APPROPRIATION CLAUSES, THE. This was the name by which, while the discussion continued, reference was usually made to an important question which occupied a large share of the attention of the legislature and of the public between the years 1833 and 1838. The expectation that the state of Ireland would improve after the passing of the Catholic emancipation and reform acts, had turned out to be fallacious. Among other grave causes of 'complaint left untouched by these measures, was the collection of tithes by the Established church, and from that cause proceeded very many of the evils with which Ireland was then afflicted. To such an extent was the antipathy to tithes carried, that a clergyman who ventured to exact payment by legal measures in the exclusively Catholic counties, did so at the risk of his life. Several clergymen had actually been assassinated, and others were so unpopular that the utility of the Irish church in three fourths of Ireland was almost destroyed. This was a state of matters which could not be permitted to last. Coercive measures had been tried, and had failed to produce any amelioration. The remedies which then suggested themselves were three: First, the commutation of tithes into a rent-charge upon land; second, the reduction of the number of sinecures in the Irish Protestant church; and third, the appropriation of the surplus revenues of that church to the advancement of the general education of the people.
Time first of these measures the liberal cabinet of 1833 attempted, but—from leaving the commutation to take place at the option of the landlord—carried into effect in a manner so unsatisfactory, that no good whatever resulted. The second was carried out with more success. The Irish church temporalities act struck off two archbishoprics, ten bishoprics, and various sinecures, and applied the revenues thus acquired chiefly to supply the place of an impost called " vestry ccss" (analogous to church-rates), which was abolished. This act, however, still left the church with an income greatly dispro portioned to the number of her adherents. The cabinet was divided in regard to the
third measure, a majority being in favor of the principle of appropriation, and a minority, consisting of the Irish secretary, Mr. Stanley (afterwards earl of Derby), Sir James Graham, lord Ripon, and another, being opposed to it. The minority had influence enough to prevent government from espousing the principle, and even to procure the abandonment of the 147th clause of the church temporalities bill, because the opposition asserted, though incorrectly, that it virtually embodied the principle. This was the first of the A. C.
In the following year, 1834. it had become fully apparent that the tithe act of 1833 had failed, and the state of Ireland rendered it more imperative than ever to settle the tithe question. Mr. Ward, throughout a steady supporter of the principle of appropri ation, moved in the house of commons, on 27th May, 1834, "that it was right that time state should regulate the distribution of church property in such a manner as parliament might determine." This raised the whole question of appropriation, and that greatly to the annoyance of ministers. The split in the cabinet was well known not to have been healed, and while Mr. Ward was speaking, news reached lord Ahhorp that the minority had resigned. This stopped the debate for the night. The ministers left in office found themselves relieved of a portion of their difficulties, but as they were aware that the king was strongly opposed to the appropriation principle, and that there was no prospect of the house of lords assenting to it, they were most anxious to find some means to delay committing themselves in the matter. A commission was accordingly appointed to col lect information; and on June 2d, lord Althorp met the commons, impressed on them how useless it was to discuss a mere abstract principle, and on Mr. Ward's refusing to withdraw his motion, moved and carried the previous question by a large majority.