Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T15:55:24.414Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Irish Church and the Reform Ministries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2014

Mary D. Condon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Whig ministries of 1830-34 were faced with problems in regard to foreign affairs and parliamentary reform that were almost certain to reveal differences of philosophy within the Cabinets, yet it was on the Irish issues, more particularly that of the Episcopal Reformed Church of Ireland, that the ministries divided and broke. It is generally known that questions concerning the revenues of the Irish Church drove Stanley, the future Conservative Prime Minister, out of the Whig Party, enabled the House of Lords to rally after the Reform Bill and block measures passed by the Commons, and gave William IV an opportunity to dismiss a ministry which still retained the confidence of the lower house and replace it by a Government of his own choice. There is less knowledge, however, of the specific issues behind these events, and of the peculiarities of the Irish Church which hampered an easy solution of its problems. A study of both will serve to illuminate the conflict of parties and of personalities in the first five years of the reform age.

From the utilitarian point of view, the temporalities of the Church were absurdly large. Containing only 852,064 members — less than there were in the see of Durham alone — it had a total of twenty-two bishops, including four archbishops. Many holders of benefices had no religious duties, nor, indeed, even a church in which to perform the one service required by their appointment; where parish duties were necessary, they were frequently discharged by a curate who received only a small fraction of the income of the incumbent.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , May 1964 , pp. 120 - 142
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1964

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Turberville, A. S., The House of Lords in the Age of Reform: 1784-1837 (London, 1958), pp. 333–50Google Scholar.

2. The figures are from the First Report of the Commissioners of Public Instruction and include Wesleyan Methodists who would not in England have been considered members of the established Church. [Lister, T. H.,] “State of the Irish Church,” Edinburgh Review, LXI (1835), 490–525Google Scholar.

3. 28 Henry VIII, c. 15. The Act was interpreted to mean that diversion of church revenues to the support of general education did not constitute appropriation to secular use. Spring Rice to Northampton, June 26, 1834, Monteagle Papers [National Library of Ireland], 550; Molesworth, W. N., History of England from the Year 1830 (London, 1871), I, 514–15Google Scholar.

4. The Commissioners on Ecclesiastical Revenue and Patronage so reported in 1833 and 1834. Of this, £600,000 came from tithe. Lister, , “Irish Church,” Edinburgh Review, LXI (1835), 502–09Google Scholar.

5. Although ten bishops were appointed in 1822-23, the total amount of first fruits collected in Ireland for seven years before 1824 amounted to £910. 2 Hansard, XV, 48Google Scholar.

6. By a 1735 resolution of the Irish Parliament, confirmed in 1800 before the Art of Union, agistment or grazing land had been exempted from tithe. It was difficult for conservatives to maintain that tithes were property when at any time they might be avoided by converting tillage to pasture. See Hume's charge of inconsisency on the part of Plunket, who had voted for exempting agistment, and of Peel, who had not attempted to restore the property in tithes. 2 Hansard, VII, 1149, 1196–97Google Scholar.

7. Commons Second Report on Tithes in Ireland, Parliamentary Papers (1831–1832), XXI, 429–30Google Scholar; for the amounts paid, see ibid., (1831-32), XXI, 171. These differences made any estimate of the amount of tithe difficult. Brose gives a figure of 16d. an acre, but quotes a clergyman in the Down-Louth area where such nominal payments were made for flax. Brose, Olive J., Church and Parliament: the Reshaping of the Church of England: 1828-1860 (Stanford, 1959), p. 115Google Scholar.

8. Lister, , “Irish Church,” Edinburgh Review, LXI (1835), 508–09Google Scholar. It had been supposed that one third of tithe was in lay hands, but the extension of money payments to every parish provided accurate figures by 1833. Mahony, Peirce, Letters on the Irish Tithe or Land Tax Bill of 1834 (3rd ed.; London, 1834), p. 19Google Scholar; Lords Minutes of Evidence, State of Ireland, Parliamentary Papers (1825), CXCII, 107Google Scholar. Lay tithes were a serious embarrassment to Radicals; clergymen might do little to earn their revenues but lay owners of tithe did nothing. It was difficult, consequently, to justify a plan of church reform which did not encompass the whole of church property. See the exchange between Plunket & Hume on this point, 2 Hansard, VII, 1195Google Scholar.

9. 3 Hansard, XIX, 827–28Google Scholar.

