Lord Sidmouthrose for the purpose of opposing the proceeding. It was with pain he differed, and on topics of such peculiar importance as those involved in the measure in question, from the reverend and learned prelate who brought forward the bill. It was said, it would be a boon to the universities. No person could possibly have a greater respect for these very useful, learned, and respectable bodies, than himself; yet he conceived that the bill before the house would operate rather as a boon to individuals belonging to those corporations, than to the institutions themselves. Great stress was laid upon the inconveniences produced by the restrictions which the bill was intended to remove, but he believed no proof whatever was brought forward of any practical inconvenience having taken place. The restriction had continued for more than half a century. It was enacted at the instance of that profound lawyer and venerable magistrate, lord Hardwicke, who, no doubt, had thoroughly considered the subject before he proposed the restraining clause. In the former debate on the subject, it was also said, the succession to the livings was at present too slow for the beneficial purposes of the institution; but of this no proof was brought forward, and, as the case stood, he was entitled to contend, were the restriction removed, the succession would be too rapid. He was perfectly aware of the importance of the subject to which these conderations referred, and no one could be more willing to promote the comforts and 450 the interests of those persons affected by the bill, as far as the same could be done without trenching on those principles, and on that system, upon which the institutions were hitherto introduced. The important consideration of a due connection between the properties of the laity and the ecclesiastical establishments of the country, made also a part of the present subject. How far giving an unlimited power to the universities to acquire advowsons, would operate with respect to that consideration, was matter for serious discussion. He repeated, no practical inconvenience had hitherto been proved to exist. He was against conferring an unlimited power on the universities, though, under what had been stated, he had no objection to open the door wider, and to extend the proportion of the number of livings from one half to three-fourths of the number of fellows in the respective colleges. Nor did he object to other regulations being made, upon the same principle, such as augmenting the value of the present livings, &c.; but he was hostile to all innovations, which did not proveably proceed upon sure and certain grounds. A more liberal provision made for those meritorious persons, could, he thought, he obtained without having recourse to a sweeping repeal of all limitation whatever. Adverting to the present state of church livings in general, and the duties of parochial ministers, his lordship thought the augmentation of the value of small livings would be highly beneficial, as well as the erection of more churches in the populous parts of the country, and in great towns, in many parts of the metropolis, in particular. With respect to the subject of the bill in question, he contended their lordships had by no means sufficient information to proceed upon. He saw no immediate necessity for proceeding with the measure. Time, certainly, should be given for further enquiry. If, however, it should be the general sense of the house, that the bill shall speedily be committed, he hoped what he had suggested, in the way of detailed regulation, would be seriously considered by their lordships; such as, that the extent of the increased proportion of livings should not be suffered to exceed three-fourths, and the smaller livings augmented. Under his present views of the question, what he should propose was, that the bill should be postponed until next session, for the purposes he had mentioned. He would, 451 therefore, propose to amend the question regularly before the house, by omitting the word "now," and inserting "this day 3 months."—On the question being put,
The Bishop of Oxford rose, and argued generally in support of the measure. He Contended that the proportion in which the restraint stood, by the existing law, was fallacious in the extreme. The knowledge Which their lordships had of the subject Was sufficient for them to proceed upon. There was nothing in the bill, to interfere with the augmentation of the value of the smaller livings; the erection of churches, or a more suitable pension for the officiating clergy. With respect to the idea, that no practical inconvenience had hitherto resulted from the restraint; there was no necessity of direct proof of it before the house; it was every day, and injuriously felt. An appeal to the colleges would soon convince on that head, particularly that of which the noble and learned lord was a member; abundant proofs of that could be found. He must, therefore, deprecate any further postponement of the discussion.
