Sitting of 8 June 1808

LOCAL MILITIA BILL.
Mr. Brandpresented a Petition from John Cartwright of Enfield, in the county of Middlesex, taking notice of the Bill for enabling his majesty to establish a permanent local Militia force in England, under certain restrictions, for the defence of the realm; and setting forth, that the petitioner conceives the said Bill is essentially at variance with the English constitution, and, if it should pass into a law, and make part of the present general system of defence for Great Britain, which general system the petitioner conceives to be fundamentally unconstitutional and defective, that system would thereby be farther countenanced, confirmed, and fortified, whence greater danger to the state, and to the laws and liberties of the people, would arise, than that to which they are already exposed; and therefore praying, that the said bill may not pass into a law.—The Petition was read, and ordered to lie on the table.

PLYMOUTH DOCK POLICE BILL.
Mr. TyrrWhitadverted to the great depredations committed in Plymouth dock-yard, and moved for leave to bring in a bill to establish a Police for that yard.
Sir W. Elfordadmitted the fact of the depredations, and only doubted whether this would be the best mode of remedying the evil. He would not, however, object to the bringing in of the bill.
Mr. Tyrrwhitmentioned, that he merely meant to bring it in, and have it printed, with a view to circulate it, and allow it to lie over till next session.
Sir C. Polethought that some measure of this sort would be very useful, if it was not absolutely necessary.
Mr. Bastardgave full credit to the motives of his hon. friend, but he hoped that

829
he would take care to fix no censure on the county magistrates; and there could be no censure greater than to have justices appointed by the crown sitting along with them in managing the county business.
Admiral Harveyobserved that some local jurisdiction was necessary at Plymouth dock.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwould not object to the bringing in of the bill, but hoped that neither he nor any in the house, would be understood as pledged to an approbation of it.—Leave given.

IRISH BUDGET.
The house having resolved itself into a committee of Ways and Means,
Mr. Foster,after observing that he would detain the house but a very short time, briefly stated, under the various heads, the sums required in Ireland for the service of the year 1808, amounting in all to 9,767,550 l. Irish currency; remarking that this was a very large sum for that country. To meet this he enumerated various items, viz. the Ordinary Revenue 4,800,000 l.; the loan contracted in England for the service of Ireland, 2,708,332 l.; the loan to be granted by the Bank of Ireland for the renewal of their charter, 1,250,000 l.; the loan contracted in Ireland, 750,000 l. &c. making together the sum of 9,767,550 l. Irish currency.—With respect to the loan contracted for in Ireland, it had been contracted for in the three and a half per cents, and at an interest not exceeding that on the loan raised in Great Britain, viz. 4l. 14 s. 6d. per cent. The charges per annum of the interest and sinking fund on the three loans would be as follows:

The Loan raised in Ireland

£45,562

The Bank, of Ireland Loan

75,000

The Loan raised in England

159,000

Total

280,462

In order to raise this sum, it would be necessary to impose new Taxes, and he trusted the committee would concur with him in opinion, that it would be better to effect this not by imposing a number of small taxes, but rather to lay on a large tax at once, in such a way as would least affect the community in Ireland. It was well known that in Ireland, as well as in England, the distilleries evaded the malt duties in a considerable degree, by distilling from raw corn; he therefore proposed to extend to all raw corn used in distillation, the duties at present imposed upon malt. It was also his intention to propose an additional duty on foreign spirits im-
830
ported into Ireland. These sums, together with the saving in the management of the Debt, would more than cover the Charges of the Interest, and Sinking Fund of the three Loans, viz.:

Extension of the Malt Duties to raw Corn, &c

£333,000

Duty on Foreign Spirits

22,500

Savings in the Management of the Public Debt

7,500

Total

363,000

There were certain arrangements dependent on the measure now before parliament, relative to the Distillation from Sugar, with which he would not then trouble the committee.

GENERAL RECAPITULATION.

LOAN FOR IRELAND.

Irish Money.

Interest and Sinking Fund.

2,703,332 borrowed in England

£.159,904

2,000,000 borrowed in Ireland

120,562

4,708,332

Annual Charge

£.280,466

Ways and Means for raising the said Charge.

