Lords Sitting of 25 March 1851

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL.—1a Consolidated Fund.

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND IN THE COLONIES.
The BISHOP of OXFORDsaid, he had a question to put to the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies upon a subject which occupied the attention of their Lordships last Session—he meant the legal status of the Church of England in the Colonies of the British empire. The noble Earl undertook, when the matter was then brought before their Lordships, to institute an inquiry with the view of preparing matters for such action as the result of that inquiry might show to be needful. He wished to ask the noble Earl

495
whether, during the course of the recess, he had been able to make any such inquiry? He believed he should find that the noble Earl had been waiting for the result of a certain synod or gathering of the bishops of the English Church throughout the Australian Colonies. If that were so, he thought it was a good and sufficient ground for waiting, in so far as inquiry on the spot in the Colonies was concerned; but it appeared to him that there was a very important separate inquiry which it was very desirable should be made at home; he alluded to the inquiry as to what was the legal status of the Church in the Colonies, and in how far the statutory restrictions which applied to the Church at home applied to the Church there—a question about which their Lordships expressed considerable difference of opinion in the course of last Session—because, whatever might be the result of the meeting of the colonial bishops, the question to which he referred would be no further advanced—unless the Government was prepared to say how far those statutes did or did not apply to the Colonies, and what was really the legal status of the Church of England in the Colonies, respecting which complaints had been made. It would, therefore, be a great solace to himself and to many others to know that, at all events, the attention of the noble Earl had been directed to the question without waiting for returns from Australia.
EARL GREYsaid, that the question put by the right rev. Prelate was one which he should have some difficulty in answering, in consequence of want of sufficient information on the subject. The position of the Church of England in the British Colonies was undoubtedly a subject of vast importance. At the same time he had to remark, that from no one of the Colonies had any complaint reached him from the members of that Church with respect to any grievances under which they laboured, which were not capable of being removed by the colonial Legislatures. In the course of the debate which took place last year, he took the liberty of expressing his opinion, that, upon points on which the colonial Legislatures were competent to act, it was highly inexpedient for Parliament to interfere. Now, it had so happened, as he had said, that neither the prelates nor the members of the Church of England in any of the Colonies had brought Under the attention of Her Majesty's Government any grievance of any kind under which they
496
were at present labouring, which was not capable of being removed by such colonial legislation. It was quite true that various questions, rather of a theoretical than of a practical nature, were suggested in the debate of last year, but no practical measure was pointed out as desirable to adopt; That being the state of things, when, in consequence of the promise he had given in the course of the debate referred to, he came to look into the subject during the recess, the difficulty which he found was this—that he did not know to what particular points to address himself; he did not know what extension of power or privilege to the Church of England was really desirable or required. He could find no measure pointed out as necessary or required in the Colonies; neither could he perceive, by a careful reference to the records of the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament any distinct point upon which Parliamentary legislation had been suggested. Under these circumstances, and finding likewise that the position of the Church was very different in different Colonies, in consequence of the different legislation of each colony, it appeared to him that, if anything was to be done, the first step they should take was to institute an inquiry in the different groups of colonies as to what was the real position of the Church there, and what alterations it might be expedient to make. He had prepared during the recess a despatch to the Governor of New South Wales—which was the colony where grievances were principally complained of—instructing him to appoint a commission, including the prelates of the Church of England in the Colonies as members of that commission, for the purpose of inquiry; but while the mode of conveying those instructions was under his consideration, intelligence was received in this country—not in an official shape certainly, but still in a shape which left no doubt of the accuracy of the information—that the subject of the condition of the Church of England in the Colonies was already under the consideration of the prelates of the Church on the spot—that a meeting of the Australian prelates was to take place at Sydney for the purpose of considering that very point, tinder those circumstances, he certainly thought that as the meeting of the bishops at Sydney could not fail to throw much light on the subject, it would be inexpedient to send out any instructions for a further inquiry until he knew what was the result of the inquiry that was going on.

