HC Deb 03 March 1840 vol 52 cc862-73
Mr. Baines

said, he rose to renew his motion for a Committee of the whole House on the subject of the first fruits and tenths, for the purpose of making those payments more conducive than they had hitherto been to the augmentation of the livings of the poor clergy. Having on a former occasion shown that, from the first institution of these imposts, the payments were made according to their full amount—having shown that this practice prevailed at the time of the Reformation, and that it was enforced by a strict valuation made by order of King Henry VIII—having further shown that in the time of Queen Anne these payments were conferred upon the Church for the benefit of the poor clergy; and having; shown that the sanguine expectations that were cherished of the vast advantages that would flow to these laborious ministers had been entirely frustrated, he should not again go over the ground he had already traversed, but state, as he was empowered to do, upon high legal authority, that the attempt to make the valuation of the livings upon which the first fruits and tenths were paid fixed and invariable, was inconsistent with the letter and the spirit of the Act of Queen Anne. Without occupying the attention of the House by detailed statements of legal opinions, he might say, that the balance of authority, as far as he could collect it, was decidedly in favour of the claims of those whom it was the intention of the Queen to serve, and that the amount of the increased value of the funds ought to have been applied by the governors of Queen Anne's Bounty to the relief of the poor clergy, whose interests, as faithful guardians, it was their duty to watch over. This was an opinion not entertained by lawyers only, but by the poor clergy, one of whom had sent to him a selected list of the rich livings in various parts of the kingdom, merely as a specimen of others, and from which it appeared that there were thirty-four livings returned by the ecclesiastical commissioners in the year 1835 as of the present value of 64,775l. a-year, but which were valued in the Liber Regis, on which the first fruits and tenths were paid, at 1,014l. only. Without detaining the attention of the House to go through the list, he would satisfy himself with selecting three of the smallest and three of the largest of these livings, in order to show what was their value at the time of the Reformation; what was their real value at the present time; the sum paid as tenths by the rich clergy to the poor clergy, and the real-tenths which would be due and payable upon the real value o each:—

