Lords Sitting of 12 March 1833

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of KINNOUL, from Perth, for Reform in the Administration of the Law (Scotland).—By the Earl of RODEN, from the Inhabitants of Killala, for the See of Killala to remain unaltered.—By Lord KING, from two Parishes in Ireland, for the Abolition of Tithes and Church Cess: from Ashburton, for the Total and Immediate Abolition of Slavery.—By the Duke of RICHMOND, from Roxton, for the Abolition of Slavery: from Brighton, for the Removal of the Disabilities from the Jews: and from Merthyr Tydvil, to Modify the Beer Bill.

QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY.
Lord Kingsaid, he rose for the purpose of moving for certain Returns, showing various payments which had been made by the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty and the Commissioners of the Parliamentary Grant. The more he looked into this subject, the more he was convinced that a shameful misappropriation had been made—that the fund had been most improperly diverted to purposes the very reverse of which it had been originally destined for. This wanted immediate correction; and the only correction that could satisfy him—the only one that was proper and equitable—was, that all funds so improperly applied should be refunded. He
530
knew not a more crying abuse than that the dignitaries of the Church, who were impropriators of the tithes of parishes, and in many instances afforded the most miserable pittance to the incumbents, should have these livings augmented by large sums from Queen Anne's Bounty, and the annual grant voted by Parliament. He could call this nothing else than obtaining money under false pretences, and those pretences of the most flagrant and unworthy character. These grants were obtained under the plea that the livings thus benefited were poor ones, when, in fact, they were rich benefices with poor-paid incumbents. What be maintained, ever had maintained, and ever would maintain, was, that these poor incumbents ought to have been maintained out of the benefices themselves and not to have come on a public fund for relief and support. It was a complaint of long standing, that the stipends of the ministers had remained till of late years the same, or nearly so, as in the reign of Edward 4th, and Elizabeth, although the value of money had so changed; and he contended, that the Bishops and the other dignitaries of the Church had not contributed their just proportions to the payment of their poorer clergy; for, the whole amount paid by them since the year 1703, when Queen Anne relinquished this branch of the revenue of the Crown, was about 2,400,000 l; whereas, if they had contributed according to the real value of the tithes, they would have paid, by this time, near 30,000,000 l. They had unfairly and improperly taken advantage of Queen Anne's Bounty and Parliamentary Grant, though augmenting the incomes of livings held by their own servants and curates, out of that "Bounty," when such augmentation ought to have been made out of their own resources, and not out of any public funds. He would come to the facts. The Deans and Canons of Windsor were the impropriators of the tithe of the following parishes—(and here he begged leave to state, that the sums stated to be advanced out of the Parliamentary Grant and Queen Anne's Bounty were correctly given; he had examined them carefully, and pledged himself for their accuracy.) The greater part of the sums to which he should refer, were stated to have been advanced by lot. The governors of Queen Anne's Bounty drew, as they called it, a certain number of livings under 50 l. where the population exceeded 1,000, with a view of giving several augmentations, according to

531
the circumstances of each case, with regard to population, duty, and income; and it did so happen, that the high dignitaries of the Church were the fortunate impropriators of the tithe of many of the largest parishes, where the population even of rural districts exceeded 1,000, and where, from rigid adherence to the ancient scale of paying their curates the other qualification of a living under 50 l. indisputably brought them within the rule of admission. With regard to benefactions, livings under 30 l. might receive 200 l. without any benefaction; but in cases where a benefaction of 200 l. was made by any person, the sum of 300 l. is paid out of Queen Anne's Bounty as augmentation; but, of late, these payments had been made very much out of the Parliamentary Annual Grant. The places on his list (with reference to the case of the Dean and Chapter of Windsor) were as follows. The noble Lord read this statement:—" Dean and Canons of Windsor, impropriators of following parishes received from Parliamentary Grant and Queen Anne's Bounty:—Plymsted, 1811, 600 l.; 1812, 400 l.; 1815, 300 l.