RESIDENCE OF THE CLERGY. (Hansard, 14 February 1831)

Lord King
rose to move their Lordships for a Return of the number of Resident and Nonresident Clergy in the several Benefices of England and Wales, distinguishing each; and also distinguishing those non-resident who held their Livings by Church, from those who held by Lay, patronage. This was similar to motions which had been 479 made and agreed to heretofore. On examining the books in the library, he found the last return of the kind was in 1813. He should therefore move to have the returns dated from the last returns on the subject. The great evil of non-residence arose from pluralities; and the defence was, that some of the livings were so poor as not to be sufficient, singly, for the support of a clergyman. Now this argument was good if it applied only to small livings, but it was no defence for the rich pluralists, who held two or three livings, any one of which would be sufficient for the support of the incumbent. If the evil lay in the poor livings, then the remedy was easy. It would be sufficient to prevent all persons from holding more livings than one, except they were very poor livings. A right rev. Prelate had told their Lordships, not long ago, that if the whole of the ecclesiastical revenues were divided amongst the clergy, the average amount would be only 365l. 18s. 4d. each. Now he (Lord King), on reference to a Work which he had consulted on the subject, found 600 clergymen who possessed more than one living of 645l. each on an average. The proper limit would be, that no living should be allowed to be held with another where the amount of salary exceeded the average of what was paid to the whole clergy. What, he would ask, was the object of holding these pluralities? Was it to equalize the wealth of the Church, as it respected the clergy? He would maintain that it was no such thing. That was not the case; and he would contend, that the lay patrons were not the cause of bestowing different benefices on the same person. He could cite many instances where the Church granted those ecclesiastical preferments to individuals already amply provided for. The last that attracted his attention was mentioned in a provincial paper of the 12th of February, from which he found, that the rich living of Wisbeach, which averaged 5,000l. a year, had been bestowed on the rev. Mr. Bertie, son-in-law to the Bishop of Ely, who was already provided for. He believed that the difficulties were very considerable in correcting the system of pluralities; but he would ask, what attempt had the right rev. Bench made to remedy this acknowledged evil? He believed that in many instances they had caused the duty to be better performed than it used to be; but still he objected 480 to the principle. He found in many places, where the Church were the patrons, that the remuneration to the clergy employed was worse than elsewhere. He knew, on some church property held by the See of York, that there were several instances where the clergy received not more than 30l. a-year. In one case he knew of a valuable College living, worth 2,000l. a-year, whilst the Curate only received 30l. and a subscription was made by the parish to raise it to 70l. per annum. These were instances which clearly showed, that the property remaining in the Church was as much the prey of pluralists as that which was in the hands of laymen. They clearly shewed also, that a great property evidently remained in the Church, and did not come within the principle of abstraction, as had been stated on a former night by the right rev. Prelate. In those cases, he repeated, where the livings belonged to ecclesiastical bodies, the officiating clergy were worse remunerated than they were under other circumstances. The doctrine held by the right rev. Prelate, that every thing not held by the Church was abstracted from it, was a most extensive and comprehensive one. Bishop Horsley, though a High Churchman, held language on this point very different from that which they had heard the other night. His doctrine was perfectly moderate compared with that laid down on the occasion to which he referred, by the right rev. Prelate. The noble Lord concluded by moving for "An Abstract of the number of Resident and Non-resident Incumbents in England and Wales, distinguishing the places; and also distinguishing those Incumbents who held their Benefices from Corporate Bodies or from the Church, and those who held them from Lay Impropriators."
The Bishop of London did not mean to oppose the Motion of the noble Baron. He rose merely for the purpose of saying a few words in reference to the gross misrepresentations which had been made on this subject in some of the public prints, and more particularly in a certain book which had been lately published. When he spoke of lay-impropriations as being a great cause of non-residence, he did not mean to make the remotest allusion to the present lay-impropriators. He spoke only of the original lay-impropriations—the effect of which had been, to make the income of many livings so small that it 481 formed a great obstacle to residence. He hoped, therefore, that this would be held to be a complete explanation once for all, and that he should have no occasion to trouble their Lordships further on the subject. There was another point on which he wished to say a few words. It had been said, that the average income of livings was from 350l. to 360l. or 365l. a year. He had investigated the subject minutely since he had adverted to it on a former occasion; and the noble Baron himself would probably be surprised at the result; for, after all that had been said about the enormous property of the Church, he had found that, taking every thing into account, the value of the livings, on an average, did not amount to more than 185l. a year. He founded his calculation on the Parliamentary Returns of 1811, a period of great agricultural prosperity, at which time the amount of tithes very considerably exceeded the amount collected at the present day. If they took into the account the produce of glebe lands, the augmentation derived from Queen Anne's bounty, and the property belonging to the Deans and Chapters of different Cathedrals, the incomes of Bishops and ecclesiastical Corporations, and divided the sum total among the whole of the clergy, it would not give more than an average of 200l. a year. The average salary of the ministers of the Scotch Church was 275l. a-year, and the sum paid to the French clergy was not much below what our own received. He felt it necessary to say thus much after the gross and scandalous misrepresentations which had been published and sent abroad, and from which the noble Lord seemed to have collected his materials for making attacks on the Church. Those publications contained a tissue of such gross misrepresentations, both as to facts and persons, that one would scarcely suppose it possible that they could be sent forth at this period. Among other things it was said, that the minor canons enjoyed 300l. a year, it would be found, however, that few of them had 100l. a year, and the most common salary was from 30l. to 40l. per annum. The average was not more than 50l. a-year. With respect to the Archdeacons, who were represented as receiving 600l. a-year, it ought to be recollected, that the Bishop, on his visitations, always made use of the archdeacon's house, who was thus sub- 482 jected to a considerable additional expense; and, generally speaking, the income of the Archdeacons was not sufficient unless they also held some living in addition to their archdeaconries.