1s. 8d. per gallon on Spirits home made on 6,000,000 gallons.

£.500,000

Deduct one third for Malt

166,666

333,334

Duties on Imported Spirits 400,000 gallons, at 13 d. one-third per gallon.

22,500

Saving on Bank Management

7,500

£.363,334

Deduct charge as above

280,466

Surplus

82,868

Charge on 5th Jan. 1808.

Unfunded Dept

29,557

Treasury Bills

400,000

Remains due to Inland Canals

215,484

Howth Harbour

6,000

First Fruits

50,000

Other Articles

200,000

£.901,041

Discharge.

Loan unapplied

871,999

Balance in Exchequer, Jan. 5, 1808

298,115

1,170,134

Deduct Charge, as above

901,041

Surplus to be carried to Ways and Means for 1808

£.259,093

Interest and Sinking Fund of Dept

3,409,992

Quota of Expence for the Year (5,868,515 Brit.).

6,337,558

9,767,550

Annual Means for 1808.

Revenues and Extraordinary Resource

4,800,000

Loan raised in Ireland

2,000,000

Great Britain

2,708,332

Supplies as above

259,093

£.9,767,425

He then moved a variety of Resolutions, correspondent to his statement, which were

831
agreed to.—A short discussion then took place on the terms of the Irish Bank Loan, which were strongly defended by Mr. Foster. Upon which,
Mr. Parnellobserved, that he could not agree in opinion with the right hon. gent. (Mr. Foster), that the Loan for 1,250,000 l. which he had negociated with the Bank of Ireland, was entitled to those terms of approbation which he had bestowed upon it. On the contrary, he considered it as one highly disadvantageous to the public. For, if the right hon. gent. had borrowed this sum in London, instead of the public having to pay an interest at the rate of 5l. per cent, they would only have had to pay 4l. 14 l. 6d. the rate at which the Chancellor of the Exchequer of this country, a few days ago, made the loan for England. On this sum of 1,250,000 l. the annual difference in the amount of interest between the two rates is no less than 3,438 l. so that the public will actually sustain an annual loss to this amount, because this loan has been borrowed from the Bank of Ireland, and not in the usual course, in London, and at the same time with the money wanting for the services of England.—With respect to the other conditions on which the Charter of the Bank is to be renewed, they were by no means such conditions as ought to be acceded to, as a sufficient consideration for so valuable a concession as the renewal of the Charter. The security which the renewal will afford to the Bank for so many years of the great advantages which it enjoys from its exclusive rights in the Banking Trade, should have obtained for the public much more advantageous terms. As to the Bank's agreeing to manage the public debt gratis, and thus to surrender a claim on the public of about 7,000 l. per annum, this is in fact a transaction unfavourable to the public, if at the same time it is to be understood that the Bank are to make no allowance to the public for the balances of public money which he in their hands. These balances amount, on an average, to a sum of 300,000 l. and according to the principles laid down in the report of the Committee of Finance, the public have a just claim to be allowed 5l. per cent, on this sum—but instead of any such allowance being a part of the terms entered into with the Bank, no mention is made of these balances, and therefore, in the place of the public being benefited by a sum of 7,000 l. per ann. on account of no charge being made for managing the public debt,
832
they lose 7,000 l. being the difference between 15,000 l. (which the public have a right to receive on the balances of 300,000 l.), and 7,000 l. which the Bank have a right to for managing the dept.— In answer to what has been said respecting the favour which the Bank has conferred on the public by lending to them this sum of 1,250,000 l. the hon. member maintained, that each subscriber to this loan will be able to sell his share, immediately upon the bill being passed into a law, for a premium of 20 or 30 per cent. or even more. For if, upon a capital of 1,500,000 l. the Bank have been hitherto able for several years, to divide a profit of 7 per cent, and a bonus of 5 per cent, in each year, and if the renewal of the Charter secures to them the continuance of all those means by which they have hitherto made these profits, the addition of one million to their former capital of one million and an half, cannot possibly contribute to lower the rate of profit on which the Bank transact their business; but must inevitably have the operation, that an encreased capital has, in all commercial transactions, to securing, and even augmenting this rate of profit. As to the praise which has been given to the Bank for their liberality in discounting at 1l. per cent, below the legal rate of interest, and their claim to the gratitude of the house on this account, he said it was necessary only to observe, that all the bankers of Dublin, one only excepted, discount at the same rate, and that it is not a fair way of judging how far this is a liberal practice or not, by referring it to the law which fixes the rate of interest, because the only just criterion of judgment is the value of money in the market; and when the public loans and the prices of public securities shew that the value of money is not even 5l. per cent, it cannot be urged that the Bank confer any very great favour on the public, when they discount at this rate.—But the great objection which he entertained to the bargain which has been made with the Bank by government, he said, arose from a conviction of the impolicy of renewing the Charter so long as the restriction of cash payments continues, for so long as the Bank are relieved from the necessity of paying their notes in specie, they are at liberty to issue any quantity of them they think proper, and to give the Bank of Ireland any greater powers in this respect, or to relieve them from the control which parliament possesses

