The Sun.
London, England, 1831-02-09 00:00:00

Lord KING said, that having some petitions to present
on the subject of tithes, he must renew that to some per-
sons inconvenient discussion, but to others most convenient.
Yesterday he had brought the Samersetshire militia into
the field, to-day he came down with the militia from Glou-
cestershire. He was happy to say that all persons ap-
peared now to agree that some alteration was necessary,
and it only remained to find out what alteration: One of
the Right Rev. Prelates had yesterday asked him if he had
any plan for making the change. He had—he had three
plans, all very good ones, and all simple plans. The first,
which was, perhaps, the most simple, and the best, was
to charge the land with a proportion of the rent for the
maintenance of tke Clergy ; or he would propose that a❑
amount of rent equal to the annual revenues of the Clergy
should be paid to them, and they should be entitled to that
sum in all times to come. His second plan was to give
them a corn rent equal to the tithes, or to fix a quantity of
corn equal to their present tithes, and they always to have
that quantity of corn, or the 'value of it according to the
market rate. He was willing too, to admit thut the quantity
of corn should be determined by the actual receipt of the
Clergy during the last seven years. After ascertaining the
amount, he would by this means fix the claims of the Clergy
for ever. Another and his third plan was to take the whole
of the tithes and the Church property and sell them, and pay
the proceeds into the hands of the Government, who should
take upon itself to provide a due maintenance for the Clergy;
and the overplus, if any, and he was sure there would be
a great deal, should go to the public; or a part of the over-
plus might be employed to provide better for the working
Clergy. One thing, however, was needful, let it be done
as it might, and that was to abolish that most impolitic
tax, the tax on the gross produce of the laud. It was ne.
cessary to do this, to make property beneficial. To secure
private property, promote the increase of the produce—.
but tithes curtail the produce of the land. It was said
that there was no difference between Church property and
other property. But sometimes the Clergy said that there
was a great difference between the Church property and
other property. The Clergy knew very well that maxim
of law, indium tempus, and on that they acted. Nothing
they said could bar the right of the Church ; their claims
went back to the days of Richard 11., and no other property
was on the same footing. This was a difference then be-
tween Church property and other property, on which the
Clergy were ready enough to insist when they had any
claims. Then they said the Church property was different
from other property. Now he said that it was. One of
the Right Rev. Prelates yesterday stated that the Bishops
had brought forward a measure or a Bill, he did not
know which, and he wished the Right Rev. Prelate had
b:en more explicit; but the Rev. Prelate said the Mier-
archy wished for a measure strictly to enforce residence,
and that this measure was defeated by the lay impropria-
tors, or the lay owners of advowsons. They had defeated
the measure because they thought it would diminish the
value of their advowsons to enforce residence. He knew
not what measure was meant, or what object the Bishops
had sought to accomplish ; but he was disposed to assert
that the non-residence was caused, in a great measure, by
the Bishops themselves. The greatest number of non-
residents, he believed, was to be found in the parishes of
the Bishops themselves. Thus the name of Prettyman was
synonimous with that of pluralist. The name of Sparke
too was synonirnous with that of pluralist. In fact, the
names of half the Bench were synoninaes of pluralist. He
would take the liberty of reading a letter on this subject,
which he had cut out of a newspaper—it was addressed
to the Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells, and was signed
Francis Gillett. It was dated from Knight's Farm, Alus-
bury, Devon, and was as follows:
'° MY LORD,—My duty to myself and any country at the pre-
sent crisis impels me to intrude on your Lordship's most serious
consideration concerning the manner in which you have disposed
of some of the Dignities and Benefices belonging to the See of
of Wells since you succeeded the late worthy and highly re-
spected Bishop, Dr. Beadon ; and also on your future Church
government.
" On the vacancy in the living of West Camel, your Lordship
instituted your son : to this no one objected ; a deserving young
Clergyman is certainly every way qualified for a country Rectory,
but when he became the Archdeacon, I must say that, taking his
age into consideration, and his title of Venerable, I blushed;
yes, my Lord, I even blushed! Is it consistent, any Lord, to see
so young a man have rule over so many elders of the Church ?
But to proceed : On Mr. Beadon's resignation of the Chancellor.
ship, this office also went with the Archdeaconry !—further, I
have been told that at an election for a Canon of the Cathedral,
the Chapter did elect some other candidate ; thinking, no doubt,
as I did, that the thing was already overdone with respect to your
son ;although I hear since he has obtained this situation also!

