§ Lord King, on presenting some more Tithe Petitions, wished to suggest to the right rev. Prelates, that they would act prudently, under the excited state of public feeling, if they would inform the country, not his Lordship, what was the plan they intended to propose. That would tend to allay the irritation of the people, and the country would know what it had to look to. He submitted that to the consideration of the right rev. Prelates. When he first presented a petition to their Lordships on the subject of tithes, on Monday, he believed he stated, that he would argue the question solely as a simple political economist, and he had not made a single observation on many of the questions which had attracted attention. He had not said one word about pluralities, nor one word about non- residence—the whole of those subjects had been brought forward by the over-zeal of a right rev. Prelate in defending the Church. That right rev. Prelate had charged the lay patrons with being the cause of non-residence, and had provoked the whole discussion. The right rev. Prelate said, that they had 351 smothered a bill for preventing non-residence; but when his noble friend (the Earl of Radnor) asked the right rev. Prelate to specify the bill, he had not given a very satisfactory account. He believed that he could give a better account than was given by the right rev. Prelate. He was old enough to remember, that about twenty-five years ago, an attorney excited a great sensation by the number of qui tam actions he brought to recover the penalties of a great number of clergymen, for non-residence. It was necessary to check these actions; they were an attack on the Church in the tenderest part. Chancellors and lawyers, and civilians and clergymen, were all consulted how to prevent these qui tam actions. The informations were laid, no doubt, for the penalties, and the informer had laid them equally against persons who were altogether absent from their parishes, and against those who resided in their parishes, but did not live in the parsonage. This was an error. The learned lawyers, civilians, and Chancellors smote their foreheads to find out how they might relieve the Church from the terror of these proceedings, and they suggested the means. Sir William Scott, he believed, brought a bill into the other House, by which the qui tams were to be put an end to. The bill was sent down to Oxford, to receive the suggestions of that learned body for its improvement, and in order to render it more effectual. The bill purported to be a bill to make the clergy reside; the real object of it was, to allow them to be non-resident; and no bill, he believed, had ever more effectually answered its real purpose. The lay patrons were accused of causing the non-residence, but there was no reason to believe from the qui tam actions that only their incumbents failed to reside. He believed that it was found, that as many non-residents were among the dignitaries of the Church as among the incumbents who derived their situations from lay patrons. He remembered, that the bill he had alluded to was opposed very much by a Noble Earl, then in the other House, who was as much distinguished for his zeal against the Curates' bill, as he was since distinguished in that House for his zealous support of all measures of reforming corrupt boroughs. That noble Earl had then fought with him in the good cause, night after night, and hit hard at abuses—very hard—harder than he now hit the reform- 352 ers, though he had snapped at his (Lord King's) fingers the other night. He did not now hit so hard as formerly. The right rev. Prelate had charged the laymen with being the cause of non-residence, and he hoped, therefore, that the right rev. Prelate would agree to a return of all persons holding pluralities, distinguishing whether they were held under lay or ecclesiastical patronage, including ecclesiastical Corporations. Such a return would show whether more pluralities were held under lay or under ecclesiastical patronage, and their Lordships would see which class was most deserving of the accusation of causing non-residence. It was said, as a sort of excuse for pluralities, that they would greatly increase the number of Curates. The Curates resided, and not the incumbents. It was said, too, that the Curates did the duty as well as the incumbents. But what lesson did that teach the public? It was admitted, that the duty was as well done by the Curates for one quarter of the salary. The public would be apt to apply to ecclesiastical offices the principle that was now acted on in civil offices, where it was found that the deputy did all the duty; namely, to abolish the principal office, and retain only the deputy. It was a dangerous lesson to teach the public, that the Curates did the duties of the Church better than the incumbents, at one-fourth of the salary. With respect to residence, he must say, that he highly approved of the charge of the Bishop of Winchester, who spoke of a benefice without a resident incumbent, as an ecclesiastical solecism, and as an abuse which both clergy and laity were called upon to prevent. The charge of the right rev. Prelate did him great credit. He objected to tithes as a mode of paying the clergy. They were instituted in a barbarous age, when the state of society was different from its present state, and though tithes might be suitable then, they were unsuitable now. They might suit such a country as Poland, where the land was ploughed, and then left to the care of nature to restore to it what the agriculturist had taken from it. Tithes impeded agriculture—they prevented the application of capital to land; and there was no property more prejudicial than a tax on gross produce. No jury of twelve men would say, that any greater benefit could be conferred on the country than a commutation of tithes. He would read to 353 their Lordships an opinion of a gentleman —a very sensible man—as to property; he was a Republican, and therefore his opinion on some subjects would not be much valued by their Lordships; but Republicans liked property as well as other men. That author observed, "that if there be one natural right recognised by all, it is the right of each succeeding generation to the earth and all its produce, and it is only inherited by private persons under the laws for the good of society." That was Jefferson's opinion, who had placed property on a true foundation. For himself he objected to tithes, that they diminished produce, and diminished the beneficial effects of the right of property. The noble Lord concluded by presenting a petition from Tyd St. Giles, Ely, for an alteration in the Tithe-system.
