Commons Sitting of 8 May 1832

MINUTES.
Bill brought in.—By Mr. MACKINNON, to Re peal the Usury Laws.
Committee appointed.—On the Motion of Sir ROBERT INGLIS, to Inquire into the State of the Library of the House of Commons.
Petitions presented. By Mr. GOULBURN, from Colgrave, Hicking, and Overbroughton, Notts;—by Mr. J. E. GORDON, from Temple Michael, and six other Places in Ireland;—and by Mr.ANDREW JOHNSTON, from Stirling,—against the Ministerial Plan of Education in Ireland.—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from Balmahony, and Donamine,—for the Abolition of Tithes in Ireland; from the Political Union, Birmingham, to postpone the Consideration of the subject of Irish Tithes, and of all other Subjects, until the meeting of a new Parliament under the Reform Bill; from Einley, for an Investigation into the Conduct of Dr. Fitzgerald; and from the Royal College of Surgeons (Dublin), not to extend the Anatomy Bill to Ireland.—By Lord SANDON, from J. Todd Naylor, Deputy Chairman of the Mexican and South American Association at Liverpool, complaining of the recent Directions to demand the South-Sea Duty, and for Relief.—By Mr. PIGOTT, from Quainton, Dinton, and Marston, to enable a certain Majority of the Ratepayers of ally Parish to adopt Plans for the Employment of the Able-bodied Poor.—By Sir JOHN NEWPORT, from Waterford, to Abolish the New Vestries Act; from Harbour Grace, Conception Bay, Newfoundland, for a Representative Local Legislature for that Island.—By Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON, from Port Glasgow, to be joined to Greenock in sending a Member to Parliament under the Reform of Parliament (Scotland) Bill;—and from Kirkudbright, against the Hypothec (Scotland), Bill.—By Mr. HUME, from the Parish of St. Pancras (Middlesex), to include the whole Parish in the proposed Borough of Marylebone; from Walsall, against any Grant to the Irish Clergy; from the Crape Manufacturers of Great Yarmouth, against the Factories Regulations Bill; from the Wick and Pulteney-town Subscription Library, against all Taxes on Knowledge; from the Protestant Dissenters of Beominster, against Tithes; from certain
752
Booksellers, for the Repeal of the Duty on Newspapers, &c.; and from William Carpenter, against the Act of 60 George 3rd, cap. 9.—By Mr. FYSHE PALMER, from the Congregation of Castle Street Chapel, Reading, against the Punishment of Death for Crimes against Property.—By LORD NUGENT, from Horsham;—and by Mr. THICKNESSE, from Blackburn, and Ampthill,—for the same object.—By Mr. WARBURTON, from the National Political Union, in favour of the Anatomy Bill.—By Mr. JOHN WYNN, from Galway, for a Provision in the Reform Bill to secure the Peculiar Franchise of Galway.—By Mr. SPRING RICE, from the Parishes of St. Edmund and St. David, Exeter, against the Exeter and Crediton Railway Bill.

COURTS OF REQUEST.
Mr. Huntmoved for certain papers relating to the Courts of Request held in and for London, Westminster, and Southwark, and for Middlesex and Surrey. The papers he wished for, were Returns of the number of cases decided in these Courts within one month. He should have extended the period for the Returns still further, but that he understood there would be some difficulty in making the Returns, on account of the number of cases decided. His object in moving for them was, to show how the power of arrest for debt was abused in this country, and how much injustice was committed on the poor man by means of these Courts. The hon. Member concluded by moving for a "Return of all cases heard and determined in the several Courts of Request in the cities of London and Westminster, in the borough of Southwark and parts adjacent, in the counties of Middlesex and Surrey, including the Palace Court and that of the Tower Hamlets, for one month, ending the 31st of December, 1831, specifying all the judgments made in each Court, the amount of each claim, the sum awarded, and stating whether paid, whether the party was distrained upon, or sent to prison; stating the amount of fees paid in each case, and the length of imprisonment adjudged in each case; also stating what salaries are paid to each of the officers, and the amount in hand, if any."
Mr. John Campbellsaid, it was impossible for any one to object to the Motion of the hon. Member, except that it was confined to too short a space of time. There could be no doubt, that the greatest injustice was often practised through the means of the power of imprisoning for debt; and, for his part, he wished, that the hon. Member had extended his Motion to returns of this sort from all the Courts in the country.
Mr. Lennardperfectly agreed with the hon. and learned Member, that the Returns ought to be general, and that the House should determine what was the number of