10. Lords Minutes of Evidence, Collection of Tithes, Parliamentary Papers (1831–1832), CCCV, 395;Google ScholarCommons Second Report on Tithes in Ireland, Parliamentary Papers (1831–1832), XXI, 492;Google ScholarRobinson, George and Rose, J., Observations upon the Proposed Measure for Altering the Tenure of Lessees of Church Lands in Ireland (London, 1833), pp. 1–10Google Scholar.

11. Commons Report on Poor, Parliamentary Papers (1830), VII, 48.Google Scholar

12. Lords Minutes of Evidence, Collection of Tithes, Parliamentary Papers (1831–1832), CCV, 272Google Scholar; Commons Report on State of Ireland, Parliamentary Papers (1831–1832), XVI, 431.Google Scholar

13. Implements of husbandry, beasts of the plough when actually in use, a horse (if the owner were riding it), the tools of a man's trade, and wearing apparel were exempt. Cattle distrained had to be seized between sunrise and sunset; doors and bolts could not be forced, and it was doubtful if the law authorized the lifting of a latch. It was possible to evade distress of cattle by putting them out to graze after sunset and bringing them in by sunrise; or (if a watch were maintained) on the appearance of a party intent on distraining, the beasts could be driven in from the fields and placed under lock and key. If these methods failed, and the cattle were seized, the law required that they be kept for fourteen days before a sale could be made. Meanwhile, the peasants had time to prepare a plan of action. According to the rules of auction, three bids were required for a sale. One person could prevent this by bidding twenty to fifty times the value of the article put up for auction; or, if a huge and silent crowd gathered, it took a hearty man to bid at all.

14. For the details of this see the testimony of Major George Brown, Sub-Inspector of Police, Kilkenny, Lords Minutes of Evidence, Collection of Tithes, Parliamentary Papers (1831–1832), CCCV, 179Google Scholar. Richard Wilson Greene, Law Adviser to the Irish Government recommended: “The truth is, that the Legislature must be applied to; for the Executive cannot take upon itself the assertion of the right of tithe, any more than of the right to rents, or the recovery of private debts.” Ibid., App. A, No. 31.

15. de Beaumont, Gustave, Ireland: Social, Political, and Religious (London, 1839), II, 252–59Google Scholar.

16. [Doyle, James W.,] Letters on the State of Ireland by J. K. L. (Dublin, 1825), pp. 32–33, 311–40Google Scholar; Lords Minutes of Evidence, Collection of Tithes, Parliamentary Papers (1831–1832), CCCV, 336, 343, 350–53Google Scholar. There was no poor law in Ireland.

17. 3 Hansard, XV, 577–78Google Scholar.

18. Reynolds, James A., The Catholic Emancipation Crisis in Ireland, 1823-1829 (New Haven, 1954), pp. 40–41Google Scholar. On April 29, 1825, a resolution was passed by a vote of 205 to 162 that it was expedient to provide for the maintenance of the secular Roman Catholic clergy exercising a religious function in Ireland. This was considered a security for emancipation, since it would ensure the loyalty of the priests. For the details of the proposal see Torrens, W. M., Memoirs of William Lamb, Second Viscount Melbourne (London, 1890), pp. 132–33Google Scholar. Peel thought that the Irish did not want payment and that it would fail to win the gratitude of the priesthood. Peel to Gregory, March 21, 1825, Parker, C. S. (ed.), Sir Robert Peel from his Private Papers (London, 1889), I, 369–70Google Scholar; Memorandum, August 11, 1828. Ibid., II, 58-60.

19. Best, G. F. A., “The Whigs and the Church Establishment in the Age of Grey and Holland,” History, XXV (1960), 104, 115Google Scholar.

20. For the Dissenters' position, see Cuthburt Rippon and George Faithful in the House of Commons, April 2, 1833, and Faithful and Daniel Harvey, April 16, 1833, 3 Hansard, XVII, 48-49, 178–94Google Scholar; see also, Cowherd, Raymond G., The Politics of English Dissent (New York, 1956), p. 86Google Scholar.

21. 3 Hansard, XXIV, 33Google Scholar.

22. The promises required of Dissenters that they would not injure the Church reflect this fear. For an exposition of the view that the whole nature of the relations between Church and nation had to undergo revision after the repeal of restrictions, see Brose, , Church and Parliament, pp. 1–19Google Scholar.

