Lords Sitting of 8 February 1831

MINUTES.
The Amendments in the Judgment and Execution Bill, made by the House of Commons, were agreed to, on the Motion of Lord TENTERDEN.
Petitions presented. Against Slavery, by the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, from a place in Dorsetshire:—By the Earl of RADNOR, from a place in Tipperary:—By Lord WHARCLIFFE, seven from places in Yorkshire:—By the Bishop of ELY, from Stamford. For Reform of Parliament, by the Duke of DEVONSHIRE, from Belper, Derbyshire, and from Waterford:—By the Karl of CARNARVON", from Stroud, Gloucestershire. By the Duke of DEVONSHIRK, from places in Ireland, against Grants to the Kildare-street Society; and from Worksop, for an import Duty on foreign Lead. For the repeal of the Tax on Sea-borne Coals, by the Duke of WELLINGTON, from Dover:—By the Earl of JERSEY, from Swansea:— By Lord WHARNCLIFFE, from the Inhabitants of Coleman-street Ward. For the Reduction of Taxation, by the Earl of CARNARVON, from Gosport:—By the Duke of RICHMOND, from a Parish in Sussex:—By Lord WIIARN-CLIPPE, also praying for Reform, from Suttle and Mon-mouth. By Lord WYNPORD, from Charterhouse-Hinton, Somersetshire, against the employment of Machinery. For the Repeal of the Assessed Taxes, by Lord KINO, from Newcastle-upon-Tyne; and from St. Anne, Westminster.

His Lordship stated, that he thought the Assessed Taxes not improper ones; and as far as they fell on the rich, they were some of the best taxes we could have.
By Lord WHARNCUFFE, from the Inhabitants of Cole-man street Ward.

PLANS FOR COMMUTING TITHES. PLURALITIES, AND NON-RESIDENCE.
Lord Kingsaid, that having some other Petitions to present on the subject of Tithes, he must renew that, to some persons, inconvenient discussion, but to others most convenient discussion, which was begun and objected to yesterday. Yesterday he had brought the Somersetshire militia into the field,—to-day he came down with the militia from Gloucestershire. He was happy to say, that all persons appeared now to agree that some alteration was necessary, and it only remained to find out what alteration. One of the right rev. Prelates had yesterday asked him, if he had any plan for making the change. He had; he had three plans, all very good ones, and all simple plans. The first, which was perhaps the most simple and the best, was, to charge the land with a proportion of the rent for the maintenance of the clergy; or he would propose that an amount of rent, equal to the annual revenues of the clergy, should be paid to them, and they should be entitled to that sum in all times to come. His second plan was, to give them a corn-rent equal to the tithes, and they should always have that quantity of corn, or the value of it, according to the market rate. He was willing, too, to admit that the quantity of corn should be determined by the actual receipts of the clergy during the last seven years. After ascertaining the amount, he would by this means fix