- ...
"These proceedings passed on, but not, I assure your Lord-
ship, without giving me great uneasiness; yet I never should,
most probably, have drawn your attention to them had I not,
lastly, and rather recently, seen by the papers that at the death
of that highly respected gentleman, the Rev. T. H. Whalley, the
living of Yeovilton was also swallowed up by the same over-
whehning flood ; or, in plain words, was joined to the Arclidea-
conry, Chancellorship, Canonry, and Living, before mentioned.
At the same time it certainly might not have given your Lord-
ship much trouble to have found within your Diocese some truly
respectable clergymen, advanced in years, with families, and
who are.not beneficed, to one of whom this small but comfortable
Rectory might have been a source of the greatest happiness in
their latter days. Besides, my Lord, how can you reconcile to
yourself the idea of one clergyman holding two Benefices or
Livings, whilst you are so strenuous an enforcer of full duty
within your Diocess 10 and surely the duties of the parish, both
with respect to the Church and poor, must be beyond all com-
parison better performed by a Rector or Vicar, as the case may
be, than by a poor Curate, however deserving.
I fun aware, my Lord, that it is possible some—nay, even
yourself, for a moment may say it is arrogance in so humble an
individual as 1 ant, to trouble your Lordship in this public way;
but as I now state to your Lordship that the greatest dependance
of myself and children consists of landed property (however few
the acres are) within your Lordship's Diocess, and that I have
no claim to the emoluments of the Church to look up for, ins
apprehensions at once will be seen to arise from a firm conviction
on my mind of the immediate necessity of a thorough Reform
in the Church—that she might be brought once more to stand 071
that sacred basis—that only firm foundation on which she stood in
the primitive ages."
This letter had been published in the papers—be did not
vouch for its correctness, but it had never been contra-
dicted, he believed, though he should be glad to bear it
contradicted. Here there was another pluralist, not a lay_
man. The Rev. - Prelates said they wished to prevent
pluralities ; and as he had given them a plan to commute
tithes, he would also give them a plan to secure resi-
dence. In fact, nothing was more simple. It was only
necessary to make the fact of non-residence a legal re-
ceipt for the tithes and other sinecures. That would do
the business effectually, far better than all the Bishops.

He would say no more on presenting his petition, except to
recommend the Right Rev. Prelate, who proposed to
bring in a moderate Bill, to the words used, he believed,
by Mr. Pitt during a great part of the late war, " give
up a part to preserve the remainder." The Noble Lord
concluded by presenting several "petitions from parishes in
Gloucestershire, praying fcir the commutation of tithes.
The Bishop of BATH and WELLS did not know that
he had given any cause for such an attack. The fact
certainly was that his son had two livings, but they were
so close to each other that he could well do the duty of
both. They were nut a walk from each other. In his
first living he had been a loser, as he had given up all his
income for the Church. He had certainly taken a second
living, but he had also employed a curate in each. In one he
did the duty himself in the morning, and in the other in
the afternoon, while his curate performed the duty in the
other part of the day. The first preferment which his son
possessed was not given by him, but on account of his
son's merit, by the Rev. Prelate behind him.—(We could
not see which member of time Bench the Rev. Prelate
pointed to.)—The other was bestowed on him by the
Earl of Eldon, out of respect for his son's character. His
son bad accepted, at his request, the duties of Chancellor
of his diocese ; and he had certainly given him the best
thing is his gift, in his diocese. He had brought him from
College for that purpose, where he was earning a deal more
than the value of his Church preferments. He believed,
so exemplary was his excellent son's conduct, that if in-
quiry were made in his parishes, the Noble Lord would
not find one human being not disposed to speak highly in
his favour. He had been compelled to make this state-
ment, and he hoped it had been satisfactory to their Lord-
ships.—(Cheers.) His son was a person of great merit,
and he trusted the Noble Lord would be ashamed and sorry
for having brought forward such an attack.
Lord KING felt neither ashamed nor sorry. He had
only asked if there were not pluralities among the Bishops,
who said they wanted to put them down, and he
found out that it was so. The letter he had read stated
that the Rev. Prelate's son was a deserving young man,
and he had made no attack on him ; be had only stated
that there were pluralities in that gentleman's possession,
and he found that he was correct. He brought the cir-
cumstance forward because others—he meant the Bishops—
said that laymen were the cause of the existence of plurali-
ties in the Church. The Bishops were not right, there-
fore, in laying the blame of pluralities on laymen, and it
was quite plain, if they bad resisted the Bill alluded to,
the Bishops had profited by it.