§ The Clerk read it "a Petition for the Repeal of the Assessed Taxes" [a laugh].
Lord Kingrequired, that the petition should be read further; and it appeared also to be a petition for a Commutation of Tithes.
The Earl of Winchilseawas disposed readily to extend to other noble Lords that indulgence for any difference of sentiment which he himself had frequently received at the hands of their Lordships; but, often as such indulgence had been granted to him, he felt that he had no other claim to it than the sincerity with which he had always delivered his sentiments. Viewing the conduct of the noble Baron, as it was shown by his attacks on tithes, night after night, and particularly his observations on the Established Church of the country, he was constrained to say, that he could not give him the credit of sincerity in the professions he continually made, of intending, by his observations, to promote the interest of the Church. In presenting the petition, the noble Lord had permitted himself to make some unwarrantable personal attacks on some of the most respectable Prelates of the Church. He had made repeated attacks on that Church, and had always spoken in the most contemptuous manner of the Church Establishment, since he had had a seat in the House. The noble Baron, too, had spoken contemptuously of everything connected with religion, which made it doubtful whether, as the noble Baron could see nothing good in the Established 354 Church, he meant to correct abuses. Whatever the noble Baron might say of the effects of religion, in his humble judgment the clergy of the Established Church were a most, respectable class of men; and he maintained, that religion was the only sure ground for private virtue and public honesty. It was a proper complaint of a right rev. Prelate, on the other evening, that the noble Baron brought, forward no measure of his own. He had spoken of all sorts of abuses; of tithes, of non-residence, of pluralities; and had gone into all sorts of questions connected with the Church. It was high time that the noble Lord's attacks, which might cause a pernicious effect if they remained unanswered, should be noticed; and he, for one, was determined not to allow attacks to be unanswered which he believed to be most injurious to the best interests of the Church and the country. He agreed cordially with the observations made by the noble Earl (Carnarvon) the night before last; and he hoped that the good advice of that noble Earl would have been received by the noble Baron as it deserved. He agreed with the noble Earl, that no individual could trace the conduct of the Established Church for the last twenty years, without being convinced that it had made very great improvements, owing to the exertions of the members of the Bench to enforce the residence of the inferior clergy. He was convinced that the clergymen of the Established Church stood as high in general estimation as the clergymen of any Church in the world. Would to God that the upper classes possessed an equal influence! He spoke not of the influence of wealth, but of that influence which was founded on character; and he heartily wished that the upper classes possessed as much influence of that kind as the clergy were proved to possess in the late disturbed districts, among the misguided peasantry. He would only add, that he would not stand up for abuses, and was prepared to say, that many alterations might take place to improve the Church; but he had no doubt, from the exertions already made by the members of the Bench, that the individuals of that body would correct abuses, and would place the Established Church on the very best footing. He would not sit in that House and hear attacks made on that Church without replying to them; and though he was an inefficient defender, practice 355 might enable him to meet the noble Baron. If the noble Baron brought forward any measure, he would pay as much attention to it as was proper; but he would not silently hear his attacks.
Lord Kingproceeded to say, that he rose to repel one of the most disorderly attacks ever made in that House, and which was founded entirely on a misrepresentation of what he had said. The noble Earl inferred from his presenting petitions, that he attacked the Church night after night. What did he really do? He stated on the first night of presenting these petitions, that he would confine his observations to a political economical statement. He began by saying that, and every other part of the subject, had been brought before their Lordships by the over-zeal of a right rev. Prelate to defend the Church, and accuse laymen of all its errors. He had looked into the papers which usually report the proceedings of that House very correctly, and he had not found one word about pluralities, or non-residence, or about anything but political economy The noble Earl assumed, then, that he had introduced these other subjects.