The Archbishop of Canterburyobserved, that he conceived the principal objections of the noble viscount to the bill, to be, first, an apprehension, that, were the existing restraint removed, the succession to the university livings would be too rapid; and, secondly, that it would tend to deprive the laity of too great a degree of that portion of patronage, which he conceived to be at present so beneficially vested in them. With respect to the first objection, his grace observed, he conceived the state of the funds of the universities would operate as a sufficient check to any thing which might be feared, if too rapid. With respect to the present state of the patronage of ecclesiastical livings, he should be extremely sorry to see it taken away from numbers of those who at present enjoyed it, and who so beneficially dispensed it, particularly members of that noble house. But there was another description of patronage, which, they must all feel, had a very different tendency. He alluded to that, which was afloat in the market, and every day bought and sold under circumstances injurious to the establishment of the church, the interests of religion, and; he believed, against the laws of the realm; the patronage of such persons might easily be placed in better hands, and in none more advantageously than those of the universi- 452 ties. He had not the least apprehension on the score of too rapid a succession. And, convinced as he felt of the beneficial tendency of the measure, he should support the original motion.
Lord Auckland,though he professed himself not unfriendly to the bill, yet was of opinion that their lordships had not sufficient information to go upon: a practical inconvenience was a matter capable of proof; let that be brought forward, and the amount and respective value of the livings in the hands of the different colleges should also be known. The funds of the universities may also be matter of proper consideration, for it was important to know how far they had the means of providing, which they themselves held forth as a remedy for the alleged grievance: there was no evidence whatever on these heads before the house.
The Bishop of Oxfordshortly observed, he was in possession of some detailed information on those heads, did noble lords deem it necessary.
Lord Aucklandresumed. He contended for the propriety of having an account of the number and value of livings in the gift of the different colleges, as some of those it might be desirable to augment. The state of their respective funds should also be known. One general rule could not properly be laid down for the whole. The means of some colleges for providing for its members may be more than sufficient; of others, they may be inadequate. It was a subject on which they should not proceed to legislate blindly. It may, however, be desirable to go into a committee on the bill, as that detailed mode of discussion may at least give them an idea of the precise nature of the necessary information.
§ Lord Grenvillein some degree agreed with the noble lord who spoke last, in deeming that the house was not possessed of sufficient information: he thought it, however, better to proceed with the bill and endeavour to get the necessary information, than to postpone the measure to an indefinite period, without the least certainty of procuring the necessary information. It would be preferable to go into the committee, to ascertain the precise nature of the information wanted, and adopt measures to obtain it. The measure before the house was, he contended, brought forward on adequate parliamentary grounds. The real merits of the bill, as it then stood, 453 resolved into this question, did there now exist sufficient grounds for continuing the restriction? With respect to the apprehension of a rapid succession, he thought those persons who so worthily presided in the different colleges would take care to prevent that; but he was inclined, upon the whole, to credit the assertion that the present succession to the college livings was too slow, and in considering this part of the subject, the peculiarly strong claims of those who were to be ameliorated by the bill, should be attended to. The question under consideration was not of figures or of numerical calculation, but of reasoning, feeling, and presumption. With respect to that salutary and beneficial connection which subsisted between the property of the laity, and the religious establishments of the country, did he perceive the least tendency in the bill to militate against the measure; but with a most reverend prelate, he thought it would have a contrary tendency. He had no fears on that head, for even did too great an accumulation of advowsons, or too rapid a succession ensue, the legislature might hereafter interpose and check it, as it had already done. Many of the arguments of a noble viscount, he contended, operated for, instead of against going into a committee. The restriction, at present, he argued, operated unjustly, it referred merely to the number of the advowsons, without in the least considering their respective value. This part of an amelioration of the present system could but be considered in a committee, in favour of which proceeding, every thing advanced in argument, that night, decidedly tended.
Lord Sidmouthexplained, that what he had said was, that there was no proof brought forward of the succession being too slow.
Lord Aucklandcontended that where a grievance was alleged, it should be established in proof; the case in the present instance was one of evidence and fact, an adequate proof ought to be given.
