RESOLUTION. (Hansard, 5 August 1874)

§ MR. MONK,
in rising to call attention to the unequal incidence of the payments of First Fruits and Tenths by the Clergy; and to move— That it is expedient that the payment of "First Fruits" to the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty should be abolished, and that there should be a revaluation of all dignities and benefices in England and Wales, with a view to an equitable re-adjustment of "Tenths" on a moderate and graduated scale, said, that as the subject involved a question of taxation, it was necessary to bring it forward in that House, rather than in the House of Lords.
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

MR. MONK resumed
"First Fruits" were supposed to represent the first year's profits of a benefice, and "Tenths" one-tenth of the annual income of such benefices. The origin of these charges was somewhat obscure. Early in the 13th century "First Fruits" were levied by the Pope on the clergy of this country, and in 1292 a valuation of the benefices was made by Pope Nicholas III., and for between 200 and 300 years these charges formed part of the Papal usurpations over the clergy of this Kingdom. In 1533, by the 25th of Henry VIII., c. 20, these payments to the Pope were abolished, and by 26 Henry VIII. c. 3, they were transferred to the King, who ordered a new valuation to be made, and on that valuation the levy had con- 1381 tinued to be made down to the present day. In 1704 Queen Anne erected the Corporation called "Queen Anne's Bounty Commissioners," and devoted "First Fruits" and "Tenths" to the augmentation of the poorer benefices. That Board was very extensive, including all the Bishops, the Lord Chancellor, the Judges, all Privy Councillors and Q.C.'s, the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London, the Mayors of other municipalities, &c.—in all about 600 persons. In 1867 a Committee of that House, presided over by Mr. Bouverie, recommended that the number should be reduced, and he (Mr. Monk) was strongly of opinion that the Board should be merged in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Great hardships were now inflicted by the unequal incidence of the tax, as from the first many benefices and all deaneries and canonries were exempt. Besides those, the imposition of the tax being fixed on benefices existing in the time of Henry VIII, and there having been no revaluation since, all benefices created since that time, and consequently not included in the Liber Regis, were exempt from payment. He should not have ventured to introduce this subject if he had not been fortified by the report of Convocation, according to which he found the following anomalies:—A benefice worth £108 a-year paid £3 17s. 10d. as "Tenths," another worth £164 paid £4 5s. 3d., whereas a benefice of the value of £1,700 paid only 17s. 8d., and another worth £2,600 paid £1 15s. 5d. only, while a vast number of large livings paid nothing. The result was that the Commissioners of Queen Anne's Bounty received little more than £15,000 a-year—£5,300 as "First Fruits," and £10,021 as "Tenths." The subject had been before Convocation for some years, and both the Upper and Lower Houses were unanimous on almost every point. The Lower differed from the Upper House with regard to the percentage, but they agreed as to the main features, that there should be further legislation on the subject, that "First Fruits" should be abolished, that all benefices under £300 a-year should be exempted, and that all above that value should be re-assessed on a moderate and graduated scale. He was still further justified in bringing the question forward by the recommendation of a Select Committee, which sat in 1837, that 1382 "First Fruits" should be entirely abolished, and that a moderate and graduated impost should be levied upon all benefices above £300 a-year. In conclusion, he would appeal to the Home Secretary to give a pledge on the part of the Government, that he would take the whole question into consideration with a view of introducing a measure embodying some scheme like that he had shadowed forth. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolution.

§ MR. BRISTOWE
trusted his hon. Friend would not press his Motion. He (Mr. Bristowe) did not dispute the anomalies of which his hon. Friend had complained; but he thought his hon. Friend had selected an inconvenient mode of bringing forward a question which would involve the taxation of a great number of the clergy who had hitherto been exempted.
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,