23. Torrens, , Melbourne, p. 228Google Scholar.

24. Commons Report on Tithes in Ireland, Parliamentary Papers (1831–1832), XXI, 260Google Scholar; Lords Minutes of Evidence, Collection of Tithes, Parliamentary Papers (1831–1832), CCCV, 323-24, 336Google Scholar. See also Brose, , Church and Parliament, pp. 106–09Google Scholar. Miss Brose considers the suggestion of ecclesiastical commissioners to handle church revenues an important one, but the commissioners did not seem to differ from the Board of First Fruits. 3 Hansard, XVII, 1386–97Google Scholar. Certainly they were nothing like the commissioners, appointed by and accountable to Parliament, suggested by a Fishmonger — that is, a member of one of the London companies owning land in Derry — as desirable for managing the lands of the Sturch, Church. W., The Grievances of Ireland, Their Causes and Remedies (London, 1826), p. 52Google Scholar.

25. Commons Second Report on Tithes in Ireland, Parliamentary Papers (1831–1832), XXI, 492.Google Scholar The pertinent Act was 10 and 11 Charles I, c. 2.

26. Lords Second Report, Collection of Tithes, Parliamentary Papers (1831–1832), CCCV, 3;Google ScholarCommons Second Report on Tithes in Ireland, Parliamentary Papers (1831–1832), XXI, 245Google Scholar (iv, vii, viii, x).

27. Brose, , Church and Parliament, pp. 43–46Google Scholar.

28. Dorchester, Lady (ed.), Recollections of a Long Life by Lord Broughton (John Cam Hobhouse) (London, 1910), IV, 284Google Scholar; Reeve, Henry (ed.), The Greville Memoirs: a Journal of the Reigns of King George IV, King William IV, and Queen Victoria (London, 1888), II, 330Google Scholar; 3 Hansard, XV 610, XVII, 37, 980, 984Google Scholar. After Peel's speech on the second reading of the bill, however, the Irish primate and a number of bishops and archbishops petitioned against the measure. 3 Hansard, XVII, 1113–31Google Scholar.

29. Halévy says the Opposition, led by Peel, saw in this proposal an attempt to give legislative sanction to the Radical principal of a graduated income tax (citing the debate of June 25, 1833 as proof) and that the Cabinet may have been glad of an opportunity to please the Radicals and Liberals. Halévy, Elie, The Triumph of Reform: 1830-1841 (London, 1950), pp. 141–42Google Scholar. The only Benthamite in the Cabinet, Sir Henry Parnell, had been dismissed for not voting on the Russian Loan some eight months before Stanley presented his plan to the ministers. Peel spoke on the tax on April 1 and May 6, as well as on June 25, 1833. On the first occasion, he argued that incumbents be exempted from the tax; on the second he maintained that the tax should begin with clergymen having an annual income of £300, not £200, and pointed out that the tax implied that the clergy had a special interest in maintaining the fabric of the Church; he did mention the precedent involved on June 25, but his purpose — in which he was successful — was to have the minimum taxable income set at £300. On this occasion he was supported by O'Connell, who is frequently considered a Benthamite. 3 Hansard, XVI, 1403Google Scholar; XVII, 996; XVIII, 1234-38.

30. Commons Second Report on Tithes in Ireland, Parliamentary Papers (1831–1832), XXI, 245Google Scholar (xi). It should be recognized that in general those who held church lands were members of the aristocracy. So stated John Jebb, Bishop of Limerick. 2 Hansard, XI, 1123Google Scholar. For some details on this see, Evans, A. L., The Disestablishment of the Church of Ireland in 1869 (Lancaster Pa., 1929), p. 99Google Scholar.

31. Halévy considers this a concession to the advocates of partial disendowment of the church and an attempt to introduce a theory of taxation based on Ricardo's theory of rent. Triumph of Reform, pp. 142-43. In view of the fact, however, that Stanley does not seem to have consulted his colleagues on his plan, it seems likely that this provision was what Lord Holland had in mind when he told Le Marchant, Brougham's secretary, that “with Stanley's views on the nature of church property, we are obliged to resort to fallacies to obtain his consent to liberal measures.” SirLe Marchant, Denis, Memoir of John Charles, Viscount Althorp, Third Earl Spencer (London, 1876), p. 472Google Scholar.

32. Broughton, , Recollections, IV, 255.Google Scholar This was on November 2, 1832; subsequently, on November 21, Durham showed Hobhouse Stanley's “projected Tithe Measure” in print, and asked for advice on whether he should resign immediately or wait until the bill came before Parliament. Since Hobhouse did not learn the details of the plan of church reform until February 11, it seems probable that by “Tithe Measure” was meant the Coercion Act, and that Durham had no intention of resigning on the Irish Church Temporalities Act. Ibid., pp. 261-62, 283.

33. Russell to Gray, Oct. 20, 1832, Walpole, Spencer, The Life of Lord John Russell (London, 1889), I, 188–89Google Scholar; 3 Hansard, XIV, 377Google Scholar.