Name of Living. Valued at Real Value. Sum paid as Tenths. Real Tenths.
£ £ £ s. £
Bibury, Gloucestershire 13 1023 1 6 102
All Cannings, Wilts 31 1100 3 2 110
Chelsea, Middlesex 13 1003 1 6 160
Winwick, Lancashire 102 3616 10 4 361
Stanhope, Durham 67 4842 6 14 484
Doddington, Cambridgesh 22 7306 1 4 730
But it was not only the benefices, but the ecclesiastical sees, of the payments on which he had to complain; and he should proceed to make a selection, showing the full annual value of four of the bishoprics at the present time, the sum paid as first fruits by each of those bishoprics, and the difference which was withheld from the poor clergy:—
BISHOP. Full Annual Value. Paid as First Fruits. Difference withheld from the Poor Clergy.
£ £ £
Bishop of London 13,929 901 13,029
Bishop of Winchester 11,151 2,873 8,278
Bishop of Exeter 2,713 450 2,263
Bishop of Worcester 6,569 929 5,640
The injustice that had been done to the poor clergy was felt, not only by the lawyers and divines, but by statesmen also. He should quote the sentiments of a noble Lord, which he was sure would receive due respect from every Gentleman in that House, but particularly from those on the opposite benches. The speech to which he alluded was delivered to his constituents by the noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire, at the last general election, when his Lordship, with his usual energy, declared, that— He (Lord Stanley) thought that the pluralities should be reformed, and that the wealth of the Church ought to be appropriated to raise the livings of the poor clergy, instead of being devoted to purposes comparatively useless. He shared this opinion in common with those of every class in society, and one of the first acts of Sir Robert Peel's administration was to issue a commission for the purpose of ascertaining whether, by deducting from the wealth of the large livings and adding to the poorer, the Church would not be placed in a position to be more available for the instruction of the poorer classes of the community. But though all men agreed, as his Lordship had observed, that pluralities ought to be reformed, that the wealth of the Church ought to be applied to raise the livings of the poor clergy, and that a portion of the income of the rich livings should be added to the poor ones, yet, what was done in this way in the long reign of George 3rd, and during the reign of George 4th? Nothing; absolutely nothing. In confirmation of the assertion of the noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire, he might produce the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, presented to Parliament in 1835, from which it appeared that there were nearly 2,000 livings under the value of 100l. a-year; and yet the persons holding these benefices were required to sustain the rank of gentlemen. The report stood thus:— There are in the Established Church of England and Wales, according to the report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—
11 livings under the value of £10 a-year.
19 from £10 to £20 a-year.
32 20 to 30 a-year.
63 30 to 40 a-year.
172 40 to 50 a-year.
Making 297 livings under the value of £50 a-year.
There are 305 livings from £50 to £60 a-year.
317 60 to 70 do.
254 70 to 80 a-year.
353 80 to 90 a-year.
400 100
Making 1629 livings under £100 a-year.
There are 1602 from £100 to £150 a-year.
And 1354 100 to 200 a-year.
So that 4882 livings are under £200 a-year.
Besides these, there are 5,230 curacies varying from 40l. to 160l., and averaging 81l. per annum each. From the same authority, it appeared that there were, at the time of the presentation of that report, 5,728 bishoprics, dignities and benefices, varying in value from 200l. to 20,000l. a year. The scheme which he should submit to the House for the removal of these most glaring irregularities was this:—First, to abolish the first fruits. Second, to exempt all livings under the value of 300l. a year from the payment, not only of first-fruits, but also of tenths, after the next avoidance. And third, to render all spiritual dignities and benefices in England and Wales, of the clear value of 300l. a year and upwards, liable to the payment of the tenth part of the clear yearly value, after the next avoidance of such spiritual dignity or benefice. The plan recommended by the Select Committee, which sat in the year 1837, of which his hon. Friend the Member for Nottinghamshire, (Mr. Gally Knight) was chairman, and of which he (Mr. Baines) was a member, recommended that all benefices above the annual value of 300l. should make a yearly payment for the benefit of the poor clergy, upon the principle of the Irish Church Temporalities Bill, which advanced by a graduated scale from two-and-a-half to fifteen percent. But he (Mr. Baines) preferred the payment of tenths, partly because it had the sanction of law, and partly because it was of high antiquity, and in its name carried its amount and proportion. His noble Friend, the Secretary for the Colonies, in his Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill, proposed to apply 130,000l. a year on the next avoidance, from the dignities of the deans and chapters to the augmentation of the livings of the poor clergy. But as the operation of this fund would be very gradual, and would carry on the work of augmentation slowly, both the plan of the payment of the tenths, and that of the noble Lord would be necessary to produce the effect that he contemplated; and for this purpose he (Mr. Baines) had entered into calculations to ascertain the sum that would be requisite in order to increase the small livings to 200L a year, and the following was the result of that calculation:—
297 livings, from 10l. to 50l., will require £48,315
1629 livings, from 50 to 100 201,365
1602 livings, from 100 to 150 120,150
1354 livings, from 150 to 200 33,850
£403,680
Deduct sum proposed for augmentation by Lord John Russell's Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill 130,000
Leaving a deficiency of £273,680
From which it would appear, that the sum of 273,680l. a year will be necessary to augment the small livings to the amount of 200l. a year each; and for this sum he (Mr. Baines) provided by appropriating the tenth part of the livings from 300l, a year and upwards.
The total clear annual revenue of the Church, as appeared from the report of the ecclesiastical commissioners was £. 3,439,767
Deduct for livings under 300l. a year, not chargeable 1,036,844
2,402,923
The tenths on which amount to £. 240,292
to be augmented by the excess of tithe commutations over the amounts returned by the ecclesiastical commissioners, which was very considerable, and swelled the revenue of the Church, represented at 3,439,000l. to 5,000,000l. Having laid these statements before the House, he should, for the present, satisfy himself with moving the following resolution, which he confidently hoped would receive the sanction of the House. That this House do now resolve itself into committee of the whole House, to take info consideration the propriety of abolishing the first fruits of the revenues of the Church, and rendering the tenths conducive to the more efficient augmentation of the maintenance of the poor clergy.

