§ The Earl of Durhampresented a petition from the parish of St. Botolph, Bishops-gate, agreed to at a meeting of the vestry, and signed by three hundred and sixty inhabitants, all of whom inhabited houses above 20l. The petitioners stated, that they were zealously attached to the Church, yet they felt it a great grievance to be so severely taxed for the support of the hierarchy; that they were oppressed by the union of the Church and State, and the heavy burthen of tithes, especially by a local Act of 1823, which gave the rector the power of levying upon thirty of the parishioners for the full sum of 2,500l., which had been fixed upon as his income from the parish. They prayed the House would grant them relief in all those matters, but more especially by the repeal of the local Act.
The Bishop of Londonobserved, that he must call this petition a proceeding of an extraordinary nature. He should mention some circumstances which he thought would show something of the animus that actuated those who had promoted the getting up of this petition. The petitioners desired to be relieved from the burthens which they said were cast upon them for the support of the hierarchy. He hoped he should not offend his former parishioners of St. Botolph, Bishopsgate, if be said, that from the use of the word hierarchy, in this petition, they did not seem to understand the word, or its meaning. They did not pay one farthing in support of the hierarchy. In former times the citizens of London were liable to a payment of 3s. 6d. in the pound on the rack-rent of all houses for the support of their clergy. That payment was found to be very burthensome, and it became the subject of much discussion. The continuance of the burthen produced some tumults, and the King appointed a Commission, consisting of the great officers of State, to inquire into the matter, and to form some arrangement that should put an end to these disputes, and should be conclusive. After carefully examining into the subject, an arrangement was made by which the citizens were declared liable to pay 2s. 9d. in the pound. That arrangement was made the subject of an Act of Parliament, which Act was in force generally in the parishes of London at this day. Some question, however, had arisen as to the enrolment of the decree; and it had been three times decreed to be enrolled. In the year 1820, on the appointment of a new rector, he proposed to the 1190 inhabitants a commutation of the sum, to the payment of which they were liable; and his commutation did not exceed ten-pence or one shilling in the pound, instead of being to the full amount of the two shillings and nine-pence in the pound. The inhabitants resisted his proposal, and presented a petition on the subject, in which they were indiscreet enough to say that they were liable by law to a payment amounting to 7,000l. a year. That was the fact; they were by law liable to a payment to that amount; but their then rector, who now filled the see of Down and Connor, never thought of taking more from them than a sum of about one shilling in the pound. He (the Bishop of London) had afterwards become the rector of this parish, and upon his obtaining the incumbency, the inhabitant parishioners of Bishopsgate proposed that the income of the living should be for ever settled by Act of Parliament. He was then in the receipt of a sum amounting to 2,300l. a year, calculated upon the arrangement made by his predecessor. He agreed to the proposition of the inhabitants, and the result was, that it was agreed that the rector should receive 2,500l. a-year, out of which a sum of 300l. a-year was to be paid to a curate. This arrangement he consented to, after receiving the full consent of his diocesan. The Act of Parliament to carry this arrangement into effect—that Act of which they now complained—was drawn up by themselves—it was prepared by their own solicitor, and even the remedy of distress secured by the Act was their own proposition, and yet now this Act of their own, by which they paid only 2,500l. a year, instead of 7,000l., was the subject of their complaints, and they wished to get it repealed. This desire for the repeal of the Act came from the very persons who had had the benefit of the arrangement entered into by themselves, but who now, taking advantage of what they conceived to be the spirit of the times, wanted to cut down the rector's income, though they did not say to what sum. The petitioners complained, too, of the building of a second church, and they complained of the burthen of building this church. He congratulated himself on having been instrumental in procuring the building of a second church in a parish containing 9,000 inhabitants; the old parish church not being able to contain more than 1200 persons. But whatever was the expense of building this church, the inhabitants had suffered nothing 1191 from it—not one farthing had been contributed by the parish, not one farthing had been asked from them. The expense of the building of the church was defrayed out of the funds at the disposal of the commissioners for building new churches—the expense of fitting it up and rendering it lit for the performance of divine service, had been borne by himself. He mentioned this only to show, that so far from their having any ground of complaint, any right to impute to the hierarchy the exercise of a grinding rapacity, and a power of extorting from the people of London more than was due from them, they were, in fact, secured from a larger legal demand, and a concession of nearly 5,000l. a-year was made to them. The arrangement he had entered into was made with the free consent of his diocesan, the present most rev. Prelate. This arrangement was made at their own desire; and to secure them from what might be considered an injustice, it was agreed, that, at the end of ten years, a re-valuation should take place, so as to keep the income the same in value, though not in amount. That re-valuation would take place in about two years from this time, and the rector's income would perhaps then be reduced 300l. or 400l. in amount. He was happy to be able to inform their lordships, that whatever might be the sentiments of the persons who had signed the present petition, there were many others in the parish who entirely differed from them, and that a petition would shortly be presented to their Lordships from 270 of the inhabitants of St. Botolph, who paid a much larger sum towards the rates than did these petitioners, expressing their attachment to the Church, and their determination to resist any attempts to injure its property.
§ The Earl of Durhamobserved, that it was quite impossible for him to be prepared to answer the statements made by the right rev. Prelate. He bad felt himself bound to present the petition, and to lay the complaints of the petitioners before their Lordships; but, of course, he was not responsible for their statements. He was not inclined to dispute with the right rev. Prelate as to the use or the meaning of the word hierarchy, as employed by the petitioners, or of any other word, especially if derived from the Greek, but, on the other part of the right rev. Prelate's observations as to the arrangement entered into with the parish, the merit seemed to be, that the legal claim of 2s. 9d. in the 1192 pound had not been strictly enforced. In truth, it never appeared to have been enforced by the right rev. Prelate's predecessors. He did not agree with the petitioners as to the desire they expressed for a separation between the Church and the State. In his opinion, the Church and the State, or rather religion and the State, ought to be united. He thought that the government of every state was bound to give to the inhabitants of that state instruction, moral and religious. He did not identify himself with the abuses of a Church Establishment, nor did he think that other men ought, because of the existence of such an Establishment, to suffer any diminution of their civil and religious rights; but he thought, that, in the first instance, the State was bound to tender religious instruction to its inhabitants.
§ Petition laid on the Table.