34. Russell to Grey, Oct. 25, 1832; Grey to Russell, Oct. 25, 1832; Holland to Russell, Oct. 26, 1832; Walpole, , Russell, I, 189–92Google Scholar. See also, Grey to Althorp, Oct. 21, 1832; Le Marchant, , Althorp, p. 446Google Scholar.

35. Grey to Brougham, Sept. 21, 1833. Brougham, Lord, Life and Times of Lord Brougham (New York, 1872), III, 208–09Google Scholar. Grey was particularly annoyed because the Irish bishops, who rotated in Parliament, had to come to London only once in four years whilst his brother, the Bishop of Hereford, with a mere £3,000 a year, had been obliged to reside constantly in London during two very long sessions.

36. Grey to Russell, Oct. 25, 1832, Walpole, , Russell, I, 190–91Google Scholar.

37. Melbourne to Anglesey, April 4, 1831; June 30, 1832. Sanders, Lloyd C. (ed.), Lord Melbourne's Papers (London, 1889), pp. 180-81, 185–87Google Scholar.

38. Anglesey to Holland, Oct. 21, 1832, Marquess of Anglesey, One Leg (London, 1961), p. 264Google Scholar. Anglesey favored abolition of tithes, or — if this were not feasible — a system whereby the state collected commuted tithes, paid the clergy, and held any surplus funds in trust for future needs, either clerical or secular. Ibid., p. 264. See also, Anglesey to Graham, Oct. 6, 1832, Parker, Charles S., Life and Letters of Sir James Graham (London, 1907), I, 174Google Scholar.

39. A reluctant Goderich was edged out of the Colonial Office and took the Privy Seal, made vacant by Durham's resignation. At one stage of the negotiations the Duke of Richmond offered to leave the Post Office for Goderich. Stanley was replaced briefly by Sir John Cam Hobhouse who resigned on the question of house and window taxes. Broughton, , Recollections, IV, 250, 258, 265, 274-75, 280-81, 295-96, 298Google Scholar; Grey to Graham, Nov. 3, 1832, Graham to Stanley, Nov. 3, 1832, Grey to Richmond, Nov. 8, 1832, Parker, , Graham, I, 175–78Google Scholar; Grey to Brougham, Dec. 4, 1832, Brougham to Grey, Dec. 5, 1832, Brougham, III, 162–69Google Scholar; Goderich to Grey, Feb. 2, 1833, Ripon Papers, BM, Add. MSS., 40836, fol. 9.

40. 3 Hansard, XV, 561–76Google Scholar. Althorp obviously had available most of the first report of the Commissioners on Ecclesiastical Revenue and Patronage. He estimated the net revenue of the bishops at £130,000, of which £100,000 came from land; in fact it amounted to £151,127, of which £128,808 came from land. Clerical tithes, he said, amounted to between £580,000 and £600,000; they totaled £610,250. He was inaccurate in regard to the revenues of Deans and Chapters, which he thought came to £23,646 gross; in fact, added to the sums due to Prebends and Canons, the gross amounted to £152,606.

41. Sir Francis Burdett made the rather weak statement that the plan was deserving of support for the confidence it would inspire in the people of Ireland. On the other hand, Ruthven, the Radical member for Dublin, thought four bishops would be more satisfactory and moved that a commission be appointed to determine how far the revenues of the Irish Church were expended on the original objects: the clergy, the churches, the poor. 3 Hansard, XV, 587, 594–95Google Scholar. Subsequently, on February 27, two members for Scotland, Wemyss and Gillon, presented petitions that Irish Church revenues be used to lighten the burden of taxation; Barron, noting that the Protestant clergy in gross violation of their oaths left the Irish uneducated, recommended that tithes be appropriated to the support of the poor and the education of the people; O'Dwyer (Drogheda) advised that church property be returned to its original purposes (maintaining the fabric of the churches and supporting the poor) and that six or eight more bishops be eliminated. Ibid., XV, 1191-93. Hume did not speak until March 14, when he tried to prevent the bill from being treated as a tax. Ibid., XV, 663. On April 2 he hoped that Althorp would make no further concessions to the Tories. Ibid., XVI, 44-45.