—Plympton, 600 l St. Germans, 1811, 800 l.; 1814, 400 l." He was told that the rental of the tithes of these parishes was 4,000 l. a-year; but he did not mean to say that the Dean and Chapter received so much. The population, however, was very large; and they were assessed at 18,000 l, 15,000 l., and 10,000 l. to the property-tax. Then came "Wembury, 1807, 200 l.; 1816, 1400 l.—North-am, 1764, 200 l.; 1812, 400 l.—S. Mol-ton, 1813, 600 l." He ought to state, that the Dean and Canons of Windsor had raised the scale of remuneration to their stipendiary curates, under the Bill of 1831; and he did not know at present whether any sum had been advanced to these parishes by the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty during the last year or not. Their Lordships, however, must recollect, that the last year was a great and important year; the Reform Bill passed, and people began to think of things they never thought of before. He came next to the case of the Dean and Canons of Winchester, impropriators of two parishes in Wales; parish assessed at 10,000 l. property-tax; curate's salary, 31 l. 13 s. 4d. These parishes were "Holt, 1725, 200 l.; 1733,200 l.; Iscoyd, 1749,200 l.; 1757, 200 l.; 1798, 200 l.; 1818,200 l." Again, the "Dean of Exeter was impropriator of tithe of Landkey and Swinbridge, and in 1775, that parish received 200 l.; 1810, 200 l.; 815, 1400 l.—Swinbridge, 1750,
532
200 l.; 1811, 400 l."—The noble Lord also enumerated the following cases: "Dean and Chapter of Carlisle, impropriators of valuable tithe: Hesket, 1813, 600 l.; 1815, 2,000 l. to purchase land; 1816, 300 l.; 1817, 300 l.—Dean of Bangor, impropriator of tithe of (curate paid 32 l. 4s.) Gyffin, 1767, 200 l.; 1810, 200 l.; 1816, 1,400 l.—Bishop of Bangor, impropriator of valuable tithe of (curate paid 30 l. 12 s.) Llandegal, 1812, 200 l.; 1815, 1600 l.; 300 l.; 300 l. Bishop of Litchfield, impropriator of large duties in Merionethshire (curate paid only 27 l.)—Tallylyn, 1808, 200 l.; 1816, 1,400 l.—Penal, 1810, 200 l." The noble Lord continued: the two collegiate bodies of Winchester and Windsor, with the three Deaneries of Exeter, Carlisle, and Bangor, had alone received 14,500 l. from Queen Anne's Bounty! It was not to be endured that the Deans and Chapters, Registers, and all the other rubbish of cathedrals, should take so much, more especially too of what did not belong to, or never was intended for them. For his part, he could only find one language in which to address them; he could only say, "Get you gone, give place to honest men—men who really work, who are really a pattern, as well by their lives as by their precepts—who know their calling, and act up to it." They were ready enough to say in other places that the labourer was worthy of his hire, but they were not so ready to enforce their preaching by the power of example. It was said, that those who served the altar should live by the altar, and so said he. Sincerely did he wish that principle were acted on, but unfortunately it happened that those who really served got badly paid. He wished to see the drones driven from the honeycombs. The working clergy bitterly fell, that there was a shocking inequality in these matters, and in that feeling the public at large most deeply participated. He would take the liberty of reading an extract from a work, entitled, an Essay on the Causes of Dissension in Wales. The author stated, in reference to the county of Merionethshire The prominent abuse of this county is the sacrifice of four of its parishes, which supply 1,100 l. to the support of the see of Lichfield. The living of Tallylyn had been given by the rapacious Normans to a nunnery in Essex; at the Reformation it was taken with much virtuous indignation from the Norman Nunnery, and given to an English bishopric! To restore it to the people from

533
whom it was taken, was a plain and obvious measure of equity. As an axiom of common justice, is it wise to base the religious institution of England on a galling system of absenteeism, and to make an exaction from the poorest county of North Wales, for the support of the hierarchy of the Church.' Now, he considered this to be an expression of very proper feeling; of a feeling much more correct than that which prompted the late Mr. Perceval to declare, "that the poorest Welsh curate over his pot of beer, if he could get it, felt as much pride in the dignities and splendor of the higher ranks of his profession as those who fared sumptuously and enjoyed its most bountiful provisions every day." He knew not whether this was true at the time, but at present it certainly was not. On the contrary, there was the strongest feeling among the working clergy of the hardships they endure from the shameful inequality with which the revenues of the Church were distributed. The noble Lord concluded by moving, "for an account of all Poor Livings in England and Wales which had received any augmentation, and what, from the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, or the Parliamentary Grant, and whether the Tithes of the parish belonged to any Dean or Chapter, or were annexed to any See."