833
over them, in consequence of the short period their present charter has to run, is a most unwise proceeding; because it cannot be forgotten, that it is not long ago since their paper was depreciated in its value full 10 per cent., and because there is a Report of a committee of this house, in which it is proved, that this depreciation was the cause of the high rates of exchange which, for a few years, existed between England and Ireland. He wished therefore to see this house keeping in its own hands the controul that the power of granting or refusing a renewal of the charter, gives it over the Bank; and with such ample experience of the ill effects of an excessive issue of paper, to act with all due caution in acceding to the terms which have been entered into between the bank and the right hon. gentleman.
Sir J. Newportinquired into the state of the Collectors Balances. Last year they had increased 60,0001. He did not attach blame to this circumstance, but he wished to know what prospect there was of their being reduced.
Mr. Fosterreplied, that every regulation on that subject had been hitherto enforced without effect. All possible steps were now taking to reduce the balances, and he had great hopes that before the next meeting of parliament that object would be in a great measure accomplished.—The house having resumed, the report was ordered to be received to-morrow.

CURATES RESIDENCE BILL.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the order of the day for a committee on this bill. On the question for leaving the chair,
Mr. Westernobjected to the measure, as calculated to interfere without any cause, with the property of the Church, which was as well entitled to the protection of the law as any other, and likely to affect the independence of the Church, as well as to countenance unfounded clamours against beneficed clergymen.
Mr. C. Wynnesupported the general principle of the bill, inasmuch as it went to provide an adequate income for the resident officiating clergyman. Residence was the duty of the Rector, and it was due to the parish, that the officiating clergyman should have a sufficient provision to enable him to live as; a gentleman. If the rector accepted a second benefice, it could not be a hardship upon him to make a proper allowance to the curate, who discharged the duty in the parish in which be did not reside.
Mr. Creeveyconsidered the bill a direct violation of property, which had ever been respected. The stipend of a curate had, about twelve years since, been fixed at 75 l. per ann. This should be the model of any change which might hereafter become necessary. In the present instance, he saw no reason for this dangerous encroachment on property. The stipend of 200 l. would often be the greatest injustice to the clergy, who were the original proprietors, and sometimes it would be found to exceed the trouble of the situation. To attack the vital principles of property, in this way, was to imitate the worst acts of the worst period of the French Revolution. But why should this system of robbery be directed only against rectorial property? If it were necessary to increase the salaries of the lower orders, why not do so at the expense of the bishops, deans, and chapters? It was a petty fear of offending them; and the bill only armed them with fresh power, while it injured the rectors, who could have no security for their property, whilst it was in the power of any bishop to take any part of his property he should think fit. Such an act of legislation must tend to breed feuds and animosities amongst the different ranks of the clergy, and eventually injure the church establishment and the cause of religion. For what good was the bill enacted? Who requested it? Cambridge university was hostile to it he knew. It was the child of the chancellor of the exchequer, who had published a pamphlet in its support. Oxford university and the clergy of London had expressed their disapprobation of the bill by petitions to parliament; and not one city or county had expressed a hope that it would be adopted. But the right hon. gent. derived his support from a set of men hostile to the church establishment—the members of the Foreign Bible Society, the Society for the Suppression of Vice, and those dealers in Missionaries who had nearly overturned the power of Britain by their late conduct in India. To these he was decidedly averse; but as the bill was almost identified with the present bishop of London, he had to apprise the house that he had given of late great cause of uneasiness to the true friends of the church, and in particular by a late gift of a benefice to a missionary of Bussora, who was a native of Poland, and whom it would even be necessary to qualify for his situation by a form of that house. This had placed