497
Such was the present condition of the question. Certainly it did not appear to him that any advantage at the present moment could arise in this country from an inquiry into what seemed to him a speculative question of law, which was in no manner a practical question, as to the operation of certain statutes in the Colonies. As far as he could form an opinion, it appeared to him that in the Colonies those statutes were in no respect operative, and he thought that the meeting which had been adverted to proved that they were not considered as operative there. As in the course of a short time the result of that meeting would be known in this country, it appeared to him, and he was happy to say that the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) concurred with him in thinking, that he ought to postpone taking any further step at present.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, that great anxiety was felt on the subject of the validity of marriages effected in the Colonies before any person except a clergyman of episcopal ordination. There was great doubt whether Scotch marriages, for instance, performed in presence of a minister of the Church of Scotland, was valid in the Colonies. He wished to know from the noble Earl whether any inquiry was in progress with respect to marriages generally in the Colonies, and if so, whether the result would be laid before Parliament?
EARL GREYsaid, that having received no notice of the noble Lord's intention to ask this question, he was afraid he could not give him a very clear answer. He rather believed that some inquiry was in progress with respect to the effect in this country of marriages celebrated in the Colonies—not as a colonial question, but as affecting the position of persons in this country. As a question purely affecting the Colonies, he took it that it was a subject which the colonial Legislatures had ample power to deal with. If they had not, he was persuaded that the Legislature of New South Wales would have brought the subject under the notice of Her Majesty's Government by an address to the Crown; but no such address had been received, nor had a complaint of any sort been received from the colony of New South Wales with respect to any imperial law being required.
LORD CAMPBELLhad no doubt the colonial Legislatures had power to deal with the subject, and that a good marriage in a colony was valid all over the
498
world. Still he thought it would be better if there were an imperial law providing a uniform mode of celebrating marriage all over the British empire, and that it should not be left to the different colonies to legislate for themselves on the subject.
EARL GREYentirely differed from the noble Lord on this subject. Considering that the marriage law was different in England, Ireland, and Scotland—[Lord CAMPBELL: Not in England and Ireland.] Yes, the common law was the same in England and Ireland, but the statute law was different, there being nothing analogous to marriages before the Registrar in Ireland. Considering, then, the differences of the marriage law among ourselves, and considering especially the varied circumstances of our numerous colonies, to sweep away the mass of legislation in forty different colonies, and to establish a uniform system, to be carried out by the agency of officers who did not exist in many of the colonies, was a mode of proceeding which he would certainly not recommend their Lordships to adopt. He believed that the law of marriage depended for its efficiency upon the fact of its being adapted to the state of society in the particular country where it existed. It appeared to him that of all the subjects in the world which might most properly and fitly be left for the internal legislation of the several colonies, this was the one, and he hoped that no imperial legislation upon it would be attempted.
The BISHOP of OXFORDwas sorry to say that the answer which the noble Earl had returned to his question had not at all removed his difficulties, and that he considered it very unsatisfactory. It seemed to him to throw the question back to the point where it stood before the discussion of last Session. At the beginning of last Session the noble Lord made the same statement he had made that night—that no special grievance had been brought under the notice of Government. That led him (the Bishop of Oxford) to point out to the noble Lord that, so far from that being the case, the Bishop of Van Diemen's Land had sent his archdeacon all the way to this country to press the grievances of the colonial Church upon the attention of Government. He (the Bishop of Oxford) also pointed out that to apply to a Church situated as that in the Colonies was, with none of the advantages of an Establishment, all those restrictions which bound the free agency of the Church at home, was felt to

499
be a great evil in the Colonies, and that one of the evils was, that it forced the bishops, in Spite of themselves, to act in cases of discipline as absolute autocrats without the for his of law, because by acting, otherwise they would run the risk of being tried for libel. It was admitted by the Government on that occasion that he had established a case of grievance, and he was told that if he left the matter in their hands an inquiry would be made. When the noble Earl talked of the grievances being purely speculative, he would remind him that in the debate on the Australian Colonies, he (the Bishop of Oxford) proposed the introduction of a particular clause to give the members of the Church of England the power of acting freely of themselves, and that he had only withdrawn it because he Considered it difficult to say how far the statutes did or did not apply in that case, and because he was too glad to have the Government in a friendly spirit to take up the matter as a subject for inquiry, or, if necessary, of future legislation. But when the noble Earl now said that the matter was a purely speculative ones that if there was any practical grievance the colonial Legislatures could provide a remedy for themselves; and that he considered the fact of the bishops meeting in synod as proving that the statutes did not operate in the Colonies, the matter was thrown back as far as ever. But the meeting of the bishops was not a Synodical meeting, legally speaking. It was not a meeting far adapting the rules of the Church to the necessities of their infant state. It was merely a meeting for taking friendly counsel as individuals with each other. And while it was right to wait until the result of that meeting was known, he had hoped that the noble Earl would have brought before the law officers of the Crown the question how far the imperial statutes which applied to the Church at home were applicable to the Colonies—in Which case the colonial Legislatures were not free to deal with it—or whether they were free from those statutes, and had power to adapt the machinery of the Church to their new position.