The Earl of Rosslyn
suggested, that the Motion ought to be for an Address to his Majesty, to order the Returns to be laid on their Lordships' Table. And, after all, he did not know how the returns from the Privy Council could be made, with the distinction required between livings in lay and livings in ecclesiastical patronage. The returns to the Privy Council contained no such distinctions.

Lord King
said, it would be easy to send the order to the Secretaries of the Bishops, and to the Deans and Chapters, who could, without difficulty, make out the account of such livings as were in lay, and such as were in ecclesiastical patronage. As to what the right rev. Prelate had said of his statement, he had not taken his information from the "Black book" to which the, right rev. Prelate apparently alluded, but from a book called "The Revenues of the Church no Burden on the Public—a book which was favourable to the Church Establishment rather than otherwise. He should feel great pain if the average income of livings were so low as 185l. each, as the right rev. Prelate had stated; and he hoped that the right rev. Prelate had fallen into some mistake in his calculation.

§ Earl Grey
did not see how the returns called for by his noble friend could be procured in the manner which he had proposed. He should have no objection to such returns being laid on their Lordships Table; but he requested his noble friend to consider whether it would not be better to withdraw his Motion for the present, in order to see whether it might not. be afterwards brought forward in a shape more calculated to attain the object. His own belief was, that great inconvenience resulted from this mode of incidentally discussing particular parts of the subject, on occasion of presenting petitions. He did not mean to question his noble friend's sincerity; but he did say, that the course which he had adopted was any thing but favourable to the attainment of the object which his noble friend himself had in view. He was fully persuaded that there existed among the heads of the Church, a most sincere desire to remedy the abuses in the establish- 483 ment. The subject as his noble friend knew, was under the consideration of the heads of the Church and he had had some communication concerning it with the very reverend Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) who was most anxious to remedy abuses, and whose views were very moderate and liberal. He himself, he confessed, should have preferred a general commutation of tithes, if that could be accomplished; but he was aware of the serious difficulties which at present stood in the way of that commutation. In the mean time, a measure something short of this which was now under consideration —a measure for a composition for tithes —would be attended with a great deal of good, and might prepare the way for a commutation afterwards. He had seen the noble Prelate's bill for a composition of tithes, and he approved of its principle; and he believed that it would do a great deal of immediate good, and that it would at last lead to a commutation, which would be attended with no less advantage to the Church than to the public. He could speak to the feelings of sincere desire by which the very rev. Prelate was actuated, to remedy the abuses of pluralities as far as possible, and the noble Prelate's views on that point appeared to him to be as just as they were liberal. Besides the subject of tithes and pluralities, there was a third point to which the very rev. Prelate had directed his attention, and that was, the holding of livings in commendam by some of the Bishops. The holding of livings in commendam by Bishops was, in his opinion, to be lamented; but it had been absolutely necessary, from the small-ness of the incomes of some of the heads of the Church, who, without some such expedient, could not maintain the dignity of their situations. On that point, too, some measure was in contemplation, and it was intended to annex the revenues of some ecclesiastical preferments, not connected with the cure of souls, permanently to the emoluments of some of the heads of