42. Ibid., XV, 577-78.

43. For his attempts to preserve the abolition of cess, see the debates on May 13 and June 24. Ibid., XVII, 1142; XVIII, 1185. Brose says he sought a guarantee that lessees of church lands would enjoy as favorable terms in purchasing leases as they had in the past and secured an amendment to that effect. Brose, , Church and Parliament, p. 110Google Scholar. The amendment, which was that improvements erected by the tenant should not be considered in determining the price of the lease, was introduced by Lord Oxmanton, who probably held church lands. O'Connell did join with such Tories as Shaw in supporting the change, which was carried by a vote of 85 to 49. On the next division that evening, that Clause 147 stand as part of the bill, the vote was 149 to 280. 3 Hansard, XVIII, 1065-72, 1096Google Scholar.

44. When this came to a vote, however, there were too few Tories in the House for Peel to request a division. Peel to Goulburn, June 18, 1833, Parker, , Peel. II, 221.Google Scholar

45. 3 Hansard, XV, 600–06Google Scholar.

46. Ibid., XV, 608.

47. Ibid., XVI, 1399-1406; XVII, 36-44. Halevy says this change was introduced in the House of Lords. It was at this stage that the Radicals began to consider the bill as one to maintain, rather than reform, the Church of Ireland. O'Connell and Sheil did not speak on this occasion although, later in the evening, they voted on Hume's military flogging measure. Ibid., XVII, 44-49.

48. Ibid., XVII, 1002-03, 1005-07. Althorp answered that the revenue of the Irish bishops was £130,000, and that of the parochial clergy £600,000, while the income of the English bishops and clergy was £160,000 and £3,000,000 respectively, which showed that the funds from the bishops of Ireland would be quite enough for church purposes. He was correct. Three bishops died in 1834 and on August 5 of that year Littleton, Secretary for Ireland, announced that the Perpetuity Purchase Fund contained a surplus of over £2 5,000 for optional purposes. Ibid., XXV, 970.

49. Ibid., XVII, 1000-03.

50. That is to say, about 62% of the Whigs and Radicals voted for the bill, about 52% of the Tories voted against it. Since Peel never seemed able to muster more than about half of his party to support him, and that party was negligible in the Commons, the substantial concessions made to him were the result of his skill in exploiting the weakness of the Government.

51. For the text of the letter, see Brougham, III, 188–89Google Scholar. Greville thought it referred to an adverse vote on Portuguese affairs. Greville, , Memoirs, II, 390–93Google Scholar; III, 10, 14.

52. Sir Herbert Taylor to Brougham, June 16, 1833; June 19, 1833; Grey to Brougham, June 19, 1833, Brougham, III, 190–201Google Scholar.

53. 3 Hansard, XIX, 257–301Google Scholar. For the debates in Lords, see ibid., XIX, 303-07, 550-55, 725-82, 807-82, 918-1016, 1045-54, 1084-1104, 1154-64, 1220-34; XX, 1-4, 50-59, 113-29. For the Whig trepidations about the fate of the bill in the upper house, see Taylor to Brougham, July 14, July 23, July 24, 1833, Brougham, III, 201–05Google Scholar; Palmerston to the Hon. William Temple, June 25, 1833, SirBulwer, Henry Lytton, The Life of Viscount Palmerston (London, 1870), II, 161–65Google Scholar; Greville, , Memoirs, II, 390Google Scholar; III, 8-10, 16-17; Broughton, , Recollections, IV, 316-19, 323–24Google Scholar; Althorp to Spencer July 12, 1833, Le Marchant, , Althorp, 473–74Google Scholar; SirMaxwell, Herbert (ed.), The Creevey Papers (New York, 1903), II, 255-56, 258Google Scholar.

The majority in favor of the appropriation clause — 239 — plus the majority willing to consent to its abandonment — 131 — indicates that most members felt less strongly on the issues involved than on the survival of the ministry.

54. [Rev.O'Sullivan, Mortimer,] Thoughts on Tithes by a Munster Farmer (Dublin, 1824), 9–14Google Scholar; A Letter on the State of Ireland in 1825 by an Irish Magistrate (Dublin, 1825), 118Google Scholar; Townsend, Thomas S., Facts and Circumstances Relating to the Condition of the Irish Clergy (Dublin, 1832), 48–49Google Scholar; Some Reflections of a Church of England Man on the Conduct of a Chief Secretary for Ireland (London, 1832), 13–20Google Scholar; Commons Second Report on Tithes in Ireland, Parliamentary Papers (1831–1832), XXI, 470Google Scholar (Testimony of James Weale, Clerk of Woods and Forests); Graham to Stanley, July 3, 1834, Parker, , Graham, I, 206–07Google Scholar; Stanley to Ripon, July 25, 1834, Ripon Papers, 40863, fol. 122-27.

