§ The Earl of Buckinghamshire,previous to their lordships entering into any discussion upon this bill, moved, "That a Return be made of all the benefices in the kingdom of 400l. and upwards, distinguishing those where the incumbent was not resident either three months at one time, or four months at separate times."
§ Lord Harrowbyopposed the motion, as it then stood, and proposed an amendment, omitting the words 'distinguishing those, and in that shape he had no inclination to oppose the motion.
The Archbishop of Canterburyrepresented the great difficulty which would attend any attempt to gain the desired information.
§ Viscount Sidmouthexpressed his concurrence in the motion as proposed by the noble earl; after which the house divided: Contents 16; Non-contents 28. Majority against the motion 12.
The Bishop of Londonthen rose, and stated that he trusted the house would excuse any omission he might make in delivering his sentiments; for he felt the pressure of great age and bodily infirmity. It would become him, in the best manner he could, to give to the house the reasons which had led to the introduction of the present bill, and then to give a description of the provisions contained therein. Their lordships would take into consideration 1087 that evils had arisen in the church on account of the non-residence of its clergy. It was not merely reading prayers and preaching on a Sunday which formed the chief functions of a clergyman. Residence amongst the people of a parish, visiting them frequently, praying with and comforting the sick, instructing the ignorant, encouraging the virtuous, reproving the vicious, catechising the children, and superintending the schools instituted for their education, were duties which more immediately belonged to the office of a clergyman, and more essentially promoted the cause of religion. But, to accomplish this purpose, it was necessary to resort to the means provided by the present bill, which was no more than to lake from those who did nothing, a reasonable allowance for the curate who performed the whole of the service for which the living itself was at first granted. To perform the several duties he had mentioned, it was highly proper that the resident clergyman should possess that degree of property which would enable him to appear with respectability, and have wherewith to relieve, on particular occasions, the distresses of his indigent parishioners. The introduction of this bill, therefore, became absolutely necessary for the welfare of the people, and the true interests of the Christian religion. An act passed in the 36th of the present reign, granting to the curate 75l. per arm. and the parsonage-house, in case of the incumbent's non-residence, or 15l. in lieu thereof if he did reside; but, if their lordships would recollect the high price of the necessaries of life, if they would reflect that curates in general were men of taste and literature, that they had been accustomed to support a decent appearance in the world, that they had been brought up at the university, and then, if they would also consider, that many of them had a wife, and seven or eight children, whom they were obliged to maintain out of so small a salary, he submitted to their opinion, that the situation of such a curate was absolute beggary. If he were disposed to take up their lordships' time, he had it in his power to pourtray such scenes of distress amongst poor curates, as would make a deep and melancholy impression upon their minds. The present measure went to provide a proper person to reside in those parishes which were deserted by their incumbents, where the living amounted to 400l. and upwards, and to allow, out of that income, one-fifth 1088 for the support of that person, so appointed, to do the duty. There were many benefices of 1,000l. 2,000l. and some of 3,000l. a-year, but this provision of one-fifth was adopted only till it amounted to 250l. a-year. Now, it had been said, that' the principle of this bill was a violation of private property, and an innovation upon the ecclesiastical establishment; but, if we considered what had been done by the legislature in the 12th of queen Anne, and 36th of the present king, we should be convinced that such interference was not unprecedented. He considered that the living of every incumbent was conditional, and the canons of the church and various conventions, clearly shewed that it was according to the ecclesiastical law, that bishops had a right to interfere with the whole living, by taking it from the incumbent who neglected to perform his duty, and granting it to another under their own appointment. This right of the bishops interference had continued in unison with the ecclesiastical and statute law, from the time of Edward 3d., down to the present hour—a period of 500 years. Another observation had been made, and it contained a very grave and serious charge, alleging that the bishops already had too much power, and that they had been guilty of abuse in the exercise thereof. He trusted that no one would presume to attack a whole profession, without giving proof of his assertion. He should not believe the accusation, if it were not supported by sufficient proof, and he thought it would be difficult to produce any satisfactory testimony. At the same time, he was anxious to better the situation of the curates of this kingdom: the beneficed clergy would do him the justice to acknowledge that he had, on a former occasion, been as solicitous for their interest; and he did think that the success of that bill, which increased the livings of the clergy of London, was accelerated by his exertions, and he had received their thanks for his conduct in respect to that measure. Thus far he was induced to speak of his own services, but from no other motive than to justify his conduct upon this occasion. With confidence he felt himself disposed to leave the present bill to the due consideration and wisdom of that house, as their lordships would duly estimate its importance as necessary to support the best interests of religion.
