§ Mr. Grotepresented a Petition from the inhabitants of the parish of All-hallows, Lombard-street, London, expressing their disapprobation of the unjust preferment of the rev. F. Dawson to the Parish by the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury. The petition set forth as the ground of complaint, that the rev. Gentleman was already in the enjoyment of several other benefices, and that he was a non-resident in the parish. The petitioners submitted, that the object of the Established Church was to provide the most effectual means of religious instruction to the people, to obtain which the Legislature had provided ample funds for the support of a respectable, educated, and efficient ministry; and that, while they were compelled by law to furnish those funds, they submitted they had an undoubted right to the services of a resident minister, that they might enjoy that intercourse to which they were entitled, and which was calculated to produce a reciprocal good feeling between the minister and his parishioners, and was so well adapted to contribute to their religious interests. They also submitted that they had long observed the increasing dissatisfaction of the people of England on account of so large a portion of the clergy of the Established Church holding a plurality of livings and residing at a distance from them. They had but little intercourse with their parishioners, and, consequently, could have no sympathy with their wants, and take no personal interest in their religious welfare; they therefore took that opportunity of uniting with their fellow-countrymen in reprobating a system so much at variance with the well-being of the parishioners, and they felt it their duty to express their surprise and regret at the conduct of the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury, that they should have given the rectory of the parish to the rev. Francis Dawson, B. A., a gentleman who before, his appointment to this living was rector of Chiselhurst, rector of Orpington, prebend of Canterbury, and sub-dean of Canterbury, and now rector of Allhallows, Lombard-street; and they could not but 561 consider this very inconsiderate appointment, manifesting so little regard for the religious welfare of the inhabitants of the parish, as an additional proof of the absolute necessity of an immediate, full, and efficient reform in the Established Church of the country, so as effectually to remedy the grievous evils which the community was suffering from the lamentable abuse of the patronage of the Church, of which that appointment furnished so striking an example. The petition had received the signatures of the greater part of the petitioners, and, among those who had signed it, there were only fifteen persons dissenting from the Church of England, the rest of the signatures being those of members of the Established Church. The petitioners were fully aware of the excellent character and irreproachable conduct of the rev. Gentleman, and believed him to be a most deserving clergyman; but they contended, that whatever his merits or demerits might be, his non-residence among them rendered his merits totally unavailable to them. The inhabitants of that parish entertained a very strong feeling on the subject of non-residence, because not only was Mr. Dawson a non-resident, but his predecessor in the office had also been a non-resident for the period of eighteen years that he enjoyed the appointment of rector. Even the curate did not reside in the parish; so that, in fact, the parishioners had not the advantage of the presence of any spiritual adviser among them. These were the circumstances of which they so loudly and so justly complained, and they felt it to be their duty to call the attention of the House to the abuse, and humbly solicit it to apply a speedy and an efficient remedy. It was superfluous to insist on the necessity of such a measure, and great and just expectations were now entertained throughout the whole country, that his Majesty's Ministers would enforce their intentions on the subject of Church Reform. The case of the petitioners was not a solitary instance of the existence of the abuse, there being, in various parts of the country, abuses of a similar kind: though he doubted very much, whether it were possible to find one of greater hardship than the case of the petitioners.
