HC Deb 16 May 1808 vol 11 cc277-85
Sir John Newport

rose, in pursuance of his notice, to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the more equal valuation of the revenue of the First Fruits in Ireland, and for the due collection thereof. In doing this, the right hon. gent. took occasion to state the grounds upon which he proceeded. By the Returns made by the Archbishop of Cashel, the whole annual amount of the First Fruits at present collected was merely 350l. per annum, a sum wholly inadequate to the object originally in the view of the legislature, which was the augmenting the benefices, and otherwise improving the livings of the poorer clergy. It was on that account that he wished to render more effectual what the bounty of the crown had destined for such a benevolent purpose. It would be sufficient to state to the house, that a large proportion of the parishes in Ireland were not at all valued, and therefore contributed nothing towards the ob- ject in view. He might reckon, that there were 1,500 parishes, whose First Fruits were valued, while there were about 900 remaining still unvalued. The valuations had taken place at so early a period as the reign of queen Anne, and therefore bore no proportion to what they now ought to be. It was his intention to propose that the payment of the First Fruits should not attach to any living that did not amount to 250l. per annum.—From every calculation he had been able to make, it appeared to him that the revenues of the First Fruits, when properly valued and collected throughout all the different parishes, after deducting all expences, would produce between 20,000l. and 30,000l. per annum. This sum would be the means of increasing the poorer benefices of Ireland; and he thought it would be more proper in the legislature to look to this mode of making that fund productive, than to pay out of the treasury a sum of money for that purpose, which would affect the body of the people, without any reason or ground being first laid down. It should not affect any of the present incumbents, so as to be a burden upon them. Upon the whole, he could not help thinking that the measures which he proposed would be attended with very salutary and most beneficial consequences. The right hon. baronet then concluded with moving for leave to bring in the said bill.

Sir A. Wellesley

opposed the motion, He said he believed the valuation that now existed had taken place in the reign of Henry 8, and one great consideration now was, whether the clergy were not in general already sufficiently provided for? He thought, at least, that there were many already sufficiently provided for, while others were not so; but the measure now proposed would go to benefit them all equally. It was true that many of the clergy did not pay the First Fruits, but the inequality in that instance was so exceedingly small, that it was not worth while to alter the valuation; the more especially as there were other funds for enlarging glebe houses in Ireland; and the sum now proposed to be granted in addition for that purpose, not being very large, he believed the house would think with him, that there was no ground for agreeing to this bill.

Mr. C. Wynne

said, he certainly thought the object of the proposed bill was of such a nature, that every one ought to agree to it. The right hon. general did not deny that the benefices in Ireland were exceedingly unequal; the superior clergy being well provided for, and the inferior not so. That appeared to him to be the chief, if not the sole ground for this bill. Its object was to obtain the First Fruits revenue in the manner originally intended, and to apply it for the advantage of the smaller description of the clergy. His right hon. friend had stated, that he meant to exclude those clergymen from payment of the first-fruits, whose benefices did not amount to 250l. a year. He was as much disposed as any man to resist an innovation upon church property, but this was a decided payment, which, from the earliest times, the church had been liable to; and all that was aimed at was, a new valuation, to which they were by law to be subjected. The crown had wisely and liberally granted this in the reign of queen Anne, for purposes the most useful and the most important, and parliament were now only called upon to give efficacy to former legislative measures, which had become as it were a dead letter, and an unavailing instance of generosity. It was a perpetual fund, which would increase from year to year. The chancellor of the exchequer had formerly said, that it was desirable that every resident clergyman in this country should not have less than 200l. a year. He thought this would also be extremely desirable in Ireland, and it would be the best mode of discouraging the Roman Catholic religion. This was exactly such a measure as would raise the respectability, of the Protestant Church.

Mr Foster

said, that the proposed bill would go to tax the clergy between 20,000l. and 30,000l.; the First Fruits now only producing about 3000l. The taking of 30,000l. out of the pockets of the clergy was an object of such magnitude, and so injurious, that he could not agree to it.

Mr Horner

said, he owned he felt much surprise at the opposition that had been made to this measure, the more especially when it was made upon a motion merely to bring in the bill. After the discussions that had already taken place in that house upon measures brought forward by the chancellor of the exchequer to encourage the residence of the clergy in England, he could not help thinking it was equally desirable to encourage that residence in Ireland. Gentlemen appeared to oppose this bill upon wrong principles and misstatements, as the object of it was not, as they alleged, to impose a tax upon the clergy, but to effect an equalization of the smaller livings and to levy that, which the clergy were already bound by former acts to bestow in a more impartial manner. He denied the proposition that the former valuation was to be the standard of future proceedings. The trustees had the power of renewing that valuation whenever it became necessary. As he understood it, the English act of parliament of the 28th of Henry 8th, was extended to Ireland, and by it a valuation was to take place, from time to time, by the keeper of the great seal, the master of the rolls, and other officers therein named. So from this it appeared, that the statute law of the united kingdom empowered the crown to make this valuation. Such was the avowed object of the present bill, and it should have his hearty support, as it could never be supposed that the sum of 3000l. a-year was all that ever was in view to be raised by the bounty in question.