EARL GREYsaid, that the right rev. Prelate had misunderstood him. He had never said that there were no grievances complained of by members of the Church in the Colonies; or that they were grievances merely speculative. What he said Was, that no grievance had been brought under his notice from the Colonies which was not
500
capable of being removed by colonial legislation. It was quite true that the Bishop of Tasmania had mentioned a series of embarrassments and difficulties to which he was exposed in consequence of the state of the law preventing him from conducting certain inquiries into the conduct of his clergy; but he had not even suggested that those difficulties were such as that the colonial Legislature could not remove them. What he stated Was, that the colonial Legislature was indisposed to give the Church the necessary powers. If that was the real feeling of the population of the country—if they, from an ill-conceived jealousy, it might be, of the Church of England, believed that the difficulties complained of could not be removed without giving undue preference to the members of the Church of England over other Churches—if this feeling was so strong, even before a representative Legislature was established, and with a Legislature Consisting principally of persons named by the Crown, or, in great measure, of persons holding office under the Crown—if even such a Legislature was indisposed to pass the necessary laws when the matter was purely a domestic concern: his argument was, that it Was inexpedient for Parliament to interfere with it. He thought it very possible that when the matter came to be looked into, the colonial Legislature would find that there was much that could be done with advantage to assist not only the Church of England but other Churches, to give themselves more regular and complete organisation. To effect that most useful object, every support and assistance in his power should be rendered as long as he held his present office. What he had said with reference to "speculative and theoretical questions" was this—that there certain ancient Acts of Parliament which were supposed to interfere with the action of the Church in the Colonies, and that it had never been brought under his notice or that of his predecessors that these statutes had interfered to prevent any measures which the members of the Church would otherwise have adopted. It was impossible that the Prelates of the Austrian Colonies should have met together and seriously considered the affairs of the Church in those Colonies, without addressing the Crown, or calling on Her Majesty's Government, in some form or other, to make whatever improvements they might find to be necessary. But, even if this should not be so, it appeared to him that to bring

501
imperial legislation to bear on the condition of the Church in the Colonies, until they knew the result of the inquiry which was at present being conducted on the spot, would be altogether premature. An inquiry conducted upon the spot was the best and most useful that could take place at this moment. And he found by the correspondence he had had with most rev. Prelate, that that most rev. Prelate concurred with him in thinking that, in the present position of the question, it would be better to wait for intelligence from the colony with repect to the inquiry now going on before taking any further steps.

ASSESSMENT OF TITHES AND RENT-CHARGES.
The EARL of MALMESBURY, in accordance with notice, presented two petitions from the clergy of various parishes in the diocese of Bath and Wells, against the present system of assessing the tithes and rent-charges for the poor-rates. He trusted their Lordships would bear with him whilst he made a few remarks upon this important subject, and upon what he considered was a very hard case. The same injustice of which the petitioners complained, of course applied also to those tithes and rent-charges which were in possession of lay impropriators; but he would keep closely to the subject-matter of the petitions—first, because lie would not trespass upon their Lordships' attention longer than was necessary; and next, because there was this difference between the lay impropriator and the clergyman, that the former performed no service for the tithes he received, and was, therefore, in a different position from the clergyman. Last year, by the permission, if not the advice, of the Government, a Committee of their Lordships' House sat for the purpose of considering the whole question of parochial assessment; and the: principal difficulties of that Committee lay; in considering the mariner in which stock I in trade, railroads, and tithes were assessed. This evening he should confine his observations to the tithe part of the question; but before entering further into the subject, he would read the recommendation of the Committee with regard to it. In the 10th Clause of their report, the Committee said—
"That the tithe commutation rent-charge is generally assessed on the known full value thereof, while the assessment on other property is made
502