§ Sir John Wrottesleysaid, that this was a very important subject, and deserved the most serious attention of the House. The petitioners were most respectable citizens of London; and it was not from any false 562 motive but a deep-rooted attachment to the Established Church, that they made any statement of their grievances, and that alone was sufficient to gain for them a fair hearing. He could not conceive any petitioners with greater claims in their favour than the present. There was another part of the subject that rendered it particularly desirable, that there should be some discussion upon this case. It did not appear that the Gentleman appointed to this parish was otherwise than a most estimable clergyman, and, according to the present system, the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury, and the clergyman himself, had done nothing that was not in accordance with the laws. It was the system that was to be blamed, and he thought it ought to be speedily altered. With regard to the practice of non-residence, it would be recollected that, last year, returns upon this subject were laid before the House, and the House would be surprised to find that in this country there were, at the present moment, 3,687 incumbents of livings who were non-resident. Of these, 1,139 had 300l. a-year and upwards, and 2,548 had a yearly salary under 300l. He did not know what ought to be the salary of a clergyman who performed his duty; if he were called upon to state what, in his opinion, it ought to be, perhaps he should rate it too high—higher, at least, than the clergymen themselves, who must be allowed to be the best judges. The clergymen, when they got possession of these livings, fixed the stipends of their curate, and it was but just to suppose that those stipends gave a fair measure of value for the labours performed. In his opinion, they ought to be fixed at a far greater amount; but he was willing to take them at the price which the clergy themselves fixed. In these returns were also contained the salaries paid to curates; and the House could therefore see what the amount was. It was often said, that there should be rewards in every profession; he did not object to this; he did not object to large livings, not even to livings of 1,000l. or 900l. a year, because he thought no sum was too large for a clergyman who performed his duty well. The parishioners themselves would be benefited by such a measure. He had made inquiries of many persons—amongst others, of clergymen—he had asked several questions of them, as, for instance, Did they ever find any complaints regarding the dues and tithes 563 of those clergymen who resided the greater part of the year on their livings, and performed their duties conscientiously and well? The invariable answer was, that no such complaints existed. He would now state what was the amount of the salary which the clergy gave to the curates who performed their labours. He would pass over the least until he came to those which amounted to upwards of 40l. a year. The number of curates, then, who received above 40l. and under 50l. was 321; the number who received above 50l. and under 60l. was 792. This was the largest number, who were thus paid; that was to say, that the largest number of curates received between 50l. and 60l. a-year. He did not say that was enough; but it would be hard to say, that the services of the clergy should be estimated at a higher amount than they estimated them at themselves: he took them at their own valuation. The number of curates having incomes between 60l, and 70l. was 359; between 70l. and 80l. 483; between 80l. and 90l. 547; between 90l. and 100l. 164; between 100l. and 110l. 610; between 110l. and 120l. 65; between 120l. and 130l. 203; between 130l. and under 150l. 119. There was then so trifling a number whose salaries were above 150l. that they were not worth taking notice of; they did not altogether make one hundred. He had stated before, that the non-resident incumbents amounted to 3,687. Now, he should like to know what establishment, or what public office was there, in which, if it were stated, that there were 3,687 officers performing their duty by deputy, the fact would be believed? He could well conceive what an immense stir it would create from one end of the House to the other. Was it then to be said, that the duties of a clergyman were to be held in less estimation than those of any other profession? He did not allude to their religious duties solely, but to their moral duties also; and he would ask those who had opportunities of observing the efficacy and good effect of resident clergy, whether, independent of their religious duties, the exercise of their moral duties had not been of the greatest benefit to their parishioners? He had the honour to be a member of the Committee to inquire into the Army and Navy sinecures, at the head of which was a noble Lord, one of the members for Devonshire, and it was recommended in the Report of that Committee, that those officers should 564 be considered as unnecessary who performed their duty by deputy. When that rule had been laid down in those departments, he felt convinced, that the present system adopted in the Church Establishment could not continue long without producing its ruin. He could fairly say, that it was under that apprehension that he now addressed the House. If some measure were not introduced to abolish pluralities, and to enforce the residence of the clergy, he was convinced that that beautiful fabric, the Established Church, would soon be destroyed.