Dr. Duigenan

opposed the measure. He insisted that the bill went to raise a revenue out of the pockets of the clergy of Ireland, under the idea that it would promote their interest, by first taxing them in order to procure the fund. The churches of Ireland and of England were declared to be one and indivisible, and therefore why put the clergy of Ireland upon a different footing from those in England? If there were to be any new valuation, it ought to extend to England as well as to Ireland. A bill similar to this one had been proposed in the house of lords some years ago, by a great and eminent prelate, but it was soon quashed. It would reduce the clergy in Ireland, great and small of them, to the greatest distress, if such a bill as this passed the house. It would be a charge almost insupportable, as a poor man would be nearly 3 years before he could reap any benefit from the glebe house he might have erected. Although those who opposed this measure were alledged to be wrong in point of law, yet he could inform its supporters, that it was formerly complained of as a great grievance, when Henry 8 abolished the Pope's power in this country, a new valuation of the First Fruits was made for the king's benefit. Nevertheless this fund was not the property of the crown at all; so that neither the keeper of the great seal, nor the master of the rolls, could at all exercise any controul over it. It was a fund purely belonging to the poorer clergy. The bounty of the crown was only 5000l. a-year for this benevolent purpose. Upon the whole, although more was now thought necessary, yet this, of all others, would be the hardest mode of raising it; and he trusted such a tax upon the clergy would never be entertained by the house of commons.

Mr. Ponsonby

said, that it was quite an erroneous statement to say that this measure was to raise a tax upon the clergy to the amount of 30,000l. a-year. It did not do so; but the effect of it would be merely to raise from the higher order of the clergy that which the legislature had wisely bestowed upon the poorer, without inflicting any additional taxation upon the people at large. The measure was purely prospective, calling on the great preferments in Ireland to contribute a certain proportion to support those of the clergy who have not wherewithal to live upon. His right hon. friend did not, in the bill for which he then asked leave, take upon himself to fix any estimate, or to apportion the amount this fund ought to pay for pious purposes. It solely proceeded upon this fair and equitable principle, that those of the ecclesiastical order, who received a great deal out of the church of Ireland, ought to be compelled to advance something towards the support of such of their own order, who scarce had what was necessary for the purposes of life. The objections of the learned doctor (Duigenan) were anticipated by the statement of his right hon. friend. The learned doctor had asserted that it would, in its operation, load the clergy of Ireland with an exorbitant amount of taxation. The answer was, that the amount was solely left to the discretion of the house; the bill did not take upon itself to fix even any scale of appropriation. But the principle was necessary, and when acknowleged, then it was for the house to settle the detail. That the principle was necessary, every man acquainted with the state of Ireland must admit. There were, to his own knowledge, two bishoprics, each producing an income of 20,000l. per annum, and neither of which paid a single farthing, to the fund of First Fruits. Would any man then say, that a new valuation was not necessary, and that such preferment ought not to contribute to the maintenance and augmented comforts of the poor of their own order? It was far from the fact to say, that the proposed bill was an innovation, or that it trenched upon the rights of the Irish clergy. It only followed up an old and sanctioned law of the country, and was calculated to advance the interests of the established religion in that country. There was no man in that house less inclined to trench upon the property of the church, because he felt it had as good a title to security as any other species of possession. This bill had no such object, it did not attempt to apply that species of property to any foreign purpose. It was not to serve the laity, but to provide a due provision for those of their own calling, to whom, both a sense of interest for religion, and a feeling of sound policy, ought to administer competency and comfort. The learned doctor had argued, that, because some years ago, a reverend prelate had been unsuccessful in a measure similar to the present, therefore the motion of his right hon. friend ought to be refused. Such an inference was totally inconclusive; as the usage of parliament never could warrant this doctrine, that it should, on all subsequent occasions, refuse the adoption of a measure, merely because previous parliaments did not feel the propriety of acceding to some of a similar nature. The provisions of the proposed bill would be fully within the controul of the house, although it should accede to the present motion. But if, on the contrary, the house should, in the present stage, determine on the impropriety of submitting it to parliamentary discussion, then it would have adopted this principle, that in the regulation of the church all interference was improper. What would the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer say to such doctrine? He who felt so warmly the necessity of some measure of church reform, and had actually before the house a measure of legislation, which went to take from the property of the rector of a living of 250l. a-year? He had descanted upon the justice and propriety of such a reform. He had allowed no fear of innovation nor apprehension of disturbing or burdening church property, to interfere, or to retard this his favourite scheme; and surely if there was any parity in reasoning, or any consistency to be pursued, he must feel the necessity and the justice of the bill which his right hon. friend had now asked leave to introduce.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

observed, that he was by no means inclined to retract or to qualify any one opinion which he had advanced in the support of the measure (the Stipendiary Curates' bill) to which the last speaker adverted; still he considered the bill now proposed a most oppressive mode of regulation, burdening the clergy with a severe imposition of taxation. In this country it was felt, upon a person being preferred to a bishopric or great living, that at least the product of three or four years of his income was anticipated by the expenses which, on his induction, he had to defray.

