

H. Hardinge.” *

Lord Anglesey to Lord Cloncurry.*

Dublin, February 15th, 1832.

“My dear Cloncurry - Your letter of Tuesday has revived me. I was unhappy untill I received it. I feared that Lord Grey had irretrievably committed himself to mischief. I rejoice that you wrote to him; and what you said upon tithe, &c., no doubt ably supported what I had feebly represented.

In a former letter you say you wish you could have read to the committee what I had written to you. I wish to God you could see all I write about Ireland, and publish it too. However, that cannot be; and I must stand a thousand calumnies, and suffer a thousand censures for the faults of others.

Do you ever see Holland? He is a trusty friend and true. Again I say I rejoice that measures of justice are to precede those of coercion; indeed, the latter will scarcely be wanted, if the others are carried. Pat will do what he ought, if justice is done him, and if the consideration of his miseries is not too long delayed. Arrear of tithe he must pay, for it is just; but he ought to be previously secure that he will be relieved from unnecessary vexation and exaction.

In short, if they will carry forward our bill, there would be a good *chance, *at least, of all going on quietly; and, at all events, it would justify the government in coercive measures if; by the violence of *demagogueic *(not in Johnson) language, the people are bent upon resistance and a fight.

Ever sincerely yours,

Anglesley.” *

Lord Anglesey to Lord Cloncurry.*

Dublin, March 14th, 1832.

“My dear Cloncurry - There is not a syllable in your letter, just received, in which I do not concur, nor a sentiment expressed nor a suggestion made that I have not urged over and over again upon ministers; and not merely to Lord G. and to Stanley, but to other members, begging of them to aid me in carrying forward the *whole *tithe and Church and bishops’-lands measure, and, if possible to pass all that previously to any coercive measures, or, *at all events, *simultaneously. Of poor law and labour rate I have preached till I am tired. Do you keep the Irish members quiet if you can. They may depend upon me upon all the main points; and whilst I make allowances for them whilst they are fighting for their seats, they ought to make allowance for the difficulty of ministers.

In urging, however, to have the healing measures simultaneous with those of coercion, I cannot condemn them. I quite say the same thing.

I believe you are deceived and misled about G---. I am getting some inquiry made. I doubt if he is worthy of your patronage.

Notwithstanding Northumberland, and your recent favour with the Tories, *I *shall not lose you.

Truly yours,

Anglesey” *

Lord Anglesey to Lord Cloncurry.*

Naples, April 27th, 1824.

“My dear Cloncurry - I have been gratified by the receipt of your letter of the 20th of March - not that it is written in good spirits, and with a satisfied mind, but merely because it always gratifies me to hear from you. I fear, by your tone, that you have mistaken the meaning of a former letter of mine. I did not complain of you; on the contrary, I meant to express my gratitude for your generous and flattering expressions concerning me in a certain public letter; but, at the same time, my regret that, in supporting me, you should fall foul of others, even although they might deserve your censure.

I grieve that the course taken by L. does not satisfy you; for it leads me to fear that he is therefore deviating from the *one *sure track. What you say of the tithe and Church concerns is not consoling. What a pity that, when there was a scheme worked up by Blake and Griffith assisted by you, and approved by Lord Plunket and Blackburne, and recommended by me, who was without prejudice, and in no respect committed by public declarations or pledges, and had only calmly to listen to the opinions of such able men, and then to form my own - what a pity, I say, it is that such a plan should be thrown overboard, and that another, of little promise, should be substituted. But what have I to do with these matters?

I break off from the subject. I am quite glad to learn that you see much of Burgoyne. If I did no other good, I still did much in being instrumental in his appointment, and in planting the excellent Owen in your soil.

You mention poor Baron Smith. I beg you not to lose the first opportunity of assuring him of my regard, and that, if I had been at hand, feeble as is my tongue in the senate, he should not have wanted a champion, if no other more capable had presented himself. I have thought him most unkindly handled; and the conduct of P--- towards him, in the last sessions, disquieted me. I had, at first, the intention of writing to Sir William, but I thought I might then add fuel to a flame; but a kind message now might be kindly taken - only do not let *him *write.

I am glad that Stovin has the appointment of Inspector General; but I shall always regret his not being Private Secretary. Say everything that is kind to your Duke and Duchess for me, and, indeed, to all my dear and good friends. You, as well as I, know that there are some who are most sincere; and if I do not name them, it is not that I do not think of them.

I have had an interesting letter from the worthy Curran. I shall write to him shortly. To Blake I have written this day. I will not say much of myself; for what I should have to say would not please you. I delight in Naples, and enjoy it as much as my health permits me to enjoy anything. The “Pearl” is arrived, which is a great resource.

Vesuvius seems to be tired; he is going out fast. The weather has not been as it should be; but, in my opinion, it is far preferable to Rome, although it may, perhaps, not suit me. It is now raining. This has been wanted for more than two months; perhaps it will be better after a fall. I have a house at Castellamare, but it is too cold to go there yet. I am persuaded your spring is forwarder. There is scarcely a leaf upon the trees, yet the gardens are surprising, and peas flourish all the year round. What a gay, lively people, and what a busy town.