Mr. G. Knight

said, that in rising to second this motion, he trusted it was superfluous to state, that he was not actuated by any feelings hostile to the Church, but, on the contrary, by an earnest wish for her welfare. He desired to see an alteration take place, for two reasons—the condition of the poor livings, and the injustice, he had almost said the absurdity, of the distribution of the present impost. As a proof of the necessities of the poor livings, he would only state, that to augment the small livings with the population of 300 and upwards, so that their incomes shall range from 150l. to 400l. a-year, according to the number of inhabitants, would require an additional sum of 276,691l. a-year, whilst to augment all the small livings to 300l. a-year (no extravagant allowance for a man who had to live respectably, and bring up a family) would take a much larger sum. From this it was evident that no plan which was already before the House, would provide a remedy. But it was not on this ground alone that he advocated the present inquiry. He advocated it fully as much on the ground of the capricious distribution of the existing impost. With respect to the existing state of the law on this subject, he must say, that it appeared to him to favour the inquiry, for according to the last statute passed on this subject, the 1st of Geo. 1st c. 10, bishops were directed to inform themselves, from time to time, of the true, clear, improved annual value of every benefice in their respective dioceses, and to certify the same to the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, with a view to the more speedy augmentation of the poor livings. But even admitting that, as the law now stood, first fruits and tenths were only to be exacted in such proportions and from such parties as at present it would not be disputed that Parliament bad the right to interfere, and the rather, because Parliament had, more than once, interfered on this subject already, la the reign of Henry 8th, in that of Anne, in that of Geo. 1st, and after the lapse of a century, it could scarcely be said, that it was too early a period to review the subject again, or that revisions at such a distance of time need excite a just apprehension of frequent and vexatious exactions. Nor let it be said, that we had any innovation in view. Let it not be said, for it could not be said with truth, that we were seeking, for the first time, to tax the clergy. The tax already existed—the clergy were taxed already—but they were taxed unequally. The tax, in its present shape, possessed the worst defects by which a tax could be accompanied—it was unequal, and it was unproductive. By the Act of Anne, all livings of, or under, the value of 50l. a-year, were exempted from the payment of tenths, and livings above that value were to continue to pay first fruits and tenths, according to the valuation taken in the time of Henry 8th. He need not detain the House by pointing out the immense difference between the value of livings in the time of Henry 8th, and their actual value, or the consequent little proportions which the tenths bore to the real value of the tenths. But the House would do well to consider how infinitely above the mark of exemption most of the 50l. livings of Queen Anne's time were now; and also in what different degrees the circumstances of different livings had been effected. The 50l. livings of Queen Anne varied at this time from 300l. a-year to 800l., and even 1,000l.; none of these paid tenths: but all livings had not been affected alike, and thus it might happen, that livings of inferior value paid, whilst many of high value were exempt. Altogether, out of 10,498 benefices, with or without cure of souls, only 4,808 remained liable to the payments of tenths, and that, as he had said before, according to their value in the time of Henry 8th. The consequence was, that the fund which was devoted by Queen Anne to the augmentation of small livings did not exceed 14,000l. a-year; and nothing could more fully demonstrate how inadequate this fund was to its object, and how slowly it advanced that object, than the present state of the livings it was meant to improve. After the lapse of a century, notwithstanding the additional aid of large Parliamentary grants and private benefactions, the fund arising from tenths, though it had done much good, had not been able to effect nearly as much as they all desired. He frankly owned that he had two objects greatly at heart—1st, to augment the small livings so as to secure a resident clergy; 2nd, to provide a permanent fund for the erection of new churches. It was no part of his scheme to pull down the large livings for the sake of producing an equality, which, for many reasons, he thought undesirable. There were various modes by which the payment of tenths could be more equitably arranged. The strict interpretation of the letter would exact from each living the tenth of its actual value. But he had nothing of so stringent a nature in view. A more equitable distribution of the impost was his chief aim. He entirely concurred with the hon. Member for Leeds in the propriety of altogether abolishing first fruits, which were always severely felt. The moment of entering upon a living was not the moment when an extraordinary payment should be demanded. They equally proposed that no change should take place during the lives of the present incumbents. They equally proposed that all benefices of or below the value of 300l. a-year should be exempt from the payment of first fruits and tenths. They equally proposed that all benefices above the value of 300l. a-year should, on the next avoidance, become liable to the payment of tenths, and not according to their value in the King's books, but according to the valuation taken in 1831. The amount of the tax was the next question, whether it should be uniform or graduated. The principle adopted in the case of the Irish livings was a graduated scale, beginning at 2l. 10s. per cent, on livings of 300l. a-year, and gradually augmenting to 12l. 12s. per cent on livings of 1,000l. a-year and upwards. Another proposal was, that livings above 300l. a-year and under 500l. should pay five per cent.; above 500l. and under 800l., seven per cent.; above 8001. and under 1,200l., ten per cent.; and above 1,200l., fifteen percent. Both these propositions appeared to him to be too severe. He repeated, he had no wish to interfere with the principle of inequality in the incomes of the clergy. He thought it better that there should be different degrees in the Church, as in other professions. He thought it was useful that there should be attractive prizes in the ecclesiastical lottery. If all paid, he should be satisfied if all paid alike; and he should wish the payment to be so moderate as neither to be oppressive to the smaller livings nor to the larger. Upon the whole, therefore, he would be satisfied if three per cent. were exacted from all benefices above 300l. a-year, according to the valuation taken in 1831. Moderate as this tax would be, it would still produce a considerable sum, infinitely more than was raised at present. First fruits and tenths now produced only 1,400l. a-year; three per cent, on all benefices above 300l. a-year, would produce rather more than 65,000l. a-year, which would at least augment the poor livings in a much more rapid ratio. He should commit the distribution of this sum to the board of Queen Anne's Bounty. They would be just as equal to the distribution of the larger as of the smaller sum. He had every reason to believe that the board worked well, and by continuing the trust in the same honourable hands, they would avoid the expense of salaried commissioners. It might be objected, that, by this new arrangement of the tax, they would interfere with the value of property, by augmenting the value of benefices below 300l. a-year, and diminishing, in some degree, the value of those above that mark. It could not be denied that this would be the case. But where the spiritual instruction of the people was concerned, he looked upon this objection as a secondary consideration. Advowsons, above all things, partook of the nature of a trust, and might be justly submitted to such regulations as would best carry the object of so sacred a trust into effect. He had now, he thought, left nothing unexplained that he wished to propose. He thanked the House for their indulgence, and he earnestly hoped that the House would consent to go into committee on the subject. The object of the committee would be inquiry: in committee any plan might be adopted which the House in its wisdom preferred; but the inquiry should be entertained to meet the general and reasonable wish for a resident clergy, and, in some measure, to supply the deficiency of spiritual instruction to the people.

