Sitting of 28 June 1808

CURATES RESIDENCE BILL.
Lord Harrowby,pursuant to a notice which he gave yesterday, rose to submit a motion to their lordships, which was suggested to him by some observations that had been made during the discussion of this question. It was agreed, and seemed to be wished on all hands, that something should be done towards improving the condition of the inferior clergy. It had all along been his opinion, that the house was proceeding to legislate on a matter respecting which they had nothing like adequate information before them. This want of due information he felt very anxious to supply; and the object of his present motion was, to endeavour to ascertain the number of livings which were under 150 l. per annum. The noble lord then went into a variety of; calculations, grounded on former accounts laid before the house, to shew what were the number of these livings; how many of; them did not exceed 30 l.; how great would be the amount of the sum necessary to bring these small livings up to 150 l. per annum; and how long the period of time, under the present circumstances, necessary for the attainment of that object. It was also an object with him to ascertain how many livings were assisted by queen Anne's bounty. With a view to get at this object (an act of parliament he did not think necessary to accomplish it), he should content himself now with moving an humble address to his majesty, praying he would be graciously pleased to direct that there be laid before that house an account of the number of livings under 150 l. per annum.
The Archbishop of Canterburyexpressed his thanks to the noble baron for the pains he had taken on this subject, and his readiness to co-operate with him in the prosecution of his object.
The Earl of Moiraalso gave his hearty concurrence to the motion, and declared that no man could be more anxious than he was to see the condition of the inferior clergy improved. It was not only the comfort of those respectable persons he had in view, but the improvement of the morals of the commonalty, which improvement was intimately connected with the ease and comfort of the clergy. Perhaps,
1094
in addition to the information moved for by the noble baron, it might also be expedient to have before the house an account of the accumulation of the funds, known by the name of queen Anne's bounty.
Lord Hawkesburyapproved of the motion, and assured his noble friend that every thing should be done by him to give effect to his laudable intentions and endeavours.—The question was then put and agreed to. After which the order of the day was read for the house to resolve itself into a committee on the bill, when
Lord Sidmouthrose to move an instruction to the committee. In his opinion, whatever came under the description of the object which the bill had in view, might be embraced by it. Its object was to afford relief to resident curates, where that relief was justly required, and where, it might be easily procured. His wish now was to extend that relief to curates appointed by lay impropriators, and his lordship concluded with moving an instruction to the committee to that effect.
Lord Hawkesburywas sorry he could not assent to the proposition of his noble friend. That proposition broached an entirely new principle, which was not connected with the present bill. It should therefore be introduced in a separate bill, and stand upon its own merits. The principle of the present bill was not new, but had already been, twice at least, recognized and sanctioned by parliament.
The question was then put on lord Sidmouth's motion, and negatived; alter which, the house resolved itself into the committee on the bill. In the committee, a clause proposed by the earl of Moira, for rendering the curates acting under the bill liable to penalties for dilapidations on the vicarage houses, was opposed, on the ground that there was an action at common law in such cases. On a division, the clause was negatived by a majority of 26 to 6.—Another division took place on an amendment proposed by the archbishop of Canterbury, on the clause calling upon the bishop when assigning to any curate the allowances under this bill, to assign the reasons on which he interfered. His grace stated, that though the bishops were by the constitution responsible to the king, as the head of the church, they were not under the controul of the privy council. It was therefore unconstitutional now to subject them to the authority of that tribunal. The amendment was supported by lord Hawkesbury, and

1095
opposed by the lord chancellor, who, though he allowed that the bishops were in ordinary cases responsible only to the crown, maintained that when extraordinary powers were given to them by the legislature, there was a right in the legislature to regulate and controul the exercise of those powers. On the division there appeared, For the amendment 15; Against it 16.— Alter some further conversation on the provisions of the bill, it passed the committee without any amendment.