Mr. Maurice Fitzgerald

(Knight of Kerry) advised the chancellor of the exchequer to pause before he rejected a measure which, if refused, must lead to a full investigation of the state in which the Irish church was. placed. He proved, from an historical review, that the act of Queen Anne, by which the fund of first fruits were made available to the erection of glebe houses, and to the promotion of pious purposes, had been received by the clergy of that age as a great boon; so much so, that there existed a great competition with respect to the organ through which they should convey their thanks to the throne. There was no man who so well knew the necessity for the proposed measure as the learned doctor. He knew the deficiency of glebe houses in Ireland, and that such deficiency was, at all visitations, the pretext and excuse for the non-residence of the clergy. Was the house only to recognize this doctrine, that whilst the unhappy peasant of Ireland was oppressed with burdens and extreme taxation, the great, enormous, and lucrative incomes of the clergy, were not to pay any proportion, even to the support of the poor of their own order? The livings in Ireland had been united for political purposes; indeed, their object appeared to be rather to procure situations for political partisans, in place of provisions for religious pastors, and the diminutions of the Protestants in that country was principally to be attributed to that system of policy. He concluded by assuring the house, that the refusal of the present measure would provoke a discussion, which would perhaps be not the most serviceable to the interests of the Church establishment in Ireland.

Sir John Newport

replied to the objections of those who opposed his motion. He wished to know upon what grounds the house could refuse a measure, which only went to make a fund, fixed by parliamentary enactment, for the purpose of building glebe-houses in Ireland, avaliable to the import of the statute of queen Anne, and to the object of the parliament, by which that law was passed? The objections of that night were against the detail, and must have been created only for the purpose of making objections, as in his statement he had given no reason for such apprehensions. The learned doctor (Duigenan) had asserted that the present bill would severely affect small livings, although it had been previously stated, that it was not intended to include such benefices within its influence and operation. The same authority next proceeded to assert, that although the power of ordering the valuation of the Church property, and raising the fund of First Fruits, had been originally with the crown, yet it had been subsequently given up, and that no such valuation had taken place since the reign of Henry the 8th. But it was surprising to find that right hon. and learned doctor so grossly misinformed on a subject on which, at least, he ought to be accurate. If he would revert to the history of those times, he would find that a valuation took place in the reign of the first James; and that Montgomery, a patriotic and liberal divine, then bishop of Meath, had exerted himself to procure the proceeds of certain forfeited property in the province of Ulster, not for his own private emolument, but to augment the comforts, and to increase the happiness and respectability of the poorer clergy of his own see. If he extended his inquiries to more modern times, the learned doctor would find, that the 9th of Queen Anne was recognized and confirmed by a legislative provision in the reign of George I. The house, before it rejected the present motion, ought to reflect, that it went merely to compel the application of funds only to the purposes for which such funds were originally, intended. The right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer was much alarmed at calling upon the clergy, by a small appropriation of their immense revenues, to support the respectability of their own brethren, but he had no compunction for the sufferings of the burdened people of Ireland, when he called upon them to pay 50,000l. for that very purpose. This very session such a grant had been made, and such an impost levied on the people. Was it not naturally to be expected, that the people, already groaning under the immense weight of taxation, would reason thus: 'Before you, the house of commons, have a right to tax upon us an impost of 50,000l. for the purpose of erecting glebe houses, and of supporting the poorer clergy, does it not at least become your duty to inquire if any, and what funds exist by law, which without any addition to our enormous burdens, can be made available to that purpose? We know, that by the bounty of the crown such a fund does exist for that application, and surely there is neither justice, nor policy, nor reason, in calling upon us for further sacrifices, whilst, by the law of the land and the bounty of the crown, there exists at this moment a fixed and settled fund for that necessary and desirable purpose.' It had been asked, why confine this proposed bill to Ireland, and not extend it to this country? There were these two plain reasons for that limitation; first, that in this country there was no necessity for a new valuation of the livings, because the fund of First Fruits was competent to its object; and next, that there was no application upon the people of this country, as there was made upon the people of Ireland, to furnish such a sum as 50,000l. for that purpose.

The house then divided on the motion for leave to bring in the bill, when the numbers were: Ayes 50; Noes 67; Majority against the motion 17.