The Bishop of Londonsaid, he conceived the Returns which the noble Lord had moved for could be soon furnished. The Returns had been made up to 1826, by order of the governors themselves, in a form at once of the most specific and the most comprehensive character, and this very fact might be fairly taken as evidence, that there was no desire to maintain any secrecy in their proceedings, and no fear of the most rigid inquiry on the part of the public. It would, therefore, spare time and trouble if these Returns were at once laid upon the Table, and a supplementary Return from 1S26) to the present time ordered. He did not think that the noble Lord (King) fully comprehended the purposes of the fund. It should be recollected that the Deans and Chapters held the great tithes as lay impropriators. Before 1831, at which period the right rev. Primate introduced his Bill, they could not legally saddle their estates, except the reserved rents, which were very small. The Bishops, therefore, were not able, before the passing of this Bill, to do what their feelings would prompt, without impoverishing themselves, and improperly touching those resources which were absolutely
534
necessary to maintain them in that respectability, station, and dignity, which was becoming the heads of the established religion. The noble Lord was not warranted in the language he had uttered about Deans and Chapters—calling them the rubbish of cathedrals—language which was not then heard for the first time; for nearly the very same had been used a little time before the Rebellion by Marvel, "who loved the poor clergy," and by Vane. In no one instance had the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty acted otherwise than most impartially; they had proceeded to augment, with a determination to do that which it was just and right they should do, and they had been led away by no circumstances, nor biassed by any individual. Their system, drawing by lots, proved the purity of their intentions, and the honesty with which they were carried into effect. He would not say more, than that the Governors were quite ready to furnish all information that might be required, a proof that they feared no inquiry, and that they felt strong in the justice of their own cause, and in the integrity and propriety of all their actions.
The Bishop of Chester,adverting to a petition which he understood had been preparing, complaining of abuses in the diocese of Chester, stated, that if ever that petition was presented to their Lordships, he should be perfectly ready to show that it was full of the grossest misstatements and the greatest ignorance of the subject to which it related. The petition contained the sum and substance of a book recently published, and which had been highly eulogized by the noble Baron. That book, however, in common with the petition, was not only full of gross misstatements, but showed the greatest possible ignorance with respect to the subject of lay impropriations, and, indeed, it might be added, relative to every other matter and thing connected with the Church Establishment.
The Earl of Harrowbywished to say a few words—not from the slightest supposition that he could give any additional weight to what had been stated by the right reverend Prelate who had addressed their Lordships with so much ability, but lest, if he were entirely silent, it should be imagined that he did not completely concur in every word which had fallen from that right reverend Prelate. As a member of that Board he could assert, although the proceedings of the Board might in some instances not be agreeable to individuals,

535
they had always been guided by general rules, the justice and expediency of which were incontrovertible. This he believed to have always been the case; but at any rate the present Board could not be justly charged with the errors, if any, which might have been committed by former Boards. He thought that the best mode of obtaining the object sought for by the noble Lord, would be to lay on their Lordships' Table the book and index alluded to by the right reverend Prelate, as existing up to 1826, with a continuation up to the present time.
The Bishop of Exeterbegged to do further justice to the very reverend individual, respecting whom he had endeavoured to set the noble Lord right a few evenings ago. He meant the Dean of Exeter. The noble Lord had stated the other evening, that that eminent Prelate had received numerous fines, and yet had in no case increased the salary of a curate. That statement he (the Bishop of Exeter) had proved to be unfounded. Nevertheless, the noble Lord had again asserted in his own peculiarly strong language, that the very reverend individual in question was one of three Deans who had disgraced themselves and their clergy, and incurred the indignation I of the public. And this the noble Lord had thought fit to say of an eminent and excellent person, whom he (the Bishop of Exeter) had proved was entirely innocent of the charges which the noble Lord had preferred against him. Although the noble Lord was not much in the habit of retracting what he said, he had hoped that, after the refutation which the charge had received, the noble Lord, were it only in justice to his own feelings, would have abstained from renewing his accusation against a highly respectable person, who was confined to his bed by the gout, and, of course, subject to the increase of indisposition which such charges, however groundless, made, under circumstances which rendered it impossible for him personally to meet them, were calculated to occasion. The charges in question were destitute of a particle of foundation; and he, for one, would rather be guilty of the grossest abuses which were ever charged the did not say proved) by the noble Lord, rather than pursue the line of conduct which that noble Lord, night after night, thought proper to adopt.