835
the bill in rather a suspicious point of view; and from the arguments which he had urged, he found it his duty to oppose the house going into a committee.
Mr. Burtoncontended that the present bill was no invasion of church property, and quoted several instances from our history, to shew that such changes often took place, from the time of Richard the 2d. The property of the church was, in fact, that of the people, and certain relative duties were expected to be by them performed to qualify them for their possession. In the eye of the law there was another party with respect to church properly, beside the impropriator and the curates; this was the people of the parish, who had an indisputable right to their services; and the present bill only made such a provision for the clergy as would enable them to perform with credit to the church those duties of benevolence and hospitality prescribed by a religion they professed.
Mr. Lushingtonsupported the bill. It was not enacted for the advantage of dissenters, and was framed to go as far as any legislative act could go at present for the advancement of the interests of the church. The proportion of salary to the curate was only increased in proportion to the value of the rector's income. This was a just principle. At Oxford he knew of no opposition to it, though he was there so late as last week. The great source of opposition to the bill had been the increase of influence to the bishops. This he always wished to counteract: but, in the present instance he saw no cause of alarm, nor were they parties to any alteration by the present bill. From a conviction that the present bill would be of great public advantage, he felt inclined to give it his whole support.
Mr. W. Smith,not being a member of the established church, was afraid almost to say any thing on the subject, as it seemed to be connected with party and religious considerations, some of which might be conceived to involve himself; but, nevertheless, he felt himself called on to support the principle set forth by his hon. friend (Mr. Creevey), that there should be no remuneration without reference to labour. He objected strongly to the increase of the influence of the bishops, and wished that livings, both in the hands of lay impropriators as well as others, should be placed on a better foundation. He perfectly absolved the mis-
836
sionaries in India from the crime imputed to them, and thought the evils there had originated in the misconduct of those higher in rank and station.
Lord Miltonopposed the passing of this bill into a law. The grand objection he had to it was, that it gave the most improper influence to the bishops, who were altogether dependent on the crown, and who would not fail to extend the interests of the crown, through the medium of the regular clergy, among the population of the island. This was an evil of the greatest magnitude. The objection made by his hon. friend, he thought related not to dissenters in name, but applied to such as outwardly professed the established church, but dissented from the true spirit of the 39 Articles, and were enemies in principle to the established church. The more residents, he believed, the less would be the number of sectaries; but from the peculiar frame of this bill, he should propose that the house should go into a committee on it, though he should vote against its passing into a law.
Sir Francis Burdettthought the present an instance of legislative interference uncalled for. It suggested no remedy for the evil it pointed out. No one parish had preferred a complaint. It had been urged, that it was necessary to increase the salaries of residents, yet no proof had been exhibited of this necessity. The ground on which the bill stood was absolutely fanciful and whimsical; it went on a supposition of a necessity which, it appeared, did not exist. It seemed the right hon. mover had affixed the idea of respectability among the clergy to the sort of clothes they should wear, or the hospitality of their household. Poverty had hitherto been the badge and honour of our religion; but opinions had changed, and it was not now necessary alone that the clergy should be respectable, but they must also be rich. The catholic religion had one established principle in it, which had done much for its security and protection from encroachment. Though the higher orders of their clergy might be possessed of wealth, the regular and officiating clergy had all the influence over the lower order of the community, which a similarity of life and equality of income must ever give them under any system of religious government. It was not the wealthy compeer of the squire who would be found to possess the most influence. Increase of salary would fail to make them