55. Brougham, III, 222-27, 280–83Google Scholar.

56. What Russell claimed to have said, and what Hansard reports is: “if there ever were a just ground of complaint on the part of any people against any grievance, it was the complaint of the people of Ireland against the present appropriation of tithes….” What Stanley heard was, “if ever a nation had a right to complain of any grievance, it is the people of Ireland of the Church of Ireland.” This difference could be explained, however; what is significant is that Russell was forced into a position where he would have to vote against that part of the Tithe Bill which made it acceptable to defenders of the Church. 3 Hansard, XXIII, 664–66Google Scholar; Greville, , Memoirs, III, 100–01Google Scholar; Parker, , Graham, I, 186–87Google Scholar; John, , Russell, Earl, Recollections and Suggestions: 1813-1873 (London, 1875), pp. 118–21Google Scholar.

57. Maxwell, , Creevey, II, 273–75Google Scholar; Broughton, , Recollections, IV, 340.Google Scholar Best says that the conflict between Paley's majority principle with the crowning Whig virtue of “manly love of rational liberty” exploded violently in 1834 and blew Stanley, Graham, Richmond, and Ripon out of the ministry. Best, , “Whigs and Church Establishment,” History, XLV (1960), 115–16Google Scholar. But it blew out only one Whig (Stanley) and the Derby Dilly remained with only three insides. For the details on Stanley's position between May, 1834, and December, 1837 (when he joined the Tories), see, Jones, Wilbur D., Lord Derby and Victorian Conservatism (Athens, Ga., 1956), pp. 43–70Google Scholar.

58. 3 Hansard, XXXIII, 1376–1400Google Scholar; Palmerston to W. Temple, June 27, 1834, Bulwer, , Palmerston, II, 194–97Google Scholar; Greville, , Memoirs, III, 89–90;Google ScholarLe Marchant, , Althorp, pp. 486–88Google Scholar; Parker, , Graham, I, 190–92Google Scholar; Russell, , Recollections, pp. 121–22Google Scholar.

59. Brougham, III, 257-58, 260–61Google Scholar; Maxwell, , Creevey, II, 276.Google Scholar

60. There was already a Commission of Ecclesiastical Inquiry which was engaged in inquiring into the practicability of dissolving unions of parishes in Ireland with the object of doing away with all sinecures and putting the incumbents in the parishes out of which they derived their income, but the number of Protestants in each parish and the manner in which duties were fulfilled were not subject to inquiry. Lords Minutes of Evidence, Collection of Tithes, Parliamentary Papers (1831–1832), CCCV, 160, 165–67Google Scholar; testimony of John Caillard Erck, Secretary to the Commissioners.

61. William IV to Sir Robert Peel, April 4, 1835, Peel Papers, 40303, fol. 143-152.

62. 3 Hansard, XXIV, 10–86 (June 2, 1834)Google Scholar.

63. Ibid., XXIV, 1137-1211 (July 4, 1834). It was on this occasion that Stanley made his famous thimble-rig speech.

64. Reeve, Henry (ed.), Memoir and Correspondence Relating to Political Occurrences in June and July 1834 by Edward John Littleton (London, 1872)Google Scholar; Brougham, III, 263–70Google Scholar; Maxwell, , Creevey, II, 287–88Google Scholar.

65. William IV to Viscount Melbourne, July 9, 1834, Peel Papers, 40303, fol. 192-94.

66. Ibid., fol. 195.

67. Ibid., fol. 196.

68. Melbourne to William IV, July 10, 1834, Peel Papers, 40303, fol. 198-202.

69. Melbourne to William IV, July 15, 1834. Ibid., fol. 205-09.

70. William IV to Melbourne, July 15, 1834. Ibid., fol. 211-14. Stanley had done this last with the Irish Church Temporalities Act and the Coercion Act of 1833.

71. 3 Hansard, XXV, 755–74Google Scholar; the vote was 82-33. The Cabinet, apart from Lansdowne, did not consider the change important. Broughton, , Recollections, IV, 359–60Google Scholar; Spring Rice to Sir Herbert Taylor, July 31, 1834, Monteagle Papers, 550, fol. 48-49.

72. Turberville, , House of Lords, 344–46Google Scholar. Here Turberville followed Greville but without, I think, understanding that by “the bill in its original shape” was meant the bill with its redemption clauses and with the capital of the Perpetuity Purchase Fund (but not the interest on it) still allocated to church purposes. See Graham's account of Peel's recommendation for restoration of the original bill in early July, and Stanley's detailed analysis of the objectionable changes five days before O'Connell introduced his amendment. Greville, , Memoirs, III, 120–21Google Scholar; Graham to Stanley, July 3, 1834, Parker, , Graham, I, 206–07Google Scholar; Stanley to Ripon, July 25, 1834, Ripon Papers, 40863, fol. 122-27.