753
persons throughout the country liable to be imprisoned for small debts. He had, some years ago, brought this subject under their consideration; and, from Returns then made, it appeared, that, in one of the chief Courts of this kind, the number of cases decided in a single year amounted to above 18,000, although the Court only sat two days in a week; thus giving an average of between 170 and 180 for each day. It was quite impossible to believe, that these cases could be at all considered with care, and he had no doubt, that great injustice was often done to parties in these Courts. Indeed, he believed he might refer to the right hon. Baronet opposite for a confirmation of his opinion, since, if he recollected rightly, that right hon. Baronet had said, in a speech connected with this subject, that a prudent man would not go into these Courts as a suitor. He trusted, that the subject would be speedily investigated, and some remedy proposed for the abuses that were universally admitted to exist.
Sir Robert Peelwas much inclined to believe, that great abuses did exist in these Courts; but the fact was, on the occasion alluded to by the hon. Member, as it was generally found with regard to questions relating to the reform of abuses, that the further he advanced, the more extended his horizon became, and the greater appeared the necessity for an extensive Reform. The subject of imprisonment for debt on mesne process was then before the House; but it was said, that it would be in vain to abolish that, while the power of imprisoning in execution for small debts continued to exist, since a litigious creditor could easily avail himself of the latter mode to punish and oppress his debtor. He thought, that the whole question of imprisonment for debt ought to be taken into consideration at the same time. That portion of it which related to imprisonment for debt on mesne process had been referred to the Law Commissioners, who, he believed, had but recently made their Report.
Lord Althorpagreed with the right hon. Baronet that the whole subject had better be discussed at one time, and, in his opinion, there ought to be, as early as convenient, some inquiry instituted into the matter, as the power of imprisonment for small debts Was liable to many great objections.
Mr. Humerecommended, that the Returns, instead of being for one month, should be for one year.
Mr. Huntsaid, he should gladly accede to this recommendation. He had already
754
mentioned the reason of his having at first introduced his Motion in so limited a shape. As a proof of the sort of abuses to which the power of imprisonment gave rise, he mentioned that, a short time since, a man had been committed to prison for not paying a sum of 1s. for debt and 8s. costs, and that the man was so poor he must have starved, if his fellow-prisoners had not made a subscription for his relief.
Motion agreed to.

PLURALITIES—CHURCH REFORM.
Mr. Humemoved for a Return of the "name of every person holding more than one dignity, benefice, church, or chapel, of the Established Church in England and Wales; stating how many, and the name of each such dignity, benefice, church, and chapelry, and the gross and nett annual value of all such, upon the average of the last three years for which the account can be made out; stating also the number of years the incumbent has held each preferment or benefice, what duties are performed by him, what curates are employed under him, and the amount of stipends actually paid to each curate, in each of these three years."
Sir Robert Inglisthought the hon. Member was bound to show cause for his Motion before it was adopted, the rather, as it was one which could not be acted upon without an exercise of inquisitorial power hardly compatible with the liberty of the subject.
Mr. Goulburnfelt himself inclined to oppose the Motion; but, certainly, he wished, that some grounds should be laid for granting it. He would take that opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman opposite a question concerning the deaneries of Downe and Raphoe. Had they been bestowed on the present incumbents, on any understanding similar to that entered into with the present Bishop of Derry?
Mr. Stanleysaid, that, with respect to the deanery of Downe, he had no information at present what were its revenues. With regard to the deanery of Raphoe, he believed them to have been about 2,500 l. a-year. The present incumbent had accepted it on condition that he should receive the tithes of the parish of Raphoe alone, and the four parishes that had before been united with it, were, in future, to go to four different incumbents.
Mr. Humesaid, his object was, to direct the attention of the House to the monstrous abuses of the present Church Establishment, ere it sanctioned the Archbishop of