The Bishop of Londonargued in favour of the measure, and urged the consideration of such a bill as the present in a committee, as particularly necessary. Adverting to the general state of parochial establishments; he lamented there were so few parish churches in the western parts of the metropolis. Most of the chapels of ease were private property, and afforded no accommodation for the lower orders of the 454 people, and what was the consequence? these persons either went to no church at all, or were constrained to frequent places of worship different from those of the established religion. He trusted these matters would be seriously considered by the legislature, and taken up at some future period, and also the consideration of the number of small and inadequate livings, and the impracticability of clerical residence in many of these.
The Bishop of St. Asaphcontended, that every thing that was advanced, were reasons for going into a committee on the bill; they were in possession of adequate information, in order to proceed with the bill; and the legislature, when it originally laid on the restriction, was not informed, as his noble friend opposite contended the house should have been, or the proportion of the numbers allotted would be very different; he had no fears of too rapid a succession ever taking place; the colleges had not the means of affording an opportunity for that; but, he observed, that the patronage of the universities was always honourably and beneficially exercised.
The Lord Chancelloragreed with a noble baron (Grenville), that the question before them was rather one of general reasoning, than proceeding upon particular information. The original restriction did not appear founded on the state of the respective colleges, or the proportion would be very different. In advancing this, he meant not the slightest reflection on the name of that great and venerable character who proposed it, whose name would be remembered as long as the law of England continued to be known. That his position was well founded, would clearly appear on comparing the allotted number of livings, viz. one half of that of the fellows of colleges in the universities, with the actual number of persons in each college capable of being so beneficed. Some of these (referring, for example, to that which he had the honour to belong) had the entire number of their fellows ecclesiastics, whereas others had not half their number clerical men. How, therefore, could the allotted proportion of one moiety apply equally or justly to both? He agreed with the observations of the rev. prelates, on the scandalous traffic for church preferments, the extent and tendency of which did not seem to have been fully perceived by the illustrious author of the restriction, and which the noble and learned lord strongly reprobated as of the most 455 pernicious tendency. He had no fears of too rapid a succession, or that through the operation of the bill, the patronage of the laity would be improperly trenched upon.
§ Lord Ellenboroughobserved, as the general sense of their lordships appeared to be for going into a committee, he should detain them very shortly. He was of opinion that it would be expedient to set some limitation to the acquisition of advowsons in such cases as the present. The house should consider that the corporations in question were as trustees who purchased for their own benefit; that they were not only donors but donees; there obviously therefore existed reasons for some restraint, which did not exist in other corporations. He must join with the noble lords and reverend prelates who reprobated that scandalous traffic in church preferments so forcibly alluded to. He was fully aware how greatly preferable it would be to see such patronage vested in the universities; but even with reference to purchases, even from these quarters, he conceived, considering the possibility of abuse, that some degree of restraint would even then be necessary. They should endeavour to find some certain ratio for apportioning the number of livings to that of the fellows of the respective colleges, or rather of those who are capable of being beneficed, and therefore some words should be introduced to express that provision in the bill, as "such persons as are elected, or are capable of being elected."
The Bishop of Oxfordin reply, observed, that no fears need be entertained of too great an accumulation of patronage on the part of the universities, even were that likely to take place, as parliament would always have it in their power to check the vicious excess; nay, to check the evil in the bud. He entered into some calculations as to the number of livings vested in different bodies. Of these, we understood the reverend prelate to say, that a less number than 700 were at the disposal of the universities, and many of these of small value, out of an aggregate of upwards of ten thousand livings.
The Duke of Norfolksaid, that if the bill were agreed to by the committee, without some limitation or degree of restraint introduced, he would certainly oppose it in some future stage. He conceived that the same reasons continued to operate which induced the legislature, in its wisdom, in the year 1736, to provide the re- 456 straint in question.—The house then, after negativing the proposition of lord Sidmouth, resolved into a committee on the bill, and lord Walsingham having taken the chair, the preamble was postponed, and the enacting clause entered into pro formâ. It being settled between their lordships across the table that progress should be reported, and leave asked to sit again; which being done, the committee was directed to sit again on. Wednesday.—Adjourned.