on an estimated value. That the rates on the tithe rent-charge are charged in an unequal proportion, to the injury of the owner thereof, when-ever the other property is not assessed at the full value thereof. That the rent-charge, like other-property, should be assessed on the rent which a tenant would pay for it. That from the value of the tithe commutation rent-charge, no special deduction to which other property is not entitled should he made,"
Now he thought that nothing could be more unjust than that the owners of tithe rent-charge should, as they wore now in many instances, be made to pay upon the known full value of the commutation which they did not positively receive, instead of upon the sum at which it might he fairly let. But hard as was that mode of assessment, it was as nothing compared to the great and heinous injustice of the principle upon which assessment to the relief of the poor was based. Their Lordships were aware that there were certain descriptions of property only which were assessed for rating to the poor, commonly called real property, amongst which were included tithes. That was, in plain English, that the clergyman paid a tax upon his income to the poor-rate. At the beginning of the present Session, when the question of agricultural distress was discussed, his noble Friend opposite (Lord Wodehouse) said that the objection to the plan which he (the Earl of Malmesbury) proposed to the Committee was, that the people would not like to pay a second income tax. Well, here was a public functionary, who came upon every estate, entered every field, valued their farms and houses, and asked them how much they received annually; and upon this he calculated the value of the charge. In other words, he made his calculation upon their rental and income, and upon that rental and income imposed, or the parish did on his report, a poundage for the relief of the poor. If that were not an income tax, he did not know what was. His noble Friends opposite and their ancestors had paid an income tax of this description for two centuries and a half. For two centuries and a half had they paid an income tax of 2s. 2d. in the pound. That was 11 per cent; and he was sure, when his noble Friends bore the burden so lightly, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must wish that there were many persons in the country who were as unconseious of the taxation they were subjected to as his noble Friends opposite In the report to which he re-

503
ferred, this most important recommendation would be found in the sixth clause:—
"That the relief of the poor is a national object, towards which every description of property ought justly to he called upon to contribute; and that the Act 43 Eliz., cap. 2, contemplated such contribution, according to the 'ability' of "every inhabitant."
This recommendation, which had been made by the Committee, had been followed by no measure on the part of Her Majesty's Government; and it was only from that quarter that the country could hope for a measure which would be likely to be carried into effect. The clergyman, out of his scanty income and small property, paid poor-rates. Let them compare his situation with those who were exempted. Those who were exempted were, first, the pensioners. The next class that was exempted was composed of the fundholders. Then came the mortgagees; they possessed a very large income, and he did not know why they should not contribute to the support of the poor. Then personal incomes were exempted, and official incomes they all knew were exempted; and though he was willing to admit that no mental labour was more severe or more continuous or more hard than that of a Chief Secretary of State, especially with a seat in the other House, yet he did not conceive that there would be greater injustice to ask such a person to contribute out of his official income to the poor-rate, than to make the same demand upon a clergyman with a small income. He did not see why a class of persons whose average income was 300 l. a year, should be so heavily and so peculiarly burdened. If their Lordships would bear with him, he would read them a few lines from a letter written to him by a clergyman of a large parish:—
"I am vicar of a considerable town, the population of which amounts to 6,400 souls. The parish is extremely lengthy, and the visitation of it for spiritual purposes proportionably difficult. Calls of every kind abound upon the mental, bodily, and financial resources of the vicar. The gross income of the vicar amounts to 400 l. The poor-rates and income tax amount to 100 l. per annum. It is absolutely impossible for any incumbent to perform the duties of this parish without a curate, which reduces the revenue to 200 l. per annum, from which is to be deducted the unnumbered calls which of necessity fall most heavily on the funds of a town incumbent. First, in contradistinction to any other house property, you will observe it is absolutely impossible to let a vicarage or rectory, and therefore frequently, in reality, a large house rated at a high value, is a serious drawback to a poor incumbent, who nevertheless must reside in it, and cannot let it;
504
and yet his house is assessed (in my case) as worth 43 l. per annum."