The Earl of Moiraconsidered the arguments alledged by the right rev. prelate, 1089 in respect to proceeding upon this measure, merely because the legislature interfering on a former occasion, in 1790, as dangerous to the rights of the Church. He did view this measure in a different light from that rev. prelate; at the same time, he venerated him for his learning, and the good he had done the country. But, paying him that homage which was due to him from every peer of that house, he could not reconcile the principles of the bill to his approbation, It was a violation of private property, and it was to be defended on this ground, that a part of the rector's income had been apportioned to the curate on a former occasion. Why then, at a future time another bill might be introduced, founded upon the present, to appropriate the whole of the incumbent's living! Even the act of 1796, in his mind, had been the cause of considerable hardship; there were livings as low as 100l. a-year, and yet 75l. out of that must be paid to the officiating curate. He felt as much as any man for the distressed situation of poor curates; but while we attended to their relief, we should be cautious of doing injury to another class of the same profession. He was adverse to the principle of the bill, and certainly should give his dissent to the measure.
§ Lord Harrowbyvindicated the present measure, as justified by the laws of ancient and modern times. There was some reason to apprehend that the ecclesiastical law, without any act of the legislature, permitted the bishops to interfere with the disposal of benefices, for the purpose of having the service duly performed. The right by which all livings were held, he contended, was conditional. He argued from the canons and the statutes for centuries, that it had always been deemed the lawful right of the bishop to appropriate a part, and sometimes the whole, as a remuneration to the resident and officiating clergyman.
§ Viscount Sidmouthattributed the present measure to the reverend prelate who had spoken first in debate, and he regretted much that his duty obliged him to differ in opinion from one he so highly esteemed and venerated. But he was conscientiously bound to declare that he was inimical to the principle of the present bill. He could not consider the relief given to the curate as permanent; the rector might return to perform his duty, and then the increased salary of the curate would be taken from him, and he must return to his 1090 former poverty, which would not be doing a benefit, but an injury, to that class of the profession; so that, on their account, he did not approve of the measure. He did not perceive that any notice was taken of curates appointed by lay impropriators, who were equally worthy of the attention of the legislature. He did not know that any complaint had been made by curates themselves, nor had any petition been presented, stating such grievances to that house; and he hoped to be informed by two right rev. prelates from Ireland, then present, if they knew that such a proceeding would meet with the approbation of the Irish clergy. His lordship concluded by moving, "That the Bill be read a second time this day three months."
The Earl of Suffolkrose for the purpose of making a few observations, in respect to what had been stated by the noble viscount, concerning the situation of distressed curates. Two years ago he had interested himself on that subject, and had received nearly two hundred letters from persons of that class of the profession, but he had now lost them; but there were statements amongst them, which would have caused a benevolent heart to bleed. One of these letters accidentally was preserved (his lordship here read it); it stated that the rector possessed 1000l. a-year, and did no duty; he himself, the curate, had every Sunday to perform at three places of public worship; he had a family to support, and his salary was altogether 64l. a year. His lordship also mentioned, that a clergyman once came to his house, and appeared before his son, who performed the duties of a magistrate, and the nature of his statement was, that he was a curate in a parish, not far distant, the rector allowed him 50 guineas a-year, but he took care to deduct five guineas annually to pay that proportion of his income duty; and the commissioners, knowing he had 50 guineas salary, ordered him to pay another five guineas for his own property tax, so that he was in the actual enjoyment of no more than 40 guineas per annum. The noble earl expressed himself friendly to the principle of the bill.