the Church, so as to render the holding of livings in commendam by the Bishops unnecessary. He was glad that the very rev. Prelate had directed his attention to this point, and he should be most anxious to give him every assistance in his power in the prosecution of this valuable object. He thought himself called upon to say thus much in justice to the heads of the Church, and he was convinced that at no 484 time the Bishops, generally speaking, had been more distinguished for a strict and conscientious discharge of their duties, and had been less swayed by a regard for their personal interests than at the present moment. If it should be found that this was a species of praise which did not. apply to some individuals, their case ought to be considered, not as the rule, but as the exception. He would recommend to his noble friend, in the mean time, to abstain from raising discussions from night to night incidentally, on detached parts of the subject, when it was utterly impossible that the whole subject in connection could be sufficiently canvassed.

Lord Farnham
was extremely glad to hear that a measure was to be brought forward by the very rev. Prelate, on the subject of tithes, though it did not go the length of a commutation, but was a bill for a composition, which, however, it was expected, would ultimately lead to a commutation. He was aware that many obstacles were opposed to the settlement of that important question. He would throw out a suggestion, however, which he thought well worth attending to. Let the lay impropriators of tithes immediately consent to a commutation. It would then be seen how the system would work, and if it worked well, it might be applied in the case of tithes held by the Church; and thus the community might get rid of tithes altogether.

Lord King
observed, that his having brought the subject of tithes under their Lordships' consideration had caused him to be assailed from almost all sides, and now his noble friend at the head of the Administration had opened his battery upon him. He had been attacked by the noble Duke (Buckingham) opposite, with his High Church and Tory principles, and the noble Duke had fired his monstrous bomb at his head without mercy. Then a noble Earl (Winchilsea) on the cross-bench, had charged his eighteen-pounder up to the very muzzle, and fired it at him; but it exploded like a pop-gun. Another noble Lord had assailed him on the ground of his religion, and there was such a noise among all his assailants, that he should have been frightened, if he had not known his cause to be so good, that with its aid he was able to right them all. However, he was now disposed to defer to the recommendation of his noble friend. One of 485 his reasons for persevering in the course which he had taken was, that he could never understand what the nature of the bill was which the very rev. Prelate intended to propose. He now understood that it was a bill—not for a commutation, but only for a composition. He might go on, night after night, pointing out the mischiefs of tithes to the interests of agriculture, and all the interests of the community, for the subject was a most fertile one. He might show what great advantages France and Scotland had derived from the abolition of the tithe system; the latter, a country inferior in climate to England, but far superior in cultivation. But it appeared to be expected that this measure for a composition would lead to a commutation, and he would take the advice of his noble friend, and abstain from agitating the subject—for a time. The noble and learned Lord (Wynford) had also fallen foul of him, because he had exposed and endeavoured to undo Sir William Scott's job—[Lord Wynford: That is a very objectionable mode of speaking of Lord Stowell's Bill].—Why, really, the noble Lord appeared to be much more touchy on the subject than Lord Stowell himself would be. The bill was one which had really answered the end which Lord Stowell and the clergy had in view. Sir William Scott was himself an emanation from the clergy, and had fought their battles, as he was bound, being their advocate, to do.