837
more respectable. He had yet move serious constitutional grounds of objection;— the system of undue influence given by this bill over so great a number of clerical freeholders and voters at elections. If it should be necessary to increase their salaries, art act should follow to disable them from voting, as had been done with respect to others, in less danger of being influenced. The true cause of the grievance now existing was, the neglect of the bishops in permitting persons to take holy orders who were not proper for the situation. These were then left without either livings or income, and the evils now complained of were the consequence. After such an abuse of their power, was it right to give them more? Had they known the state of the clerical establishment, and the number of their clergy, they could not have fallen into the error, and thus have contributed to the disgrace of the clerical function. Perhaps it would be said, the proper place for a bishop was in the house of lords, or at court. Little could be said of such objector's respect or zeal for the cause of religion. The bill looked one way and proceeded another; it pointed out an evil and offered no remedy. If a change should ever take place, it should not be of this description. It went to overturn the whole system of clerical property, a consideration which should have its due weight on the house; especially as it might happen that they themselves might shortly become the sufferers by similar encroachments on the property of lay impropriators. It was, therefore, the duty of the gentlemen of England to shew their disapprobation of such a dangerous innovation on this defenceless portion of the community.
Mr. Manners Suttonexpressed his surprise at the statement of the hon. baronet respecting the neglect of bishops in admitting improper persons into the church. There was no point in which so much improvement had taken place respecting the church, even within the last 20 years, as in the arrangements made for the examination of persons, candidates for holy orders, in order to secure the admission of none but proper persons.
Mr. Wilberforcesaid, that it was admitted that the object of the bill was to provide for the poorest order of the clergy. This he thought a great object, and it was adequate for this object. In the great contest in which the noble lord opposite (lord Milton) and he were lately engaged, he
838
had seen nothing on the part of the clergy but consistency and independence. The bishops, he was satisfied, would be better pleased that no option should be left with them, but that they should be imperatively called on, in every case, to give the one-fifth. This, however, would in many cases be inconvenient, if not unjust. On the whole, he thought the measure as it stood, highly cunducive to the advantage of the church of England. Many gentlemen were zealous in their efforts to place the catholic religion on a respectable footing. He hoped they would not entirely slight that which they themselves professed; but would evince that the well-being of the church of England was not indifferent to them. Long experience, and a careful attention to the doctrines which it inculcated, had taught him to regard that church with the highest admiration, as embracing the purest system of religion, and that most consistent with the Christian faith. The present measure had his entire support, as one greatly calculated to give strength and stability to the church of England.
Mr. Windhamregarded the bill now under consideration in a very different light from the hon. gent. who spoke last. He conceived it to be a measure calculated to undermine and weaken, rather than to strengthen that church which the hon. gent. professed so much to admire. It seemed to him to be a bill calculated to sow dissention and discontent, rather than seed likely to produce good fruit. It appeared calculated to set the curate against the rector, and the rector against the curate. It was a bill to endanger, not to benefit the church of England. He was far from denying that the legislature might not interfere to regulate church property as well as any other. Nobody could deny that proposition; but still it remained a question, was such interference necessary? Nobody could deny that the king held the reins of government for the benefit of his subjects. But still the talking of cashiering kings was a doctrine not to be lightly introduced, or to be acted on but in cases of the most crying necessity. In the same manner, though the legislature might have a controul over the property of the church, it was a controul to be seldom exercised, nor even to be often talked of; it being a fact that the solidity of the tenure, by which the property was held, was diminished even by the frequency of the dis-