At Rome, every other man was a priest: here the priest is superseded by the soldier - a favourable change in my eye, particularly as the troops are very fine. I grieve to hear of Lord Pluuket’s indisposition. Assure him of our regard; and pray do not fail to lay me at the feet of Lady Cloncurry, to whom, as well as to you, Lady A. sends her best wishes. We have not heard of E. Lawless since his departure. I hope he will be restored to you in perfect health; but it is a plant that will require attention. George is gone upon his tour. Alfred remains with me; but, if I rally, I will soon be following G. Good bye, and

Ever truly yours,

Anglesey.” *

Lord Anglesey to Lord Cloncurry.*

Rome, January 28, 1835.

“My dear Cloncurry - I have received your letter of the 4th. I write upon large paper, for I feel as if I had a good deal to say to you; but, there is, in truth, too much to say, and I do not know how to begin, and to go on. I do not quite see into the state of affairs, but it appears to me that, take what view you will of them, they are frightful. Can the Peel and Wellington government stand? I am sure it ought not; and if there be common honesty and fair dealing in man, it will not.

But can any one count upon honesty and fair dealing in these days? I think not. I strongly suspect what are called the *moderate *Whigs. I have no faith in them. I believe that in general they are frightened, and only show liberalism as long as the tide runs that way, and as it turns (if turn it do) they will float back with it. Neither have I any faith in the ultra Tories. I suspect that a great part of them, with a view to office, or, at all events, to retaining in office men who, upon the whole, they like better, and believe themselves to be safer in the hands of, than the honest liberals

• that with a view to preserving in power, I say, the present leaders, they will sacrifice all their principles, and eat all their words, and vote through thick and thin for reform
• ay, even for church reform.

Here, then, if I be right, will be a tolerable equipoise of baseness, and thus Peel and Wellington will continue to hold the reins, and, *with a bad grace, *give all the reforms that were in contemplation by the last government, and which, if my voice had been attended to, would, as far as the Irish Church is concerned, have been set smooth three years ago. But instead of attending to me, they took the advice of Stanley, and brought forth that veritable bill of his for the recovery of tithes, which I at once pronounced would he a total, and, also, a very expensive failure, and would cause much clerical blood to flow; and so it happened, and the Protestant clergy have been bleeding and starving ever since.

But why do I allow myself to write on such subjects? I am sure I have no inducement to take any part whatever in public affairs. You, with your usual kindness and partiality, express a wish that I should, in the event of a change, again return to Ireland, or else go to the Horse Guards. But of what use could I be in either situation? It has been my fate to be unkindly and ungenerously treated both by friends and foes, and I do not see why I should again allow myself to be made unhappy by either.

The truth is, I have not the capacity for acting with men who have recourse to trick and duplicity. I have independent thoughts, and if I go, I must go my own way. I could not consent to allow Ireland to be governed in Downing-street, and therefore I did not suit my *employer, *and employers generally.

Mine has been a curious fate. Twice I have been recalled from Ireland for vehemently pressing measures which were obstinately resisted whilst I was in power, but which were adopted as soon as my back was turned. I forced Catholic Emancipation upon Wellington and Peel, and I was recalled, and recalled, too, with marked insult - but they immediately carried the measure. Under another government I again tried my hand. I urged the necessity of taking the whole of the ecclesiastical funds into the hands of the State. By it, the country would have been enriched - the clergy would have been amply paid - there would have been no collision between tithe-payer and tithe-receiver. All would have received their just dues-the Catholic clergy might have been paid, and there would have been a surplus for the benefit of the State. But even that would not have been alienated from the Church. The surplus would simply have been held in trust for it, and if hereafter the Protestant faith had spread, and more help for its souls had been required, *there *would have been the fund from whence to draw the required aid; well, my colleagues did not dare venture upon the measure, and so I was recalled, because Stanley was opposed to it. Yet they still attempted by driblets to do something! This something pleased nobody, and was rejected by the Lords.

Then came another set of men. These, during (be recess, *did *make up their minds to something very extensive; but in that time they are ousted, and now Peel and Wellington, if I am not greatly mistaken, will bring forward as sweeping a scheme as that proposed by me (with the able assistance of my worthy assistants who, in fact, had the whole merit of it, and particularly Blake), with this only difference, that whereas I would, for a time at least, have given all the surplus from the bishops’ lands, &c., for the benefit of the State, W. and P. will insist upon its being used for ecclesiastical purposes.

As for the army, what could I do with it? I should find myself at the head of a complete party (I fear) ultra-Tory force. I should find difficulty in every direction. The King playing the whole game of Toryism, and a set of people at the Horse Guards, just such as I found all the working men at the Castle of Dublin!!! If I could do good in either situation, I should not mind the burthen of it, and might reconcile myself to the relinquishment of all my home and family enjoyments; but when I know that I can do no good, it would be madness to attempt anything. Nor do I believe that any party would have me. They have had ample proof that I will not submit to he a mere cipher, and, therefore, I am not *their man. *What a shameful long letter!

Adieu, most sincerely yours,

Anglesey.”

Next Chapter. Cloncurry Index