755
Canterbury's pseudo pluralities' abuse reform bill. Having been, from early youth, an eye-witness of the admirable results of the system of the Church of Scotland, and knowing, that non-residence was not possible under that system, and knowing, that the reward of the pastor was made to depend on his efficiency, it might be, that the plurality non-resident system of the Church of England, which made the emolument, in most instances, be in the inverse ratio of the service rendered—assumed an exaggerated form in his eyes; and, accordingly, he was anxious that his views should rest upon incontrovertible facts, and was also anxious, that the House should be in possession of those facts previous to the discussion of the merits of the Archbishop of Canterbury's mock reform bill. Hence his present Motion, the necessity of which perhaps, would be more apparent from a simple statement of the number of nonresident incumbents in England, in one year, 1831. It appeared, from papers on the Table of the House, that, in that year, the number of benefices, held under the Church of England was 10,532. He had the authority, indeed, of an intelligent clergyman to fix the number at 12,600 but would take the lower number. Of that number, there were 2,619 incumbents exempt from residence, from various causes, 2,147 exempt with licence, and 1,354 nonresident, without any exemption licence; making, altogether, 6,120 non-resident, out of a total of 10,532. Of these 6,120 nonresident, 1,590 were reported as doing duty elsewhere; but, deducting them, there remained but 4,413 clergymen resident in the parishes whence they derived large emoluments. Was not this monstrous? He would take it upon himself to assert, that such abuses were unknown in any other church in Europe. Then let them consider the disgraceful manner in which so many of the bonâfide working clergy were paid, while the bloated non-resident pluralists were lording it in stately chariots and fine linen. He knew of at least 100 such clergymen, who did not receive as much in the year for their exertions as journeymen carpenters; but even the evils of non-residence were not confined to sleek vicars and well-fed rectors, who did nothing but spend large revenues in the most approved manner of fashion. The total number of curates of the Church of England, in 1831, was 4,254; of these, 1,393 resided in glebe houses, and 805 in private residences in their respective parishes; that
756
is, there were only 2,198 actual residents; in other words, there were at least 2,000 parishes in England without a resident curate or rector of its established and enormously overpaid Church. And how did the most reverend head of that Church propose to remedy the evils of non-residence and pluralities? Why, by preventing pluralities, with endless exceptions, from being held, if distant more than thirty miles from the resident living. He might as well, so far as any practical benefit was concerned, have fixed the limit at 300 miles. He had found, that, of individuals holding Church preferment in this country, 162 were in receipt of less than 160 l. per annum, and that, in the whole Church of England, there were only 84 curates who received that sum. In the diocese of Lincoln, there were 440 persons holding one benefice each, 256 persons who held each two benefices, while, in the same diocese, there were 76 individuals who were in the enjoyment of 304 benefices. From the result of the inquiries he had made, he was led to believe, that much of the fearful increase of crime of late in the remote districts, was to be attributed to the non-residence of the clergy. Under all these circumstances, he hoped he had laid sufficient grounds before the House to induce it to grant the Motion. He had carefully avoided the mention of names; but when the proper time arrived, he was fully prepared to go at length into the subject.
Mr. Trevoragreed with the hon. member for Middlesex in thinking that the curates of the Church of England were inadequately paid. He also concurred in the, most part of the hon. Member's Motion, but he would suggest the propriety of withdrawing that part which required returns of the amount of the income of the Church.
Mr. Hudson Gurneythought the Returns went too far, inasmuch as they meddled with the incomes of individuals. The hon. Member might as well move for a return of the income of the country gentlemen as of the clergy.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, he could see no reason why returns of the Church revenues should not be made. He felt, that every man who received an income for the discharge of particular duties should not only fulfil those duties, but also should not hesitate to afford every information as to the amount of income he received.
Mr. Weylandwas ready to agree in the Motion for returns of the gross amount of the value of all livings where the incum-

757
bent was non-resident, and in which the duties were performed by curates, and also of the amount of the stipends paid such curates. But he did not think the House ought to extend such inquiry to livings where the incumbents were resident.
Mr. John Campbellsaid, that the object of the hon. member for Middlesex was, to obtain returns of all pluralists—a piece of information which he (Mr. Campbell) conceived to be indispensable when the House came to take into consideration and to deal with a bill which had been sent down from the other House of Parliament, and which had been introduced by the head of the Church, relative to pluralities. This information could only be learnt from the Returns now sought for by the hon. member for Middlesex.
Mr. Sheilsaw nothing objectionable in the Motion. The Returns were analogous to the returns made by the Irish clergy of the amount of their incomes, and he thought them necessary to the due consideration of the Pluralities Bill.
Dr. Lushingtondid not see any great objection to the Motion, and, in some respects, he thought it desirable, as it would tend to elucidate the value of Church livings, which he knew was greatly exaggerated. He, for one, would never bring himself to think, that Church property was, in any respect, less sacred than private property, though, perhaps, the former, under peculiar circumstances, might be a fairer subject of investigation. He believed the Church of England would benefit by this inquiry; for he knew, that circumstances favourable to that establishment, and which were not known to the House, would be elicited in the inquiry.
Mr. Trevorwished to know whether the hon. member for Middlesex would consent to the proposed verbal amendment in his Motion?
Mr. Humedeclined making any change.
Sir Thomas Baringhad not intended to make a single observation, and should have remained silent, if it had not been for a remark which had fallen from the hon. member for Middlesex, who appeared to attribute the increase of crime in England to the state of the Church. Now, he (Sir Thomas Baring) should rather attribute the increase of crime to Parliament, and some of their pernicious enactments. Such, for instance, as the Beer Bill, and many others of equally mischievous tendency. He must say, that the grossest exaggerations were circulated respecting the value of Church livings.
Mr. Ruthvensuggested the propriety of extending the Returns sought for to Ireland.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that, if the hon. Member who had just sat down would take the trouble to look back to the minutes of the day before the recess, he would find, that the hon. member for Middlesex had moved for and obtained returns from Ireland, far more extensive than those which were the object of the hon. Member's present Motion; indeed, so extensive were they, that he (Mr. Stanley), had he been in the House at the time they were moved for, should have felt it his duty to oppose the Motion. He, however, saw no objection to the present Motion, and he thought it was one of the greatest mistakes of the friends of the Established Church to oppose making returns of its revenues, under the supposition that they were sought with a view to reduction.
Sir Matthew White Ridleyconceived the Returns were necessary, to enable the House to form a correct judgment on the very important Bill which had been alluded to by the hon. and learned member for Stafford, and which would require the greatest attention from every true friend of the Church.
Returns ordered.