839
cussion as to the right to hold it inviolate. He could not, therefore, deny the argument of gentlemen on the other side, as to the letter, but he protested against it as to the spirit. If the church itself did not see this bill to be dangerous, it was more behind its interests than usual. If it did not see in this measure a speck which would in time burst forth into a cloud, it was more insensible to its situation than he had supposed. The church of England, he was satisfied, had more to fear from this measure than from the pope and a full conclave of bishops, even in the zenith of their power, and before his holiness was reduced to his present abject state. He could not help, however, admiring that far-sighted talent by which the hon. gent. (Mr. Wilberforce) was enabled to smell out the dangers of popery at 500 miles distance, while he continued utterly insensible to all the dangers of fanaticism assailing the church of England, even under his very nose. The gentlemen on the other side, however, appealed to the charity of the house, and asked if the curates, who did the business, ought not to be paid? To this he had no objection, but yet he contended they should not be paid out of other persons' pockets. But, said the hon. gent. again, this is only on account of the non-residence of the proper incumbent. This, however, was taking it as granted, that non-residents were delinquents, a doctrine in which he could not agree; as it was perfectly possible that a person might be non-resident from bad health, or from many other justifiable causes. This, too, was to play fast and loose with the question. It was one moment to represent it as a mulct on the non-resident; the next, as a bill for the relief of the curate. Instead of legislative proceedings, if the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer would exert himself zealously, earnestly, and sincerely, to see that none but proper persons, in point of character and learning, were admitted into the church, he would do more to effect the object in view than a thousand bills like the present could ever accomplish.
Mr. M. A. Taylorcontended that evil existed, and that remedy was called for. There was not a sufficiency of resident clergy to do the duties of the church. The income of the curates did not keep pace with those of the rector, nor with the circumstances of the times. Hence, one curate was often obliged to serve two or three parishes; and thus baptisms and
840
burials stood over till certain fixed days. Church property was given on the condition of performing the duties of the church, and the country had a right to provide for the performance of those duties out of that property.
The Chancellor of the Exchequercould not see that the present bill ought to be objected to because it did not go entirely to remedy the evils under which the poorer clergy laboured. It was no reason that the house should refuse to do that quantum of good which was in its power, because a still further degree remained, which it could not reach. Instead of endangering, he conceived that by the present measure he was strengthening and securing the foundations on which the church of England rested. The right hon. gent. alluded to a charge made against a right reverend prelate, as it he had improperly presented a foreigner to a vacancy in his gift. He vindicated in strong terms the conduct of that right rev. prelate. He did not pretend to know to what case the allusion had reference, but if it applied to the appointment of a learned person who had been; professor at Smyrna, he could say that it was an appointment highly meritorious; being to a gentleman of whom, except from his character for eastern learning, the right rev. prelate had no knowledge; and was to be considered as a retaining fee to enable the person in question to prosecute the enquiries into the Scriptures, which he had commenced. The right hon. member concluded by moving for leave to withdraw his first motion, that he might move that it be an instruction to the committee to make provision for extending the bill to Ireland.
Sir J. Newportdeclared himself the last man in the house' to oppose a well-regulated reform with respect to the establishment of curates. As far as the bill went to propose a remedy for that great grievance, he gave it his support. He must, however, say, that it did not meet the existing evil in Ireland, nor was it calculated generally to answer the ends for which it was intended.—The question being again put, that the Speaker do leave the chair,
Lord Porchesterconceived that there was no call for the bill. This was a case of reform; and he asked if there ever was a question of reform agreed to, without a case being made out? Whenever the worthy baronet near him (sir F. Burdett),called on the house to reform abuses of which he complained, what was the language of the very

841
persons who now pressed the present measure? That he must make out his case. This he now called on those gentlemen to do, which not having done, he must esteem the present to be a measure altogether uncalled for, unnecessary, and improper.
Mr. Tyrrwhit Jonesstrongly supported the measure, and expressed a hope that the noble lord would not continue to refuse his assent to the proposition that the bill should then go into a committee.
Sir C. Priceexpressed sonic doubt that the bill, as it then stood, would have a tendency to sow schism between the curates and the incumbents; but at the same time declared, that he hoped that by its being passed through a committee, it would receive such modification as would be the means of attaining the general object; namely, that of bettering the condition of the inferior clergy throughout the empire.
A division then took place. The numbers were, for going into a committee 131; against it 17. Majority 114. The house then went into a committee, in which lord Milton objected to the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for extending the operation of the bill to Ireland. Lord H. Petty, Mr. Windham, and sir J. Newport, followed on the same side. The Chancellor of the Exchequer defended his proposition, and was supported by sir A. Wellesley, lord Castlereagh, Mr.Huskisson, &c. Upon the division the numbers were, Ayes 55; Noes 18. Majority 37.—The committee then went through several clauses, the house resumed, the chairman reported progress, and asked leave to sit again, which was agreed to.