§ The Earl of Buckinghamshireconsidered the present measure calculated to create great dissatisfaction and uneasiness amongst the beneficed clergy. He did not conceive that its advocates had made out a case, or that any evil was proved, calling for a remedy which so vitally affected the 1091 security of church property. The danger of such a precedent might unhappily be felt in future times; and it was impossible, in such a contemplation, not to advert to the case of a compliance with the Catholic petitions—an occurrence to which he was by no means friendly. It was also to be recollected that advowsons were now bought and sold in the same manner as any other negociable property. With what justice then, could the legislature call upon a beneficed clergyman, who had bought his living at a calculation of having the services of a curate at a certain price, to pay a still larger sum? Surely, it was in such a case no slight violation of the security of property. His lordship concluded by expressing his determination to vote for the amendment moved by his noble friend.
The Archbishop of Canterburyfelt anxious to convince the house, that the measure proposed was neither oppressive in its operation, nor a violation of the interests of the Church. The power which it gave to the bishops was only similar to that with which they were invested in the earliest times of the constitution of the Church. He cited the case of a bishop of Worcester, who was rebuked by the Pope, for not allowing a sufficient compensation to vicars temporal—curates, as they were then designated in his diocese. Indeed, up to the Reformation, and subsequent to that period, such power was vested in the ordinary; and the very evil now sought to be redressed, was in a great degree to be traced to the enactment of a legislative provision, which, for purposes then perhaps apparently wise, deprived the bishops of such power, and substituted an act of parliament as the mode of regulation. The right rev. prelate concluded by observing, that he would be the last man in that house who would support the measure, if it in the remotest degree trenched upon the security or interests of the Established Church, but at the same time that he gave his support to the principle, he did by no means pledge himself to accede to any one of its provisions.
The Lord Chancellortook the opportunity of saying, that it was his wish to restore those powers which originally were vested in the ordinary, and of which in times of violence they were deprived. His own opinion on this bill was in unison with the two decisions of the other house of parliament, and a previous one of their lordships; but still, though he supported 1092 the principle, he agreed with the right rev. prelate, who last spoke, in by no means pledging himself to its provisions.
The Earl of Lauderdalereprobated the measure. It violated the security of the property of the church, at the same time that it weakened the interests of religion. It was with young men in that sacred calling as it was with those in the other respectable professions of life. Deprive them of the stimulus to professional advancement and the spur to honourable ambition, and the legislature would deaden their industry and activity, both in the exertion of the talents, and the practice of the duties, which led to the highest honours in that and the other professions. In applying that principle to the present bill, he contended, that to give the young curate such an actual provision for all the enjoyments of life, as this bill gave, went to deaden every motive of fair ambition, and every inducement to deserve, by his exemplary exertions, the highest honours of the Church. He had a more paramount objection to this bill, inasmuch as it legislated on the morality of the country. The unerring testimony of experience convinced him that such precepts were worse enforced, if not totally perverted, by an act of parliament. The natural instinct, of man led him to the fulfilment of his duties. The parent knew, and would practise, his duties to his child; so would the child to his parent; but, introduce an act of parliament for such regulation, and its introduction would not fail to dissolve the cement of the social feelings, and poison the very sources of human happiness. Besides, there appeared no necessity for this measure, as there was on their table neither addresses from curates, complaining of insufficient salaries, or from parishioners complaining of a neglect of duty in their rectors. But, perhaps, the great origin of the evil would be found in the frequency of ordination, and in calling to that profession such numbers of young clergymen as it was impossible to provide for. In such case the evils ought not to be visited on the beneficed clergy, but should be attributed to that glut of the commodity which the reverend prelates themselves occasioned. He also opposed the bill as laying a great weight on the possessor of a small living, at the same time that it affected the rector, with 2000l. a-year, in a very trifling manner.
§ The question was then put, and the 1093 house divided: For the amendment 17; Against it 36.—Majority 19.