The Duke of Buckinghamrose to order. It was very disorderly to refer to notes or reports of a former evening, with a view to reply to another speech. That was most disorderly.
Lord KingIf their Lordships decided that he was disorderly, he must admit that he was; but he thought that he might exculpate himself from an attack founded on misrepresentation. He had merely said, that the first time he had brought the subject before their Lordships, he had not adverted to non-residence, or pluralities; and he did not see how this was disorderly. The object he had in view, as he stated, was, to discuss no other subject than the mischief caused by tithes as a species of property. He wished to confine himself to that alone. He complained that the noble Earl should have misrepresented him, and accused him of showing disrespect to religion. He denied that he had shown any disrespect to religion, or that he had said one word against religion in that House. What had he said against religion? Was tithe religion? Were all the abuses referred to the religion of the noble Earl? He was charged with making a "personal attack on some right rev. Prelate." Did 356 the noble Earl mean to say that abuses were not to be attacked? He had stated, that there were pluralities amongst the Bishops; and that they had secured to themselves the benefit of the bill brought in to prevent pluralities, but he had stated this in reply to the accusation, that laymen had prevented its being effectual. Was that personal? He could bring forward some more instances—he was ready to do it—he had no objection to do it if it were wished. The noble Earl said, he had not brought forward any plan—he had brought forward three plans. Did those plans give the noble Earl offence? Let their Lordships consider the drift of his observations. He had recommended prudence, and recommended the Prelates to accept a reasonable proposition, and by that they might obtain security for their property. Was that a wish to overthrow the Church? He stated, that some measure, in the present state of the country, was necessary to satisfy the people; and he had stated, that the measure of the last year would not satisfy them. He had urged a commutation, and not a composition. He stated, that the clergy could not stand, in the present state of public opinion, unless they were reasonable. For that the noble Earl charged him with attacking religion. For such a charge there was no more ground than there was to authorise him (Lord King) to make a similar charge against the noble Earl.
The Earl of Winchilseadid not intentionally misrepresent any noble Lord. The noble Lord had certainly made a charge highly derogatory to the Church, if true; and if not true, it ought not to be made. The noble Baron stated, that the bill brought into Parliament for the purpose of enforcing residence, had been perverted from its object, by the right rev. Prelates and the member for the University of Oxford laying their heads together to introduce a clause to defeat the real object of the measure, and, as the noble Lord said, make non-residence easier than before. If that charge were not true, he ought not to have made it. The noble Baron had spoken contemptuously too of the Church; he had used such phrases as "lawn sleeves," and that was speaking contemptuously of the Church.
The Earl of Winchilseasaid, that he had heard the phrase three or four years 357 ago, and other expressions that the noble Lord had no right to use.
