§ On the motion for the recommittal of this bill,
Lord Porchesterargued against the bill, on the ground that while it violated the 142 rights of the church, it would afford no relief to the great body of the curates themselves. The object of the bill was not to augment the income of those who most wanted it; but to raise the value of a few curacies, while the greater number of those who entered holy orders were left precisely as before. To relieve these he should be perfectly willing, if it could be done; but the causes of the poverty of many of them were, first, the poverty of the benefices themselves; and secondly, the great number who pressed into holy orders without the prospect of any provision at all, except a trifling and precarious curacy. He observed, that this raising the incomes of a few curates would have no other effect, than that of inducing many more than the present average number to enter into holy orders, and by that means the poverty of the whole would be increased rather than diminished. His objection went to the principle of the bill altogether, and he should therefore move as an amendment that it be re-committed this day three months.
§ Mr. Windhamhad carefully applied himself to the examination of the bill, and the result was that he thought it very injudicious, very pernicious in point of principle, and inefficient as to any good practical purpose. He remarked, that two views were entertained of the nature of church property; the one was, that it was inviolable, like private property; the other, that it was merely to be considered in the nature of a salary for a particular duty, and that the legislature might interfere with it and alter it with as little ceremony as the salaries of any public office. He thought that neither of these two propositions was just in its full extent. He was disposed to concur in the theory of the right hon. gent., that it was inviolable like private property; but that the legislature had a right to interfere, so far as to provide that the duties attached to it were performed. But then he asserted, that the meddling with this property, in the manner proposed by the bill, was dangerous to the church establishment; for the bill seemed to be founded on the principle maintained by those who held that all those clergymen, who were not employed in parish duties, were useless members of that establishment. The law allowed pluralities. Clergymen, therefore, could not always reside on their livings; and attaching penalties to that which the law permitted, he contended, was unjust. It also seemed to proceed on the supposition, that the number of curates was limited. This was not the case; and the augmenting a few curacies would only bring a greater number into holy orders, and by that means increase the distress of the whole. On the whole, the bill went to a dangerous violation of church property, without any chance of improving the general condition of the curates.
§ Dr. Laurenceargued, that there was danger in almost every view in which the measure in question could be taken.
The Solicitor Generalsupported the bill, as a measure that was best adapted to the welfare of the church.
§ Mr. Whitbreadwould vote for the bill being committed. The only objection he had to it was that it did not go far enough.—The house then divided upon lord Porchester's amendment. Ayes, 11; Noes, 94; Majority, 83.