Here, then, was an assessment of 43 l. a year out of an income of 230 l. But that was nothing to some of the cases he had to advert to, and in which the injustice of the present system was fully exhibited. He would call the attention of their Lordships to four counties. In Oxfordshire the clergy, on an average, paid 2s. 5d., or 12 per cent on their income. The clergyman at Cuxham paid 5s., or 20 per cent, on an income of 275 l.; and in Wallington the clergyman paid 7s., or 35 per cent, on an income of 220 l. In Dorsetshire the clergymen paid 2s. 2d., or 11 percent, on their income; but some of them paid 7s., or 35 per cent, as the clergyman at Shaftesbury, on an income of 168 l.; and the clergyman at Blandford paid 5s., or 20 per cent on 167 l. In Norfolk the clergymen paid 2s. 2d., or 11 per cent, on their income; but at Lapham the clergyman paid 7s.6d., or 37 per cent, on 600 l.; and in Buckenham they paid 6s., or 30 per cent, on 115 l. In Wiltshire the clergymen paid on the average 2s. 2d., or 11 per cent, on their income; but the clergyman at Tunbridge paid 6s. 6d., or 32 per cent, on 700 l.; and the clergyman at Warminster 6s., or 30 per cent, on 400 l. In Carnarvon, in Wales, he found some clergymen paying 3s., or 15 per cent, on their income, and others paying 22 per cent; and when they considered the smallness of the incomes of many of the clergy, he felt almost ashamed to be obliged to state, that, in such a country as this, the poor should be supported to such an extent by the working clergy; and yet, while this payment to such an extent was enforced against them, the pensioners, the fundholders, the mortgagees, were called upon to pay nothing. They did not pay a farthing, except upon the residences in which they took up their abode; and these might be so small as scarcely to pay anything. He had even heard of an instance of a man of large fortune in Hampshire, who, for the purpose of avoiding the payment of rates, lived in a tent! But, then, there was one class of persons who were exempted from poor-rates, to whom he felt bound to allude. If he were not mistaken, the right rev. prelates enjoyed an exemption. He was sure that the spirit in which he alluded to them would not be mistaken; but, when he alluded to them, he did so with the greatest respect. He believed that the contrast was one likely to strike the public

505
eye, when it was seen that the working clergy were compelled to pay poor-rates; and yet the prelates, who, in accordance with the new arrangements, and who had been appointed since the new law came into force, were exempted. He believed that such was the case under the new law—that the prelates by it received a fixed income, and were not charged any poor-rate. For this arrangement the prelates were not to be blamed; but still it was a fearful contrast to place before the eyes of those who wore but too ready to be discontented to see in one place a prelate (whose name he would not mention) exempted from the poor-rate, and the vicar, living within three miles of the see, heavily assessed. The case was thus stated by a clergyman:—
"When I left—,in 1848, to the best of my recollection, I used to pay 154 l. poor-rate, which consisted of about 40 l. on the rectory house and garden and orchard (about four acres), and the rest upon the commuted rent-charge of 300 l. This is rather more than 10 s. in the pound."
He would answer personally for the perfect correctness of that statement. There the clergyman paid the half of his income in poor-rates; and living within three miles of him was a right rev. prelate (through no fault of his own, it was to be observed) exempted from the payment of poor-rate. Now, he did not state this as a matter of censure upon the prelates; for he was well aware that nothing could exceed their liberality and generosity. Too many instances of both qualities had come to his knowledge not to make him most willing to acknowledge their virtues; but he was sure they must feel on this point very painfully the contrast in their position with that occupied by the working clergy. It was unfair to themselves, it was hurtful to the Church, and it was prejudicial to the State. Why, it would naturally be asked, should this state of things be permitted to continue—why should the poor be compelled to pay, when the rich were not called upon to contribute a single mite? It was because Ministers had not the courage, and Parliament was wanting, to correct their mistakes. Were they to hope that this system would be changed as long as the Whigs constituted the Government? What was their excuse for not making the attempt to correct this evil? Its difficulty was their only excuse. A difficulty in making such a reform, he admitted, there might be; but it was not impossible to accomplish it. When he had proposed his
506
scheme last year, he had been taunted by being told that it was founded on Socialism. There was nothing in it but this—an extension of the income tax for relief of the poor—that income tax which was now paid by one class only, and which would then be extended to all other classes. He wished to put a charge upon personal property in proportion to annual proceeds; and when he was told that this would be Socialism, he replied, that, if it were so, it was only an extension of the principle of the present poor-law, and no new theory; and in all principles, however startling or new—in all principles, however exaggerated, there was a basis of truth; and the wisest of their Sovereigns, Queen Elizabeth and her Ministers, had laid down this maxim, when they first established a poor-law in this country, viz., that "property has its duties as well as its rights." That maxim they had desired to be carried out in their law. For two centuries and a half that maxim had been only partially enforced. It was then, he said, the duty of Parliament to renovate that law. At any other period than the present he should have brought this subject forward in a substantive shape, instead of a mere question. He should have proposed a Bill based upon the principles he had laid down last Session, but with such alterations as subsequent experience had induced him to make. This, however, was not a time to bring forward any important measure. Considering all the circumstances of the times, he was sure that their Lordships would agree with him, that it would be useless to bring forward in a substantive form a matter of such immense importance as this. He believed that, if Her Majesty's Government had chosen to reform, even partially, the grievances which he exposed, they would have strengthened themselves in the country. However that might be, he had now only to thank their Lordships for the patience with which they had listened to him; and he should close his remarks, by asking of Her Majesty's Ministers, supposing them to continue Her Majesty's responsible advisers, were they prepared to act on the report of the Committee of last Session, and attempt, by a remedial law, to put an end to the great injustice of which he complained?
The ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURYsaid, that the parochial clergy owed a great obligation to the noble Earl for bringing forward a subject of great im-

507
portance, and exposing an injustice of which they had a great right to complain. He did not know whether he could say that the Bench upon which he sat was under the same obligation to the noble Earl; because, although it was allowed by the noble Earl that the Members of that Bench were in no respect answerable for the contrast which had been drawn between their incomes and those of the other clergy, general observations frequently went out to the public without the qualification by which they were originally accompanied. The noble Earl had, however, quite made out the case which he had brought forward with respect to the parochial clergy. They often had reason to complain of an unequal rule of rating, against which they had no remedy but that to which they were naturally unwilling to resort, namely, an appeal to the law against their own parishioners. They complained, also, with great reason, that no exemption was allowed them on account of the personal services which they performed; and it certainly appeared unjust that those personal services, without which they could not receive their incomes, were not taken into account when the rate was assessed upon the rent-charge. For these reasons he was much obliged to the noble Earl for the manner in which he had brought then-case to the notice of the House.
EARL GREYsaid, he believed that his right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board had given notice in the other House of his intention to propose a Bill with regard to the law of settlement and parochial assessment; but at the same time he had no reason to expect that the provisions of the Bill would meet the noble Earl's views, because he (Earl Grey) thought that the assessment of personal property would be most injurious.
LORD PORTMANsaid, that if the clergyman had reason to complain of the inequality of the poor-rate, an appeal might be made with little or no expense to the petty sessions, and the rate would be quashed on proof being given that any one of his neighbours was too highly assessed. His noble Friend seemed to forget that, in exempting the titheowner, the landed interest, whom he and everybody else believed to be labouring under severe depression, would be subjected to an additional burden, because all that was removed from the titheowner must fall upon the laud-owner. Now, as the titheowner would only suffer an abatement of four per cent
508
this year, while the landowner was called upon to make, on an average, an abatement of 15 or 20 per cent, he did not see that it would be desirable to lay any additional burden upon the landowner for the benefit of the titheowner. With regard to the plan which his noble Friend had brought before the Committee, he believed that much good might be got out of it; but, at the same time, it was mixed up with so many difficult and dangerous topics, that he could quite understand his noble Friend's hesitation in embodying it in a Bill. He must say that the point on which the noble Earl had laid so much stress, that the clergy ought not to be rated in consideration of the services they rendered, was very fully investigated in the Committee; and they had before them the evidence of Mr. Jones, and a very talented archdeacon from Kent, upon the subject; but he must say that the claim for exemption did not stand the examination of the Committee. The instances of individual hardship which the noble Earl brought forward were shared by the clergymen in common with their parishioners. That there ought to be a large area of rating, he agreed with his noble Friend; but he could not see that the titheowner had any peculiar grievance to complain of.
The EARL of MALMESBURYobserved, that when the noble Lord moved for a Committee, it was supposed that the country would have had the benefit of some practical suggestion of his own on the subject. What now was the noble Lord's argument? That he paid as much as the clergyman. But it was no comfort to the clergyman who paid 10 s. that the noble Lord also paid 10 s. What the clergyman complained of as unfair, was, to assess one particular class on his income, and not to charge a]l other classes in the same manner. What he contended for, was, that in this respect, at least, justice should be done to the clergyman. In reference to what was said by the most reverend Prelate, he could but repeat that he had not the most distant intention, directly or indirectly, to prefer a charge of any kind against the right rev. Prelates. He knew, by experience, how susceptible the right rev. Prelates were to anything that might appear to be an attack upon them. He made none in this instance. What he had meant was, that under the new law their income was paid to them; that they received a net sum without a deduction; and that the clergy receiving a net sum, had

509
yet to make a deduction for poor-rates. He thought that the contrast was hurtful to the Church, and he was desirous to change a system which made it he so strongly felt.