§ Lord Wynfordknew, that the right reverend Prelates had too much ability amongst themselves not to make it. appear almost impertinent in him to address their Lordships in defence of the Church; but he was afraid, if no lay Peers should speak in its behalf, that it would go abroad that their Lordships heard these attacks with pleasure, and were not disposed to defend the Established Church. Did the noble Baron think that this was a question to be decided on incidental observation It was a question of the first importance, not only with reference to the property of the Church, but with reference to the property belonging to their Lordships' own body. It was a subject which ought to be considered fairly and accurately, and not in a manner calculated to excite the passions of the multitude. If the noble Baron was bent on assailing the Prelates, and the Church Establishment, he ought to do so in a manner consistent with the rules of British justice. He ought to bring forward a specific charge, and give due notice of the time when it was to be preferred, that the accused person might be prepared to defend himself. But, instead of that, the noble Baron came forward night after night with these incidental accusations. It was one of the first principles of British justice that due notice should be given, so that the accused might be prepared to answer; but even on this very night the noble Baron had made a variety of observations respecting the Prelates of the Church and the Church Establishment, which were not warranted by the motions with which he concluded. The noble Baron had presented a petition relative to the commutation of tithes and the abolition of the assessed taxes; and what right had he to talk on subjects not connected with these matters? The noble Baron, however, had wandered into the subject of non-residence, and adverted to the bill for promoting residence, which was before Parliament in 1803; and then he attacked Lord Stowell, who was unable, through old age and the infirmities attached to it, to attend to defend himself, while his noble brother was also prevented by indisposition from attending, and none of his friends knew that he was to be attacked, or were able to prepare themselves to defend him. But, however, the noble and learned Lord in question had 358 so conducted himself through life as to render such attacks powerless, and they could not affect his character in the estimation of any of those whose estimation was worth having. It was perhaps fortunate for the noble Baron that the noble and learned Lord was not in his place, or he would have defended himself in such a manner as would afford no triumph to the noble Baron. But these attacks were irrelevant, particularly when reflecting on the character of the absent. He (Lord Wynford) begged leave to disclaim, in the most pointed manner, the notions respecting tithes, as the property of the Church, which the noble Baron appeared to entertain. The noble Baron spoke of them as a tax on productive industry; a mode of talking which could have no other effect than that of creating a most improper excitement among the peasantry of the country. Tithes were no more a tax on productive industry than the noble Baron's rents were; and the same spirit which would destroy this species of property in one week, would destroy all real property in the next. The noble Baron spoke of the President Jefferson, and his opinion of the nature of property. He himself knew nothing about the opinions of President Jefferson, as he never had much inclination to have anything to do with a Republican, in whose views he could not, in many respects, concur. But it appeared to him, that Jefferson's words, as quoted by the noble Baron, afforded a good answer to his own argument. The scope of the noble Baron's argument was, that the tenth of property might be taken on a principle which would also justify taking the other nine parts. But Jefferson said, that all property was the creature of law, supported by usage or prescription [Lord King: No]. He should be sorry to misrepresent, but so he understood the noble Baron's quotation. But if all property was the creature of law, supported by usage or prescription, which was the oldest property, the temporal or the spiritual? The property of the Church in the tithes was certainly the oldest property, and that which was supported by the longest usage. It was the prior right, and if that property was to be destroyed, on what principle could the other be maintained? The argument of the noble Baron was calculated to spread among the peasantry the notion that the abolition of tithes would afford them relief; a notion 359 than which none could be more fallacious. In this House, such arguments would be estimated as they deserved, and the subject would be considered with views founded on wisdom and justice. A bill was to be brought in on the subject, as they had been informed, by the very rev. Prelate opposite, and then would be the proper time to discuss this important question in its proper bearings. But, notwithstanding the arguments of the noble Baron, he believed that the tenants knew very well that they would not be better off by the abolition of the tithes. By public property, he understood property that had belonged to the public, and which the public might therefore deal with, and dispose of. But tithes did not belong to the public, for they never came from the public, and therefore could not belong to it. If the tithes were to be taken from the Church, they would not be given to the tenant, but to the landowner; for, although tithes were abolished, the tenant would not get one farthing more, but he would have to pay a higher rent. Suppose the noble Baron had two pieces of land, one on each side of a hedge; and the land on one side of the hedge was subject to tithe, and the other free from it. For the one piece of land the noble Baron might get 20s. per acre, while 5s. went for tithe; and for the Other he might get 25s. But the profit made by the tenant would be the same for both; and if the land for which the tenant paid 20s. to the noble Baron were freed from tithe, the