233
the claims of the clergy forever. Another, and his third plan was, to take the whole of the tithes and the Church property and sell them, and pay the proceeds into the hands of the Government, who should take upon itself to provide a due maintenance for the clergy; and the overplus, if any, and he was sure there would be a great overplus, should go to the public; or a part of the overplus might be employed to provide better for the working clergy. One thing, however, was needful, let it be done as it might, and that was, to abolish that most impolitic tax, the tax on the gross produce of the land. It was necessary to do this to make property beneficial. To secure private property, promoted the increase of the produce— but tithes curtailed the produce of the land. It was said, that, there was no difference between Church property and other property. But sometimes the clergy said, that there was a great difference between the Church property and other property. The clergy knew very well that maxim of law, nullum tempus, and on that they acted. Nothing, they said, could bar the right of the Church; their claims went back to the days of Richard 2nd, and no other property was on the same footing. This was a difference, then, between Church property and other property, on which the clergy were ready enough to insist when they had any claims. Then they said the Church property was different from other property. Now he said that it was. One of the right rev. Prelates yesterday staled, that the Bishops had brought forward a measure, or a bill, he did not know which, and he wished the right rev. Prelate had been more explicit; but the rev. Prelate said, the hierarchy wished for a measure strictly to enforce residence, and that this measure was defeated by the lay impropriators, or the lay owners of advowsons. They had defeated the measure because they thought it would diminish the value of their advowsons to enforce residence. He knew not what measure was meant, or what object the Bishops had sought to accomplish; but he was disposed to assert, that the non-residence was caused, in a great measure, by the Bishops themselves. The greatest number of non-residents, he believed, was to be found in the families of the Bishops themselves. Thus the name of Prettyman was synonymous with that of pluralist. The name of Sparke, too, was synonymous with that of pluralist. In
234
fact, the names of half the bench were synonymes of pluralist. He would take the liberty of reading a letter on this subject, which he had cut out of a newspaper—it was addressed to the Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells, and was signed Francis Gillet. It was dated from Knight's Farm, Musbury, Devon, and was as follows:—
"MY LORD— My duty to myself and my country at the present crisis impels me to intrude on your Lordship's most serious consideration concerning the manner in which you have disposed of some of the Dignities and Benefices belonging to the Sec of Wells, since you succeeded the late worthy and highly respected Bishop. Dr. Beadon; and also on your future Church government.
"On the vacancy in the Living of West Camel, your Lordship instituted your son: to this no one objected; a deserving young Clergyman is certainly every way qualified for a country Rectory; but when he became the Archdeacon, I must say that, taking his rage into consideration, and his title of Venerable, I blushed; yes, my Lord. I even blushed! Is it consistent, my Lord, to see so young a man have rule over so many elders of the Church? But to proceed: On Mr. Beadon's resignation of the Chancellorship, this office also went with the Archdeaconry!—further, I have been told, that at an election for a Canon of the Cathedral, the Chapter did elect some other candidate; thinking, no doubt, as I did, that the thing was already overdone with respect to your son; although I hear since he has obtained this situation also!
"These proceedings passed on, but not, I assure your Lordship, without giving me great uneasiness; yet I never should, most probably, have drawn your attention to them, had I not, lastly, and rather recently, seen by the papers that at the death of that highly respected gentleman, the late Rev. T. H. Whalley, the living of Yeovilton was also swallowed up by the same overwhelming flood; or, in plain words, was joined to the Archdeaconry, Chancellorship, Canonry, and Living before mentioned At the same time, it certainly might not have given your Lordship much trouble to have found within your Diocess some truly respectable clergymen, advanced in years, with families, and who are not beneficed, to one of whom this small but comfortable Rectory might have been a source of the greatest happiness in their latter days. Besides, my Lord, how can you reconcile to yourself the idea of one clergyman holding two Benefices, or Livings, whilst you are so strenuous an enforcer of full duty within your Diocess? and surely the duties of the parish, both with respect to the church and poor, must be beyond all comparison better performed by a Rector or Vicar, as the case may be, than by a poor Curate, however deserving.
"I am aware, my Lord, that it is possible, some—nay, even yourself, for a moment— may say it is arrogance in so humble an in-