§ Sir Robert Inglisdid not expect that the hon. Baronet would have taken so extensive a range in his observations upon the subjects of pluralities and non-residence, which appeared to him to be so mischievous to the Church Establishment of this country. The hon. Baronet, was come quite prepared for a discussion. He had issued fresh from the Committee upon Army and Navy appointments, and with papers upon curates' salaries, while the House had received no communication as to the subject-matter to be discussed. The advantage, therefore on the part of the hon. Baronet, and also of the hon. member for the City of London, was, on this occasion, very great. He trusted, however, that the House would indulge him for a few moments while he made one or two observations on the petition, and, by way of reply, to some of the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Baronet, on the general question of pluralities. He must, in the first place, request the House to suspend forming any opinion upon that general question until they had had an opportunity of becoming acquainted with the facts respecting Church income, which have been collected by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who, with the exception of one hundred parishes, had obtained information from every parish in the kingdom. He did not complain of the hon. Baronet for taking that which he considered a good opportunity for a short discussion on the subject of Church Reform; and he was bound to say, that nothing could be more temperate than the tone of his speech. It was due, also, to the hon. member for the City of London to acknowledge the calm and temperate manner in which he had spoken on this occasion; for it was a question upon which persons, not of his temper or dis- 565 cretion, might have provoked other sentiments and feelings than those which now prevailed. In the few remarks which he had to make, he should endeavour to follow his example. He was not prepared to defend any and every case that might arise out of pluralities. He did not wish to gain any temporary applause by the abandonment of any opinion which he held or ought to hold; nor would be defend, either in that House, orelsewhere, that which he believed to be indefensible. He knew how thankless and how useless would be such abandonment and such defence. But, in forming an opinion on the general subject, he wished the House to bear in mind the facts of the case, that these livings were small from the beginning, and non-residence was coeval with the Establishment itself. It was well known by those at all acquainted with our ecclesiastical history, that many parishes of England were divided according to the will of the lord who founded the Church. There were some parishes consisting of not more than twenty persons; and of those the income and the population were in some proportion to each other. It would not be contended, that, in such a small parish, a resident incumbent was necessary, or possible. Those Gentlemen who had read the history of the Church, of whatever religious persuasion they might be, would entirely concur in the opinion, that in a vast majority of such cases the duties were discharged by monks from some neighbouring monastery. The advowson was given to the monastery by the Baron who founded the Church pro salute animœ; and the discharge of the duty of the parish was committed, often in turns, to the monks who went forth for the purpose, but who were not resident in the parish itself. It would be wrong to detain the House by quoting authorities upon this subject to prove the fact: he believed it was not denied. That being the case, the evil of non-residence was, from the beginning, and must, from the nature of things, have been so. Then, if the income were, from the beginning, limited; and if non-residence were also, from the beginning, the question was, must you not, in order to maintain the decent hospitality and station of the incumbent of the parish, unite the duties of two parishes in the same clergyman? He, for one, wished that every parish should have a resident priest; but, in the nature of things, it was 566 impossible. Until the House could prevail upon the laity of England,—many of whom held the broad lands and tithes formerly belonging to the Church,—to surrender back to the Church those lands and tithes which were taken from it, three, and, in some instances, five, centuries ago,—it would be in vain to expect that there should be a resident priest in every parish. With respect to the salaries paid to curates, he was perfectly willing to admit that, in many instances, they were below the proper point; but, in many cases, the salaries were at least as high as the incumbent could possibly afford. If it were desirable that gradations should exist in the Church, in order that young men, brought up for the discharge of the duties of the ministry, might obtain an adequate reward, then the system of employing curates could not be abrogated. With respect to the particular case which formed the subject of the petition, he begged the House would understand these propositions,—that the reverend gentleman who was now the incumbent of the parish of Allhallows, Lombard-street, and who had been represented as such an inordinate pluralist, had, for eighteen years, held the living of Chiselhurst, and had performed the duties of that parish, during the whole of that period, to the entire satisfaction of the inhabitants. With respect to the parish of Orpington, also named in the petition, that sinecure rectory was an endowed vicarage, the rector having no duties. The rectory of Hayes was one from which the reverend gentleman derived no profit, not being the incumbent,—he had given it away to a friend, without fee or reward. The next living, that of the perpetual curacy of Down, was in the same predicament. The error which the parishioners of Allhallows had fallen into had been simply this,—that they, having found the name of the reverend Mr. Dawson in a work something like a Clerical Court Calendar, published without authority, took it for granted, that this gentleman was curate of Down. [Mr. Grote assured the hon. Baronet that there was no such error in the petition; neither Hayes nor Down was mentioned in it.] He (Sir R. Inglis) had seen the statement in the newspapers; and had taken it for granted, that it was in the petition. With respect to the holding of the stall of Canterbury, in conjunction with these livings, that arose 567 from the state of the law. Correct the law; but let them not make an individual responsible for acting under it, so long as it was the law. The living of Allhallows was in the gift of the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury; and Mr. Dawson, being the prebendary, to whom the turn devolved, was presented to it. The law, therefore, having given the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury the right, or, in other words, imposed upon them the duty, of exercising patronage over the living of Allhallows, and the reverend gentleman being entitled to claim the appointment, and the question of pluralities being still open to discussion,—the Parliament not yet having pronounced any decision adverse to the subject, and there being yet no prohibition for holding two livings within the distance of Allhallows and Chiselhurst; and the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury had committed no fault, and, in point of fact, they had no discretion in giving this living to the reverend Mr. Dawson,—legally speaking, no blame could attach to that reverend gentleman for having taken it. He should be happy, when the subject of pluralities came before the House, to state his views on that question; but it was not then necessary to enter into the subject.