only difference to the tenant would be that he would have his 5s. per acre to pay to the noble Baron instead of to the Church. It could hare no good effect to endeavour to make, tenants expect relief in a way in which it could not be given without the destruction of all property. Property was the creature of law, supported by usage or prescription, and he would not give a quarter of a year's purchase for the noble Baron's property after the tithes were taken away. He did not wish to prolong this incidental discussion, but he was anxious to show to the Prelates and the clergy of the Church that there were lay Peers in the House who did not share in the feelings which some appeared to entertain towards them. He had the honour to sit on a certain Commission (the Commission to inquire into the Ecclesiastical Courts), along with six or seven Bishops, and he could undertake to say, that no men could be more anxious to 360 put an end to abuses than they were. And he alluded particularly to his very rev. and distinguished friend who was at the head of the Established Church, who, with the utmost liberality and candour, had been willing to give up much valuable patronage for the good of the Church and the public; and he wished that the lay Lords who were possessed of patronage would imitate so excellent an example. His venerable and distinguished friend would excuse him for thus alluding so far to a matter into which he could not at present enter more particularly; but he could not avoid adverting so far to the debt of gratitude which the public owed to his distinguished friend, and which he hoped would soon be made known to all.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, that he had no desire to prolong this desultory conversation, which, perhaps, might much better have been spared; and his only reason for at present offering himself to their Lordships notice was, to state the cause of having abstained from taking any part in, these incidental debates, and to explain to their Lordships why he thought that the course thus taken was an inconvenient one. Although he had refrained from taking any part in these premature discussions, he was very far from being indifferent to the topics which in the course of debate were brought under discussion. He had felt with respect to tithe property, that, like every other species of property, it was liable to be subjected to the review of the Legislature, in order to ascertain whether it might be susceptible of amelioration in the mode of its collection, in a manner that might be perfectly consistent with the safety of the Established Church, and yet more consonant to the interests of the State. But it was now known, that this subject had attracted the attention of the heads of the Church Establishment. What the measures in contemplation were, he did not pretend to know at present, nor did he pledge himself to support any particular measures. But he was anxious that the subject should be brought before the Legislature, that it might be ascertained whether an improved method of collection might not be adopted, so as to remove many of the objections, real or imaginary, to this species of property. And he was also anxious, that whatever measures might be proposed, should be brought forward by the right reverend Prelates at the head of the Church Establishment, because the 361 community in general would be disposed to pay more attention to any plan pro- posed by them, and because any expedient to which they gave their sanction, would be carried into effect with increased facility, and with the general approbation of the country. He did not mean at present to discuss the subject with reference to the principles of political economy; but when the expected bill came forward, then would be the proper time for the discussion, and he trusted that it would then be discussed with that gravity and seriousness which the consideration of so important a subject demanded. He did not mean to impute improper motives to any one; but it ought to be kept in mind, that all the different species of property might be viewed as cemented together, and, for that reason, he thought that it would be much better to discuss the subject when they had the whole of it before them, than to raise debates incidentally on the separate and particular parts of the question. Such being his opinion, he considered it most convenient to abstain from entering upon the discussion of the subject till the expected bill came before them. What it was, as he had already intimated, he did not know, but at least it would afford the Legislature an opportunity to consider the whole of the subject, with reference to every species of property, and with a view to keep the property of the Church safe and entire, but, at. the same time, to deal with ecclesiastical property so that it might be prevented from interfering with the best interests of agriculture, and the general improvement of the country. He should pay a poor compliment to the Prelates of the Church, if he were to say that it was not fitting that their conduct should be brought fairly and openly before the public; but, at the same time, he did think it right, that when their conduct was called in question, it should be in specific charges, after notice given to them, that they might be prepared for their defence. But he would not suppose that they had any wish that their conduct should be exempt from that species of investigation to which the conduct of all others was liable; or that they were unwilling to meet any specific charge, when fairly made after notice. He was, at the same time, of opinion that this was not the proper time for the discussion, and he had only said this much in order to dissuade their Lordships from engaging iii these incidental debates, and to recom- 362 mend to them to wait until the whole subject should be brought before them, when it might be discussed with a deep sense of the importance of the question, and with a view to the preservation of the property of the Church, and, at the same time, with a view to the interests of the State, and the general improvement of the country.