Lord Kingdenied that he had ever intended to misrepresent any one. As to the Motion, what he wished was a separation of information, in order to see what particular
536
dignitaries were the impropriators, and where the augmentations had taken place. A power of augmentation must have existed before the year 1831.
The Bishop of Londondenied the existence of such a power before that year.
Lord Kingwas surprised that no application had been previously made for an Act of Parliament to confer the power. He understood that much partiality had been exhibited in some of the augmentations; and he doubted if it had ever been asked whether themselves had not the means of paying the curate sufficiently. He must persist in his Motion.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, that unless the noble Lord consented to include all cases of lay impropriators, and not to con-line himself to those impropriations which were in clerical hands, he must object to the Motion, and would take the sense of their Lordships upon it.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that he had heard the charge brought against the right reverend Bench, and the answer to it, and he thought there could be little difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the charge was unfounded. He conceived, that if their Lordships ordered this return, it would have this effect—that they would appear to consider that there was some reason for suspecting that Queen Anne's Bounty had been administered with partiality. It was not usual with their Lordships to grant Motions under such circumstances. He thought the most desirable course would be for the noble Baron to withdraw his present motion, and bring forward some more general motion which would both obtain the information which he sought, and enable their Lordships to see that the funds had been administered with impartiality.
Lord Kingsaid, he should not withdraw his Motion. It was for their Lordships to deal with it as they thought fit. He repeated that he did not charge the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty with any partiality. He thought they would not have applied the funds as they had done if they had known that the Deans and Chapters had the means to reward their servants. If there was any reflection, it rested upon the Deans and Chapters for not providing for their servants.
Lord Wharncliffeobjected to the partial form of the Motion. He did not know how the noble Baron could bring any charge against clerical impropriators, unless he conceived that, from their clerical character, they were bound to increase the livings of

537
their vicars more than lay impropriators. But his noble friend must first show that Deans and Chapters and lay impropriators had power to alienate any part of their revenues, until the Bill of 1831, brought in by the most reverend Primate. The Motion, in its present shape, appeared unfair; but if the noble Baron wished for information, he ought to have it complete, and the public should know that clerical impropriators had done their duty as well as lay impropriators.
Earl Greysaid, he regretted the observations with which his noble friend had introduced his Motion. As to the merits of the case, the statement of the right reverend Prelate on the Bench above him absolved him from entering into that question. He rose merely to say, that he considered the nature and form of the question, as it at present stood, open to the objection which had been urged against it—namely, that it would be liable to misinterpretation. He agreed with his noble friend opposite, that there was no distinction as to the obligation of providing for their curates between clerical impropriators—who stood, so far as tithes were concerned, in the situation of lay impropriators—and lay impropriators themselves. He thought the Motion ought to be put in a form in which the objection to it would be obviated. The suggestion of the right reverend Prelate, that the Returns up to the year 1826, which were already made out, should be laid on the Table, and that the Returns from that period to the present should be also made out and laid on the Table, appeared to him the most convenient. If the Motion were pressed in its present form, and if the right reverend Prelate moved his amendment, he should certainly vote for the Amendment; but he trusted that his noble friend would put the Motion in such a form as would take away its invidious appearance, and give the general information which was required.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, that if the noble Baron persisted in his Motion, he should certainly move his amendment, that lay impropriators should also be included. Perhaps the noble Baron was not aware that the return to which he had referred was drawn out so accurately, and in such detail, that one would be able to see at once which were the clerical and which were the lay impropriators.
The Lord Chancellorthought, that the best course would be to move for the Returns already on the Table, and also for
538
the subsequent ones, which his noble friend required. This would give the necessary information without the invidious appearance which attached to the Motion as it now stood. But there might be a difficulty in shaping the present Motion so as to meet that object, and the Amendment of the right reverend Prelate might not effect the purpose. The better way would be for his noble friend to withdraw his Motion for the present, and to take an opportunity, by Thursday or Friday, of looking at the Returns on the Table, and seeing how he could best shape his Motion.
Motion withdrawn.