The Sun.
London, England, 1837-05-05 00:00:00

After that ettoinent, coupled with the previous statement
t':::lVrence to the contributions made by the Bighon/p bn
hoped he should have for his motiPn thcVoil the
Hon. Gentleman oppos.lttl tttld ‘if the Noble.i.drd the ieke
Seeretar,y!lvllltit lye had beard ckpress the lioniktn't
that tVery poor clergyman in the `ctinnitr.?,• 410.11.. lave a
living at least equal to OW. a Ya'i *; and which every poor
clergyman certpini!-.-uld have, but for the mal-adniinistra-
Lion tr.'6'se funds. He believed, indeed, that the
first-
cruits and tenths, properly collected and prepe4 ittifdletkt
would furnish a considerable sum tmtattit the erection of
new churches, where they Were required. He had another
port' ht. haha, which he begged to offer to the con-tido--
N.:110'0 of the House, because it placed this thatter in a very
strong point of view. It appealed from the return of the
Ecclesiastical Cetninissioners, that the revenues of the
Chizerh athounted to 3,507,5911. The Commissioners then
stated :

The amount on which first-fruits are payable, excluding the
discharged livings, 2,450,000 t
Taking. each inductional on an average of Aftcte _ .

years
The amount on which tenths nrt due, estimated at
,600,000/

Atnntint produced by first-fruits and tnths
annually, if paid upon the full amcunt 422,255

Amount actually paid for first-fruits and tenths on
an average of years 13,500

Paid less than the full and entire amount (yearly)... X 409,266
" The sum that the first fruits and tenths would yield
yearly, if paid upon the full amount, is 422,000/. ; the sum
paid is 13,500/„ making a deficiency of upwards of
400,0061. a-year." These were facts that spoke to every
man's mind—facts that could not fail, he imagined, to arrest
public attentioo. There was another circumstance of
which he complained in the administration of these funds—
the want of economy. He complained that nearly the whole
revenue of the first fruits was absorbed to pay the expense
incident to its administration. He complained that the first
fruits clidnot yield more than 4,000/. a-year ; he complained
that upwards of 5,000/. a-year were spent for the purpose
of distributing the first fruits according to the benevolent
statute of Anne. These were subjects that required to be
brought under the consideration of Parliament—subjects to
which great weight ought to be attached. The object of
his motion was to obtain a Committee to investigate the
subject ; and after the statement he had made he thought
the House would have no difficulty in acceding to that pro-
position. Before be sat down he would state the position
in which the poor Clergy stood. There were eleven livings
under the annual value of 10/. Could it be won-
dered at, under such circumstances, that complaints
were made ? There were 19 under 201., 32 under
301., 63 under 40/., and 172 under 501. ; making an
aggregate of 297 under the amount of fifty pounds. In
addition to this there were 350 under 601., 307 under 701.,
254 under Bbl., 352 under 90/., and 400 under 1001. This
was the state of Church livings 130 years after Queen
Anne's bounty had been in operation. Of livings from
100/. to 1501. there were 1,612 ; from 150/. to 2001.,1,534 ;
making in all 4,882 after Queen Anne's bounty. He hoped
he had made a case for the consideration of the House,
and shown that if the tenths had been paid up, even with-
out the first fruits, each living would have been advanced
to more than 2001. per annum. The Hon. Gentleman
concluded by moving that a Select Committee be appointed
to inquire whether the full amount of the first fruits and
tenths had been paid by the several persons who are now
Archbishops and Bishops, Deans, Canons, Prebendaries,
Rectors, and Vicars in England and Wales in respect of
the several archbishoprics, bishoprics, deaneries, canonries,
prebendaries, rectories, and vicarages which are now pos-
sessed, or have been possessed, or how much less than the
actual and full amount of such first-fruits and tenths have
been paid by them ; and whether any and what proceedings
should be taken to obtain the payment of the full value
of the first fruits and tenths which, shall hereafter become
due in respect of such archbishoprics, bishoprics, deaneries,
canonries, prebendaries, rectories, and vicarages, or any of
them.