The BISHOP of OXFORDwould not go into the general question; but after what had fallen from his noble Friend the Chairman of the Committee, he must say a word or two, because he should not wish it to go forth to the public and to the clergy, that a Committee of their Lordships' House, on which were three right rev. Prelates, had unanimously acquiesced in the view of the question which the noble Lord had just laid down. He (the Bishop of Oxford) objected at the time to that proposition, and stated that the clergy were subjected to great grievances under the present mode of rating, which ought to he redressed. He lost his Motion in a large Committee by two only, at a time when neither of his right rev. Colleagues was present. He believed, indeed, that if they went upon the strict letter of the law, the property which the clergyman enjoyed was not personal pay for services rendered; but it was a property which he enjoyed which was obnoxious to the performance of certain duties. But though that was the strictly legal view of the case, yet he thought that the clergyman had an equitable claim to exemption; because the only law on the subject, the 43rd of Elizabeth, distinctly stated that all property, real or personal, should be equally taxed. But it was very early discovered that great difficulties arose in assessing personal property, and it was found to be more convenient that personal property should be left out, on this principle, that, provided substantial justice were done by a more roundabout and circuitous mode of assessment, then the law need not he strictly enforced. So long as protection was maintained, substantial justice was done, because, under that system, the assessment on agricultural produce was, in point of fact, paid by the consumer. But, now that Parliament had, as he believed, well and wisely altered that system, and the price of wheat was no longer regulated by the cost of production, but by the cheapest rate at which it could be procured from other countries, then they relieved the consumer from the onus of the poor-rate, and threw it upon the landed proprietors. Now, he contended that this constituted a claim, not against the principle of free trade, but a claim for an entire reconsideration of the mode in which they
510
were for the future to carry out the 48isd Elizabeth; and the clergyman had a right to say, you have no right to go on the strict letter of the law against me, and say that my personal services alone, of all men, should be rated to the poor-rate. With regard to the question of the bishops, he could not say that he was very susceptible I on the subject; but he was glad his right rev. Friend had explained the matter as he did, for he should have been sorry if it had gone forth to the clergy that they were unjustly treated in having to pay the poor-rate, while the bishops were exempted.
LORD BEAUMONTthought that an error had run through the speeches of several noble Lords, as they viewed rates as if they were a personal tax, instead of looking upon it as a tax upon property. Now, I the injustice would be in exempting one class of property, and assessing another, or in assessing different classes at different rates; but as the case stood, he believed that no injustice existed, because all real property was liable to the rates, and was; assessed on the principle of what it would let for. He had therefore come to the conclusion that the complaint of the clergymen was unreasonable, because it was their property that paid; and if they were exempted from the assessment, then injustice would be done to other kinds of property. As to I the other question, he agreed with his noble Friend: he thought all realised property: ought to be rated to the poor-rate.
LORD PORTMANsaid, it was incorrect I to say that the clergy alone, of all cases of personal service, were compelled to pay poor-rates. Landowners were compelled I to serve as sheriffs—they were compelled to serve on juries and in the militia; yet no one heard of exemption from the poor-rate on the ground of such service.
The EARL of MALMESBURY, in explanation, said that when he spoke of official duties, he was afraid that he had made: a mistake in keeping so closely to the point before the House. He wished only to keep the attention of the House to the subject matter of the petitions before him, which alluded only to tithe.
LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, their Lord-ships need not at present enter upon the general merits of the plan suggested by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Malmes-bury), but, at the proper time, when the question was brought before the House, it would not he difficult to explain the reasons why, in all probability, it would be found impracticable. In Scotland, a some-

511
what similar plan had been tried for a great number of years, and at length abandoned. The charge upon real property was an income tax, no doubt, as far as it was a tax paid upon incomes derived from all property, whether real or personal, but in no other respect.
The EARL of HARDWICKEadmitted that though there might be individual cases in which a clergyman was aggrieved, yet, generally speaking, he was in the same situation as others who received a money income. The Tithe Commissioners had taken into consideration the value of the tithes. If the clergyman of the parish had previously commuted with his parishioners, they took a seven years' commutation as the basis; they made the amount of the money payment the average for the seven years; they inquired the average of the poor-rate in those seven years; and then, adding the amount of the poor-rate to the rent charge, they determined the whole income of the clergyman. Therefore, the clergyman was not in a position in which he had a right largely to complain.
Petitions read, and ordered to lie on the table.
House adjourned to Thursday next.