235
dividual as I am, to trouble your Lordship in this public way; but as I now state to your Lordship that the greatest dependance of myself and children consists of landed property (however few the acres are) within your Lordship's Diocess, and that I have no claim to the emoluments of the Church to look up for, my apprehensions at once will be seen to arise from a firm conviction on my mind of the immediate necessity of a thorough reform in the Church—that she might be brought once more to stand on that sacred basis—that only firm foundation—on which she stood in the primitive ages."
This letter had been published in the Papers—he did not vouch for its correctness, but it had never been contradicted, he believed, though he should be glad to hear it contradicted. Here, then, was another pluralist not a layman. The rev. Prelates said, they wished to prevent pluralities; and as he had given them a plan to commute tithes, he would also give them a plan to secure residence, in fact, nothing was more simple. It was only necessary to make the fact of non-residence a legal receipt for the tithes and the other salaries. That would do the business effectually, far better than all the Bishops. He would say no more on presenting his petitions, except to recommend the right rev. Prelate, who proposed to bring in a moderate bill, to adopt the words so frequently used, he believed, by Mr. Pitt during a great part of the late war, "give up a part to preserve the remainder." The noble Lord concluded by presenting several Petitions from parishes in Gloucestershire, praying for the Commutation of Tithes.
The Bishop of Bath and Wellsdid not intend to have taken any part in the debate, but after the attack levelled at him by the noble Lord, he felt himself bound to give an answer; and deeply did he regret that he was under the necessity of appearing before their Lordships as the defender of his own son. The fact certainly was, that his son had two livings, but they were so close to each other that he could well do the duty of both. They were not further than a short walk from each other. In his first living he had been a loser, as he had given up all his income for the church. He had certainly taken a second living, but he had also employed a curate in each. In one he did the duty himself in the morning, and in the other in the afternoon, while his curate performed the duty in the other part of the day. The first preferment
236
which his son possessed was not given by him, but, on account of his son's merit, by the rev. Prelate behind him. The other was bestowed on him by the venerable Earl of Eldon, out of respect for his son's character and worth. His son had accepted, at his request, the duties of Chancellor of his diocess; and he had certainly given him the best thing in his gift, in his diocess. He had brought him from College for that purpose, where he was earning, however, a deal mote than the value of his Church preferments. He believed, so exemplary was his excellent son's conduct, that if inquiry were made in his parishes, the noble Lord would not find one human being not disposed to speak highly in his favour. He had been compelled to make this statement, and he hoped it had been satisfactory to their Lordships. His son was a person of great merit, and he certainly had conferred some favours on him in his diocess; and when the noble Lord stated his preferment, he ought to inquire if the duties were well discharged. He must say, that he did not think it possible that the duties could be better discharged than they were discharged by his excellent son, the Archdeacon of Wells. He trusted the noble Lord would be ashamed and sorry for having brought forward such an uncalled-for attack.
Lord Kingfelt neither ashamed nor sorry. He had only asked, if there were not pluralities among the Bishops, who said they wanted to put them down; and he found out that it was so. The letter he had read stated, that the rev. Prelate's son was a deserving young man, and he had made no attack on him; he had only stated, that there were pluralities in that gentleman's possession, and he found that he was correct. He brought the circumstance forward because others— he meant the Bishops—said, that laymen were the cause of the existence of pluralities in the Church. The Bishops were not right, therefore, in laying the blame of pluralities on laymen, and it was quite plain, if they had resisted the bill alluded to, the Bishops had profited by it.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, that it had been asserted by a right rev. Prelate, that a bill, or measure, enforcing residence, and putting an end to pluralities, had been opposed by lay impropriators, and he had been asked, when that bill was proposed? but he had made no answer. He under-

237
stood the right rev. Prelate to say, that the Bishops were not the causes of non-residence; that this was not owing to the hierarchy, but to the lay impropriators. The right rev. Prelate had stated, that on some occasion a bill to enforce residence had been proposed, and that its powers had been curtailed by the lay impropriators, who had opposed the bill, as injuring the advowsons of which they were the owners. He had tasked his recollection to find out what bill the right rev. Prelate alluded to. He had searched, too, those records which were usually preserved of parliamentary proceedings, to find out what Act the lay impropriators had opposed, but he regretted that he was disappointed. He hoped, therefore, that the right rev. Prelate would explain what he meant by his assertion last night, that a bill had been brought in to give a right, or power, to the Bishops to enforce residence, and that by lay impropriators this bill had been turned from its purpose.
The Bishop of Londonwas reluctant to take part in this discussion, which was the reason why he had not risen to answer the question put by the noble Baron. There was little occasion, he believed, to do so, because their Lordships would, he hoped, recollect what he stated the night before. The noble Lord had not repeated his words correctly, and he should only endeavour to re-state them. What he said was this. In accounting for non-residence, he had not said that the lay impropriators solely were the cause of it, but that it was chiefly owing to lay impropriations that it was in many cases impossible for the clergy to reside at their benefices. The chief part of the property belonging to the Church had, in many cases, been taken away and appropriated by laymen, and the revenue left was insufficient to pay for the performance of the duties of the clergyman, unless by uniting more benefices than one. If their Lordships wished to obtain accurate information on the subject of lay impropriations, he would beg leave to recommend to their perusal a book of Bishop Kennett, written upwards of a century ago. By what he said last night, he intended no reflections on the lay impropriators, and had no intention of attributing to them any improper motives. He had but an imperfect recollection of the measure for enforcing residence, as he was then a young man, and had not the honour of a seat in their Lordships' House,
238
nor had he meant to impute anything improper to those who opposed that measure. The bill he had alluded to was the 57th Geo. 3rd, that was brought in by the Bishops to enforce the residence of the Parish Clergy. He had always considered that Act, or rather that bill, as intended to invest the Bishops with a greater power to enforce residence and prevent pluralities, and he had always understood that the bill was rendered less efficient in its progress by the interference of lay holders of advowsons. He did not mean to say, however, that any undue influence had been used by the holders of those advowsons to stop the measure. Without intending to blame any one, he must add, that it was not possible for the Bishops always to enforce residence; they had not as much power for this purpose as was necessary, and indeed, in the larger number of benefices, it was impossible to enforce residence without ruining the Clergymen. As to patronage, he wished to say, that it was his intention, on the first opportunity, to bring in a measure to strengthen the provisions of the 7th of his late Majesty, without which that Statute would not be efficient.
The Duke of Wellingtonfelt himself called on to say, in justice to the Clergy, that during the time he was in Office, he had occasion to promote the issuing a Commission to inquire into the state of Ecclesiastical Affairs, and the state of the Ecclesiastical Law; and he invariably found, that the right rev. Prelates pressed on him the necessity of giving them more power to enforce residence amongst the inferior clergy.
The Earl of Carnarvondeprecated in strong terms the practice of his noble friend making, night after night, in these times of troubles and disturbance, such attacks on the Church. He regretted that his noble friend should think it was his duty to make those attacks. He was convinced, and he was sure that the great body of the people were of the same opinion, that a more estimable body of men than the Clergymen of the Church of England could not exist. There was no class of men in the country who distributed so large a part of their revenue in charity, or were so devoted to good works; and no class of men who conferred so much benefit on the country at large. If he had sometimes differed from the members of the Church, it was on questions of religious