73. 3 Hansard, XXV, 1143–1204Google Scholar. Among those who voted against the bill was the Bishop of Hereford, Grey's brother.

74. Lord Spencer left a debt of £470,000 and Althorp had to retrench by renting Spencer House and residing in the country. Spring Rice to Lansdowne, Dec. 7, 1834, Monteagle Papers, 546, fol. 43-50; Spencer to Russell, Dec. 4, 1834, Russell, Rollo (ed.), Eaily Correspondence of Lord John Russell (London, 1913), II, 63–65Google Scholar; Spencer to Holland, Feb. 9, 1835, Le Marchant, , Althorp, pp. 534–36Google Scholar.

75. Melbourne to William IV, Nov. 10, 1834, Peel Papers, 40303, fol. 215.

76. Melbourne to William IV, Nov. 11, 1834, Peel Papers 40303, fol. 219-20.

77. Melbourne to Althorp [sic] Nov. 11, 1834; Torrens, , Melbourne, p. 307Google Scholar.

78. William IV to Melbourne, Nov. 11, 1834, Peel Papers, 40303, fol. 217.

79. Melbourne to William IV, Nov. 12, 1834, ibid., fol 221-22; see also, Sanders, , Melbourne's Papers, pp. 219–21Google Scholar.

80. William IV to Melbourne, Nov. 12, 1834, Peel Papers, 40303, fol. 223-26; see also, Sanders, , Melbourne's Papers, pp. 221–22Google Scholar.

81. Cowper to Lieven, Nov. 13, 1834, Sudley, Lord (ed.), The Lieven-Palmerston Correspondence: 1828-1856 (London, 1943), p. 60Google Scholar. The first, she thought, was not yet capable of undertaking it, the second was too delicate, and the third had already too much work on his hands. Lady Cowper was Melbourne's sister and a close associate of Palmerston, whom she married in December, 1839.

82. Torrens, , Melbourne, p. 309Google Scholar; Le Marchant, , Althorp, pp. 524–25Google Scholar; Russell, , Recollections, p. 131Google Scholar.

83. Monteagle Papers, 546, fol. 122.

84. Palmerston to W. Temple, Nov. 16, 1834, Bulwer, , Palmerston, II, 207–11Google Scholar.

85. Spring Rice to Lansdowne, Dec. 7, 1834, Monteagle Papers, 546, fol. 43-50. Rice is narrating a conversation he had with Althorp in London a day or so before.

86. Russell, , Recollections, p. 130Google Scholar. For those who had less warmth of expression about the appointment, see Creevey to Miss Ord, Nov. 15, 1834, Maxwell, , Creevey, II, 296;Google Scholar Grey to Russell, Nov. 15, 1834, Russell, , Correspondence, II, 56;Google Scholar Stanley to Ripon, Nov. 20, 1832, Ripon Papers, 40863, fol. 130-32.

87. For this, see Duke of Wellington to Peel, Nov. 15, 1834, SirPeel, Robert, Memoirs (London, 1856), II, 18–20Google Scholar; Greville, , Memoirs, III, 154–55Google Scholar (Lyndhurst's account, Nov. 17), pp. 164-67 (Wharncliffe's, Nov. 27), pp. 167-70 (Wellington's, Nov. 28), pp. 173-74 (Hardinge's, Dec. 2).

88. Broughton, , Recollections, V, 25;Google Scholar Palmerston to Stockmar, Nov. 15, 1834, von Stockmar, Baron E., Memoirs of Baron Stockmar (London, 1872), I, 307–11Google Scholar; Palmerston to W. Temple, Nov. 16, 1834, Bulwer, , Palmerston, II, 207–11Google Scholar; Cowper to Lieven, Nov. 18, 1834, Sudley, , Cowper-Lieven, pp. 62–63Google Scholar; Greville, , Memoirs, III, 147-50, 151 163–64Google Scholar. This may be why many of the Whigs considered that the King had been frightened by the quarrel between Durham and Brougham in September and October.

89. Peel Papers, 40303, fol. 229 (Private memorandum written by order of His Majesty and signed by him but not comm [sic] to L. Melbourne, Nov. 14, 1834). In a memorandum to Peel in January of 1835 William stated that Duncannon had proposed suspending benefices without cure of souls [Stockmar, , Memoirs, I, 314–50Google Scholar]. Duncannon, who was “slow, cautious, shrewd, and conciliatory,” was more trusted by the King than any of the other Whigs [Reid, Stuart J., Life and Letters of the First Earl of Durham (London, 1906), I, 236–37Google Scholar]. Possibly this is why he reacted so strongly to the suggestion.