§ Mr. Feargus O'Connorconsidered that the Members on that side of the House, who had done all in their power to put an end to the tithe system, had great reason to congratulate themselves upon the petition which had been presented by one of the hon. members for the City, and for the clear and lucid statements he had made in presenting it. Those statements, in his opinion, did not differ much from those made by the hon. Baronet who spoke last. He was aware that there were many instances in which clergymen were non-resident, because there was no occasion for a clergyman. He was happy, or he should rather say unhappy enough, to be able to state a case perfectly analogous to that which had been mentioned by the hon. Member. The hon. Member's was an English case, and that which he had to state was an Irish case. He was satisfied that, when he had stated it, and asserted that there were many of a similar nature, the Irish people would receive the sympathy of their English neighbours, who would admit, that they were fully justified in their outcry against tithes. In the parish where he resided, upwards 568 of 150,000l had been taken from the people for the support of the Church, and the oldest man in it could not recollect that he had ever seen the Protestant rector. The curate also resided out of the parish—the clerk lived fourteen miles from the Church; and it was but a very short time since a vestry had been called to increase the clerk's salary in consequence of his living so far from the Church; and to crown all, the sexton kept an improper house at the church door, and sold whisky without license. He asked the House did not such cases justify the Irish in the part they had taken against tithes? He thought these discussions were most whole-some—that these bye-battles were of great service to the question, particularly as they were on the eve of the great battle which was to be fought to-night, and as this would be the last skirmish. They had been promised the support of the English Members, and he was satisfied they would not be disappointed. He saw an increasing desire on their part to take the means of agitation away from the Irish Members. He was convinced that the English Members would do them justice, and then they might say to the Irish Members, if they were still agitators—if they still persevered in disturbing the peace of the country—they did it from bad and interested motives. He trusted the Irish people would not have the sanction of a vote of the English Members for a perseverance in their agitation. He congratulated the House upon the presentation of the petition, and the manner in which it had been supported.
§ Mr. Hardycould not but admit, as a member of the same Church to which the hon. Member belonged, that the Church of England was suffering under acts such as these which the petition detailed. It was no consolation that the inhabitants of Allhallows had been told that the clergyman was a most upright and exemplary man; that was the more tantalizing to them, as they could not obtain his spiritual advice and assistance. If they were aware that he could conduce so much to their spiritual welfare, and that they never saw him, they were the more to be pitied. He did not think that the hon. member for the University of Oxford had fully answered the observations which had fallen from the hon. member for Staffordshire. He understood that the parish in question was fully able to support a clergyman, and it was therefore, an additional hard- 569 ship that they should be deprived of the benefit of his advice. It was unnecessary to say to what extent the system of pluralities had gone; it was no longer said, when a clergyman was presented to a parish, that he had got a cure of souls, but that he had got a living. It was not that he had got a commission to instruct the people in those things that would be most conducive to their salvation, but that he had got the means of supporting himself and his family. It was of the disposal of livings in this way that the Church of England complained, and which would probably occasion her to die of a plethora. He was astonished when he found complaints of this nature so numerous, that so respectable a body as the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury should continue to dispose of livings in this manner. He trusted that ere long his Majesty's Ministers would be prepared to bring in some measure which would put an end to pluralities and non-residence, and give to every parish the benefit of a resident clergyman.
§ Petition laid on the Table.