Mr. Goulburn

would not detain the House with many observations on a subject which had so frequently been discussed, and on which so many much more able to form a correct opinion had pronounced against the scheme of the hon. Member for Leeds. The first fruits were really a Popish imposition, and the Pope, like the hon. Gentleman, finding the income very small, and desiring to make it much more productive, attempted to raise what he called the whole value of the first fruits. The Parliament of this country protested against that proposition, even in Roman Catholic times. He contended that the proposition of the hon. Member for Leeds was not in accordance with the law of the land; and it was also objectionable in principle, as it would fix a tax on a particular class of individuals exclusively. He certainly did not wish to see established that perfect equality in the incomes of the members of the Church which the hon. Member for Leeds desired. Such an equality would be inconsistent with the general circumstances of the country, and might operate upon young men, when choosing their profession, as a reason for avoiding that of the Church.

Lord J. Russell

would state shortly his reasons for not agreeing to the motion of the hon. Member for Leeds. He concurred with the right hon. Gentleman opposite in his statement that the value of the first fruits was a fixed and certain sum; and, therefore, if any alteration was now to be made, it must be in the shape of a new tax on the income of the clergy. He did not, however, go along with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that it would be either unjust or impolitic to tax the richer living for the benefit of the poorer clergy, provided the enforced payment was not exorbitant or oppressive. But as it would be in fact a new tax, which on principle was objectionable to many, and unpalatable, as he understood, not merely to the holders of rich livings, but to the general body of the clergy, he did not think it advisable to enter on the subject in the manner proposed by the hon. Member for Leeds. He thought such a proposition, if made at all, should be brought forward by the Government, after fair notice had been given to the general body of the clergy, so that they might be prepared to state their reasons either for supporting or opposing it. Under these circumstances, he could not give his consent to the present motion, which he thought it was the more inexpedient now to discuss, as other measures would be taken into consideration by Parliament for augmenting small livings by deductions from the larger, and for the increase of spiritual aid in places where at present there existed a spiritual want.

Mr. Harcourt Vernon

begged to say a few words in consequence of an expression which had fallen from the hon. Member for Leeds, The hon. Member had stated that the Bishops and High Dignitaries of the Church had violated their duties in not attending to the poor in the administration of Queen Ann's bounty. He would tell that hon. Member that the Bishops, as Governors of Queen Anne's bounty, had no more power of assigning a shilling to the poor than the hon. Gentleman himself, and the mistake into which the hon. Member had fallen could only be attributed to his incapability of understanding a plain Act of Parliament. The object of the whole speech of the hon. Member appeared only to be to throw obloquy on the clergy. The question had been so often discussed that he would not trouble the House further.