90. Peel Papers, 40303, fol. 230-31 (Private Memorandum by William IV, Nov. 14, 1834). Note that William does not say Melbourne told him that Lansdowne and Spring Rice might retire.

91. Ibid., fol. 230-31.

92. Peel Papers, 40303, fol. 227-28 (Autograph from the King to Viscount Melbourne). This differs slightly from the version in Sanders, , Melbourne's Papers, pp. 222–23Google Scholar.

93. Stanley wrote Ripon that he doubted the accuracy of his intelligence that Melbourne had offered three persons to the King. Stanley to Ripon, Nov. 20, 1834, Ripon Papers, 40863, 130-32.

94. Stockmar, , Memoirs, I, 329.Google Scholar

95. Stockmar, , Memoirs, I, 330.Google Scholar William added that he did not conceal from Melbourne that the injudicious and extravagant conduct of Brougham had tended to shake his confidence in the course which might be pursued by the administration. See also, Sanders, , Melbourne's Papers, pp. 224–26Google Scholar. Melbourne to Grey, Nov. 14, 1834. Another reference to this is in a letter of March 30, 1835, when the King told Peel he saw in the coalition of opponents of the Government elements of division and discord and he cited, as proof, what happened in the previous session of Parliament and the language in recess of those “whose support and following were indispensible.” Peel Papers, 40303, fol. 112-24.

96. Palmerston to W. Temple, Nov. 16, 1834, Bulwer, , Palmerston, II, 209–10Google Scholar; Russell, , Recollections, p. 132Google Scholar; Rice to Grey, Nov. 23, 1834, Rice to Lansdowne, Nov. 23, 1834, Rice to Sligo, Nov. 23, 1834, Monteagle Papers, 546, fol. 2-6.

97. Russell, , Correspondence, II, 46–47.Google Scholar

98. Crawford, W. Sharmon, Observations on the Irish Tithe Bill (Dundalk, 1835), pp. 7–8Google Scholar; Inglis, Henry D., Ireland in 1834 (London, 1834), II, 208–10Google Scholar. It is true that on June 26, 1835, the Whigs did bring in a bill which proposed to suspend appointments to benefices where the number of Protestants did not exceed fifty. Meanwhile, however, there had been an election in which the Tories had taken over the Whig principles of church reform (on this see, Cowper to Lieven, January 1835; Sudley, , Cowper-Lieven, pp. 75–76Google Scholar) and in which both Tories and Radicals had increased their numbers at the expense of the Whigs. Consequently, the ministry had to go beyond what the Tories had considered acceptable, and had to court the Radicals, who did want the adoption of the number principle.

99. Greville, , Memoirs, III, 145.Google Scholar

100. Rice to Northampton, June 26, 1834, Monteagle Papers, 550, fol. 8-9; see also fol. 10-11 (Rice to Gen. Bourke, June 26, 1834). Just before Parliament met Russell and Rice defined their positions once again; in this, Rice did not change his views. Russell to Rice, Jan. 23, 1835, Rice to Russell, Jan. 29, 1835, Russell, , Correspondence, II, 74-75, 79–81.Google Scholar

101. 2 Hansard X, 1388–90Google Scholar; XI, 68. See also the testimony of his agent, J. R. Price before the 1832 committee on the disturbed districts in Ireland. When asked about including tithe in the rent charge Price warned, “I think it would be very dangerous to tie the dead carcass to the living body.” Commons Report on State of Ireland, Parliamentary Papers (1831–1832), XVI, 431.Google Scholar

102. Le Marchant, , Althorp, pp. 488–89Google Scholar; Parker, , Graham, I, 190–92Google Scholar; Broughton, , Recollections, IV, 356.Google Scholar

103. Broughton, , Recollections, IV, 360.Google Scholar At this time Althorp said of him, rather unfairly in view of the superior condition of the tenantry upon the Lansdowne estates, that he was an Irish landlord and whenever his pecuniary interests interfered his opinion was sure to be swayed by them.

104. Taylor to Peel, March 4, 1835, Peel Papers, 40303, fol. 54-55.

105. Torrens, , Melbourne, pp. 299–300Google Scholar.

106. 3 Hansard, XVIII, 1094–96Google Scholar.

107. Greville, , Memoirs, III, 148.Google Scholar