Lord J. RUSSELL thought this was a question which
ought to be viewed on two points. One arts as to the
amount of tenths and first fruits which ought to have been
paid heretofore ; and the other, as to what was the course
which should be adopted in reference to future payments.
With respect to the former part of the question, his Hon.
Friend who brought forward the motion admitted that he
did not propose the inquiry with any view to a retrospec-
tive effect ; and where, then, was the use of seeking a
Committee for an inquiry which it was not intended should
be- followed up ?—(Hear.) With regard to the second
question which his Hon. Friend proposed to refer to the
Committee, namely, as to what was the full value of first
fruits and tenths, it was one which could only he properly de-
cided by law—(Hear)—and he (Lord J.,Russell) could not
see the necessity of granting a Committee on the subject
unless there existed great doubts as to the wording of the sta-
tute. The wording of the statute was that" the said first
fruits shall hereafter be paid according to the rate at which
they has'e been paid heretofore." These words surely were de-
cisive as to the amount to be paid, and were similar to those
enjoining the payment of Land Tax in the Act of King
William. If there was a doubt as to the law then the
question might be raised ; but on this point he (Lord J.
Russell) had the concurrence of, his Majesty's AttOrney-
General to sustain him in the opinion that there was no
such doubt.—(Hear, hear.) The question then contained
in the first part of his Hon. Friend's proposition was not one
which called for the interference of a Select Committee.
With respect to the second question of his Hon. Friend,
that the poorer classes of the Clergy were insufficiently pro-
vided, for, and that if the first fruits and tenths were pro-
perly paid up, the one amounting to 103,000/. a year and
the other to 150,000/., this insufficiency would be provided
against. If this were a mere legal question there would
be no more to do than to enforce the law. If it was not
legal, and such as could be legally enforced, the pro-
position was one for laying a tax upon the Clergy, to
which they were not now liable.. He (Lord John Rus-
sell); if appealed to on the fairness of the proposition,
would not deny that it might be a fair mode of raising the
small livings but then it ought not to be founded on an
opinion that the Clergy were now liable to such a tax.
The proposition should be made on other grounds, namely,
that it was expedient and advisable to lay on such a tax.
This, however,- was a proposition which ought to be taken
in conjunction with the whole question of the increase of
small livings and proper provision for the religious instruc-
tion of the people. This, however, was not a question for
a Select Committee. if the motion was a good and proper
one let it be brought fairly forward, and let the House deal
with it, but not bring it before a Select Committee. The
question, as far as the law was concerned, was clear ; and
such an inquiry as was sought for was unnecessary. With
respect to the second part of the proposition, a Select Com-
mittee was equally inapplicable, although he would not
deny that it was a fit subject for the consideration of Par-
liament.—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable Gentleman
took other grounds, and attempted to show that the funds
arising out of Queen Anne's bounty had been badly admi-
nistered. A Select Committee had, ho.tever, been already
appointed to investigate the matter, and he hoped they
would soon enable the House to proceed on the subject.,
by furnishing their report. The Hon. Gentleman, how-
ever, did not state any specific grounds of grievance on
this point, nor point out any specific ahuse, and it was his
(Lord J. Russell's) opinion that the trustees of Queen
Anne's Bounty administered the funds in an excellent man-
ner, and with a due consideration to the wants of those
who were its objects.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Still he
would admit that some improvement might be made,
but not in such a way as would require Parliamentary in-
terference. As there was no doubt as to the, law, and as
there was no use in the policy of the proceeding, he hoped
his Hon. Friend would not div;de the House on the occa-
sion.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BA INES still persisting in his motion, the House
divided, when there appeared—

Ayes
Noes
Majority against the Motion-108
Sir A. Agnew, Lord Morpeth, and other Members
presented several petitions for the better observance of the
Sabbath.