239
liberty, in which they thought their security was involved, and which he thought they ought to have conceded for their own safety. Now, that no such questions existed, he was bound to say, that it was most important to uphold the Established Church as it at present existed in this country. In looking at the question of tithes, it was necessary to consider other interests than those of the clergy; and he was sure that most of the right rev. Prelates must desire to have their revenues collected by some other means, and not be exposed to the odium and ill-blood which now created dissent in their parishes, and banished their parishioners from the parish church. In reference to the measure of the right rev. Prelate, for the composition of tithes, the noble Earl recommended that a commutation should be at once accomplished, as it would be most inconvenient to open up the tithe question again at the end of twenty-one years. With respect to residence, he did not know how that was to be enforced, unless the whole system of the Church Establishment was to be re-modelled, and he did not know who would be bold enough to venture on such a task. He thought, too, that if residence were to be strictly enforced, to the ruin of the exemplary body of Curates who had grown up within the last ten or fifteen years, it would probably do the Church a great injury. To compel residence might deprive these curates of employment, and substitute for them incumbents who were not so competent to the performance of their duties. His Lordship also enlogised the Church Establishment, and said, that this excellent institution had made the greatest improvement within the last few years. He concluded by apologising for trespassing on their Lordships' time; but when they were exposed to hear the Church attacked, they would probably put up with the minor inconvenience of having their time taken up rather than of allowing such attacks to go abroad unneticed.
Lord Kingwished only to set. himself right with his noble friend. He had not made any attack on the Church or on the Clergy—he had not said one word against either. He admitted that the great, body of the Clergy were an exemplary body of men, and he wished to make them more efficient. Pluralities were acknowledged to be an abuse—non-residence was acknowledged to be an abuse—and he wanted to
240
remove these abuses. The same object was proposed by his noble friend. He was not disposed to take their property from the Clergy, and had proposed to grant them a corn-rent equal to their revenue on the average of the last seven years. With respect to what the right rev. Prelate said of Bishop Kennett, and a book written above 100 years ago, that would give very imperfect information as to the present time; for, since that period, many parliamentary grants had been made to the Church. There was Queen Anne's bounty, which had now been in operation for many years, and had increased the value of many vicarages. Wishing to put his right rev. friends at their ease, as to the petitions he had yet to present, he should imitate the Church in old times, which established what was called the "Peace of the Church," from Friday to Monday. In presenting Petitions, he should follow this example, and should add Wednesday; so that on Wednesday, Saturday, and Sunday, there would be a truce for the Church from the tithe-war.