Mr. Horsman

must protest against the doctrine that it was necessary to maintain an inequality of livings in order to induce educated gentlemen to enter into the Church—thus making a mere speculation of the holy ministry. In Scotland the clergy performed their duties in a most exemplary manner, without any of those prizes to look forward to. He thought the doctrine laid down was a most dangerous one, for if men only could be goaded on to the performance of their duty by the hope of gaining these prizes when they attained to those places, where increased attention was necessary, having no more prizes to look for, their zeal of course cooled. It was an unfortunate doctrine, and one that would be well used in the mouths of the worst enemies of the Church.

Mr. A. White

could not agree with the doctrine laid down by the right hon. the Member for the University of Cambridge. The gross inequalities now existing in the livings of the Church must lead to the degradation of the Church in the eyes of the people. The curates were disgracefully paid, many of them not receiving so much as a gentleman's butler, although they must be educated men. He would cordially give his support to the Motion of the hon. Member for Leeds, who, he thought, deserved the thanks of the country for his perseverance upon this important question.

Mr. Baines

replied. He could assure the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, or any other hon. Member, that he would perform his duty fearlessly in that House, notwithstanding the sneers he might be met with as to his being a Dissenter. Whether Dissenter or Churchman, all were equal in that House; and he would pursue his course unmindful of all such insinuations. He would not be restrained from the free exercise of his judgment upon any matter before the House. His noble Friend and the hon. Member opposite argued on the law of the question, but there were high authorities against them. Lord Eldon was against them, so also was Mr. Agar, Queen's Counsel, and Sir John Newport. Lord Plunket is against us, so also was Lord Grey; but it was evident that he spoke without information upon the subject, for he said that there was an Act of Parliament which prevented the re-valuation of the benefices. He was quite sure the noble Lord had been misled, for there really was no such act. The Statute of Anne provided that all doubts should be construed in favour of the poor clergy, but had that ever been done? His objects had been misconceived—he wished that no minister should have less than 200l., but he never for a moment proposed to bring down the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to an equality.

The House divided—Ayes 38; Noes 17: Majority 21.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A. Muskett, G. A.
Aglionby, Major O'Connell, D.
Barnard, E. G. Pryme, G.
Bewes, T. Rickford, W.
Busfield, W. Rundle, J.
Butler, Colonel Salwey, Col.
Collier, J. Stansfield, W. R. C.
Currey, Mr. Sergeant Stuart, J.
Davies, Colonel Strickland, Sir G.
Finch, F. Thornely, T.
Greg, R. H. Vigors, N. A.
Hawes, B. Wakley, T.
Heathcoat, J. Wallace, R.
Hector, C. J. Warburton, H.
Hindley, C. White, A.
Horsman, E. Williams, W.
Hume, J. Wood, B.
Humphrey, J.
James, W. TELLERS.
Lushington, C. Baines, E.
Marshall, W. Knight, Gally
List of the NOES.
Acland, T. D. Perceval, Col.
Bell, M. Pigot, D. R.
Brodie, W. B. Plumptre, J. P.
Goulburn, H. Pusey, P.
Hodgson, R. Russell, Lord J.
Macaulay, T. B. Sibthorp, Col.
Morpeth, Vise. Sutton, J. H.
Vere, Sir C. B. TELLERS.
Vernon, G. H. Gordon, R.
Wood, Col. T. Freshfield, J.

Mr. Baines moved, that it is expedient to make provision for the abolition of the first fruits and tenths, as at present enforced in England and Wales, after the next accordance, and to levy an annual one-tenth of the clear annual value upon all archbishoprics, bishoprics, and upon all dignities benefices and other spiritual promotions above the clear yearly value of 300l. to be applied in the first instance to the augmentation of the maintenance of the poor clergy, and afterwards to building, and rebuilding of churches, and such other purposes as may be conducive to the interests of religion.

Mr. Goulburn

might make a long speech against the motion, but as he could not hope to reduce the number from-thirty-eight, he would defer it till another opportunity.

Mr. Alderman Humphrey

hoped the sum would be fixed at 500l., he thought 300l. too low.—Motion agreed to

Chairman directed to move the House that leave be given to bring in a bill pursuant to the same resolution.—House resumed.