§ Upon the order of the day for the third reading of this bill,
§ The Earl of Buckinghamshirerenewed his objections to the bill at some length.
§ Lord Harrowbysupported the bill upon the same grounds he had advanced upon a former debate.
The Lord Chancellorexpressed himself as desirous as any man could be to provide amply for every degree of the clergy, so as to enable them to maintain the respectability and dignity of their sacred character; but he was much afraid this bill would not answer the end which it proposed. He clearly foresaw it would be productive of numerous vexations, which, instead of promoting the interests of religion, would rather tend to injure them. When the Residence bill passed that house, it had been proposed by a short clause, to make a provision for curates; but that clause had been rejected, and he was perhaps as much to blame as any other person for the failure of that clause. Viewing, however, the present bill in the light he 1112 did, he could not give it his support; but as his objections were principally grounded on what he conceived of its effects, as a lawyer, he would wish the reverend bench would give their opinions on it, which could not fail to have great weight with the house.
The Bishop of Rochester, in consequence of this appeal, rose and said, that the diocese over which he presided was so small, as not to furnish a sufficient number of instances by which any criterion for judgment could be established. He could, however, assure their lordships, that this was a measure to which he had paid great attention, with a view of extending all the relief, comfort, and convenience possible to those meritorious and active labourers in the vineyard for whom provision was intended by the present measure; he regretted, however, that the bill in its present form was completely inadequate to accomplish the object which their lordships had in view, and, above all, that it could not have that immediate and beneficial effect expected by the liberal and humane right reverend prelate, who chiefly supported it. Their lordships must be aware that nothing could tend so effectually to the support and maintenance of the established religion as union amongst its clergy. This was an object so desirable, that every well wisher of the church must feel strongly inclined to encourage and support it; but surely the proper line to be followed was not that which the clauses of this bill went to introduce, under the sanction of the legislature. The curate and the rector would be set at variance in the first instance, and then their superiors were to be involved in the contest by the power of appeal; so that from beginning to end there would be nothing but one scene of confusion, distrust, and jealousy. He certainly was as liberally disposed as any man towards the inferior classes of the clergy, but until some effectual plan should be introduced for affording them complete relief, he was not inclined to disturb the present order of things.
The Bishops of Hereford and Carlislecoincided with the right reverend prelate in his view of the subject.
The Bishop of Londonregretted the necessity which he felt of dissenting from the right rev. prelates who had just delivered their opinions; but, painful as it was for him to be in that situation, he still felt it incumbent on him to give his feeble support to this bill, because he was convinced 1113 that it would promote the interests of religion, and give additional security to the established church.
§ Lord Hawkesburysupported the bill, and said, that the right hon. and learned gent. who brought in the bill for the residence of the clergy, had expressly declared that a better provision should be made for the curates, by a subsequent measure, and under that impression he had supported that bill. When that bill was brought into the house of lords, a clause to make a better provision for curates was then proposed, and the noble and learned lord was one of those who particularly objected to it; so that he thought the present bill ought to pass, in order that a proper provision might be made for so large and deserving a body of the clergy as the curates.
The Bishop of Londonbore testimony to what had been urged by lord Hawkesbury by saying, that he had himself, when the Residence bill was before the house, proposed the clause in favour of the curates which had been alluded to; and he recollected, that the noble and learned lord had then particularly objected to it, on the ground that it should be the object of a separate bill. It had now been introduced in a separate bill, and he thought that bill should pass, for if it did not, he was afraid this would be the last time it would be attempted.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that thus called on, he must beg leave to say a few words. He acknowledged he had opposed the clause alluded to, and which had been brought in by the rev. prelate who spoke last, and he had already mentioned it this evening, and taken blame to himself on that account. He then very much wished the Residence bill should pass, and he and other noble lords who thought with him, were apprehensive that if that clause was tacked to it, the bill would be lost. He owned they had been mistaken, but that was the real cause of their objection. He observed his noble friend (lord Hawkesbury) smiled at what he said, but if he meant it in doubt of what he said, he would not bear it; for he had already expressly mentioned the circumstance before either the noble lord or the rev. prelate had alluded to the clause in question. The noble lord had said, that a right hon. and learned gent, who brought in the Residence bill, had pledged himself that a separate bill should be brought in for the better provision of curates. If any man could alter his sentiments on the present bill, it would 1114 be that right hon. and learned gent.; but he believed, he neither attended the discussions on, nor voted for the present bill; but not even the high respect and affection he entertained for him could prevail on him, to countenance a measure, which, in his conscience, he believed to be so pregnant with vexatious and mischievous effects.
The Archbishop of Canterburysaid that he was perfectly satisfied with the principle of the bill, but there were some of the clauses which he thought would be attended with injurious effects, and would introduce vexation and mischief; he should therefore vote that the bill be rejected.
§ The question being called for, the Bill was rejected without a division.