The Earl of Radnor roseto say a few words in answer to the attacks which had been made on the noble Baron (King) who had commenced the discussion, by the noble and learned Lord (Wynford) near him. But first a word on the speech of the noble Marquis who had just sat down. The noble Marquis said, that his noble friend ought not to have made any attack on the Prelates of the Church, without having brought forward some specific charge. Now, he was not aware that the noble Baron had made any charge at all. The noble Baron alluded the other night to the conduct of a certain Prelate, and he was confirmed in what he had said; but he had made no charge against that Prelate or against any other. Then as to the noble and learned Lord, he complained that the noble Baron had attacked the Bishops. But the noble Baron had certainly not begun the attacks, but had confined himself, as he had stated, to the political economy of the subject. Then one of the reverend Bench started the subject of non-residence, and contended, that the fault of non-residence did not rest on the Bishops, but on the lay-impropriators, who possessed so many advowsons. He was old enough to recollect when Lord Stowell, then Sir William Scott, brought the bill to promote the residence of the Clergy into the House of Commons, in 1803. He was then in the House of Commons, and remembered that the bill had been avowedly sent to Oxford for the revision of the heads of the University, and that when it came back again, Mr. Windham fought it out to the last, and said that it was a bill, not for enforcing residence, but for encouraging non-residence, and the bill was almost, for a whole Session before the House. Was it ever denied that that bill had been shown to and revised by the Bishops? No one ever doubted it. He did not wish to prolong the discussion, but he could not. but notice, that the subject of residence had been brought, by the heads of the Church under discussion, in Parliament, both in 1803, and afterwards in 1817, by the then Arch- 363 bishop of Canterbury, and yet that their measures had proved inefficient to promote residence. He thought the residence of the clergy a matter of great importance, and was willing that the Bishops should have more power to enforce it. But they must, in the first place, put an end to pluralities, as residence and pluralities could not exist together.
The Duke of Buckinghamconcurred with such of their Lordships as thought that it was not proper to carry on these incidental discussions on separate particulars, on which they could come to no decision. He did not mean to impute improper motives to any one, and he took it for granted, that the object of the noble Baron was, to put the Church property on the best footing for all parties, since he himself said so. But when the subject should come fairly and fully before them, he maintained that it ought to be viewed in the broadest light, not only with reference to the interests of agriculture, but also with reference to the maintenance of the Church Establishment, which was essential to the Constitution. With respect to religion, he left that to be settled between every man and his own conscience. His own object was, the amelioration of the Church Establishment; and whenever that subject was brought on, as it would be, he would look narrowly to the question, how much, and in what degree, they could maintain what belonged to the clergy of this country, or the Church Establishment. The Church ought not to apprehend danger on that head; for the clergy had as much light to their property as the noble Lord had to his estate; and if the Church property were taken away, he knew not by what mode the noble Lord would effect the preservation of his own.
The Lord Chancellorheld the same opinion as his noble friend with respect to the inutility of these incidental discussions. When the subject was regularly brought forward, he trusted that it would be discussed with all that seriousness and attention which the magnitude of the question deserved. He was sure that the rights of the Church, and the interests of the Church, would be studiously attended to He took this opportunity to state, that in consequence of the illness of a noble and learned Lord (Eldon) he should postpone his Reform in Chancery Bill till Tuesday week. Perhaps the noble and learned 364 Lord (Wynford) would have no objection to allow his Motion, which was fixed for tonight to stand over, in order to afford the Chief Justice of the King's Bench an opportunity of being present at the discussion.
§ Lord Wynfordwas willing to let his Motion stand over till Thursday next; and moved, that the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Frauds on Creditors Bill be discharged, and fixed for Thursday.—Agreed to.
Lord Kingcould inform the noble and learned Lord who had recommended him to bring forward motions after due notice, that if he came down to the House on Monday se'nnight, the noble Lord would find, that he (Lord King) had a motion to bring forward, on the subject of the conduct of the Archbishop of Dublin, and the noble Lord, if he pleased, might take up the most reverend Prelate's defence. Noble Lords had charged him with making unfounded accusations; but with respect to non-residence, what did the returns of 1813 show? That there were only 4,183 residents out of 10,558, the whole number of incumbents in England, so that the remainder must be taken as non-residents. This was not one of his "unfounded statements," but a fact apparent on the face of the official return. He regretted that similar returns to that which he quoted had not been made for the years subsequent to 1813. He hoped that there would be now no objection to furnishing such returns, and he would move for them [Several noble Lords required a notice lo he given]. Well, then, he gave notice, and he would move for them on Monday. It was his wish that the returns should distinguish between patrons, lay and ecclesiastical. He might here ob- serve, that he thought the noble and learned Lord had taken a narrow, con- fined, and professional, view of property, which he appeared to contemplate with respect, only as being the creature of the law. This was certainly much less philosophical than the sentiment of Jefferson, who viewed property as being for the benefit and support of the inhabitants of a country, and as being only possessed by private men for the good of society. He fully coincided in this, and thought that any mode of property which was not for the good of society ought to be, and he trusted would be, altered.