The Earl of RADNOR said that it had been asserted
by a Right Rev. Prelate that a Bill or measure enforcing
residence, and putting an end to pluralities, had been op-
posed by lay impropriators, and he had been asked when
that Bill was proposed, but he had made no answer. He
understood the Right Rev. Prelate to say that the Bishops
were not the causes of non-residence; that this was not
owing to the hierarchy, but the lay impropriators. The
Right Rev. Prelate had stated that on some occasion a Bill
to enforce residence had been proposed, and that its
powers had been curtailed by the lay impropriators, who
bad opposed the Bill, as injuring the advowsons of which
they were the owners. He had tasked his recollection to
find out what Bill the Right Rev. Prelate alluded to. He
had searched, too, those records which were usually pre-
served of Parliamentary proceedings, to find out what Act
the lay impropriators had opposed; but he regretted that
be was disappointed. He hoped, therefore, that the Right
Rev. Prelate would explain what he meant by his asser-
tion last night, that a Bill had been brought in to give a
right, or power, to the Bishops to enforce residence, and
that by lay impropriators this Bill bad been turned from
its purpose.
The Bishop of LONDON was reluctant to take part in
this discussion, which was the reason why he bad not risen
to answer the question put by the Noble Baron. There was
little occasion, he believed, to do so, because their Lord-
ships would, he hoped, recollect what he stated the night
before. The Noble Lord had not repeated his words cor-
rectly, and he should only endeavour to re-state them.
What he said was this. In accounting for non-residence,
he had not said that the lay impropriators solely were the
cause of it, but that it was chiefly owing to lay impropria-
tions that it was in many cases impossible for the Clergy
to reside at their benefices. The chief part of the property
belonging to the Church had, in many caaes, been taken
away and appropriated by laymen, and the revenue left was
insufficient. to pay for the performance of the duties of the
Clergyman, unless by uniting more benefices than one. If
their Lordships wished to obtain emu ate information on
the subject of lay impropriations, he would beg leave to
recommend to their perusal a book of Bishop Kennet,
written upwards of a century ago. By what he said
last night, he intended no reflections on the lay im-
propriators, and had no intention of attributing to them
any improper motives. He had but an imperfect re-
collection of the measure for enforcing residence, as he
was then a young man, and had not the honour of a seat
in their Lordships' House, nor had he meant to impute
anything improper to those who opposed that measure.
The Bill he had alluded to was the 531 Geo. 111. that was
brought in by the Bishops to enforce the residence of the
parish clergy. He had always considered that Act, or
rather that Bill, was intended to invest the Bishops with
a greater power to enforce residence and prevent pluralities,
as he had always understood that the Bill was rendered
less efficient in its progress by the interference of lay
holders of advowsons. lie did not mean to say, however,
that any undue influence had been used by the holders of
those advowsons to atop the measure. He must add, that
it was not possible for the Bishops always to enforce resi-
dence ; indeed, in the larger number of benefices, this was
impossible without ruining the Clergymen. As to the
patronage, lie wished to say that it was his intention, on
the first opportunity, to bring in a measure to strengthen
the provisions of the 7th of his late Majesty, without
which that Statute could not be carried into effect.
The Duke of WELLINGTON felt himself called on to
say, in justice to the Clergy, that (luring the time he was
in office he had occasion to promote the issuing a Com-
mission to inquire into the state of Ecclesiastical affairs,
and the state of the Ecclesiastical Law; and he invariably
found that the Right Rev. Prelates pressed on him the
necessity of giving them more power to enforce residence
amongst the inferior Clergy.
The Earl of CARNARVON deprecated in strong terms
the practice of his Noble Friend making, night after night,
in these times of troubles and disturbances, such attacks
on the Church. He regretted that his Noble Friend
should think it was his duty to make those attacks. Ile
was convinced—and he was sure that the great body of the
people were of the same opinion—that a more estimable
body of men than the clergymen of the Church of England
could not exist. In looking at the question of tithes, it
was necessary to consider other interests than those of the
clergy ; and he was sure that most of the Right Rev.
Prelates must desire to have their revenues collected by (amine
other means, and not be exposed to the odium and ill blood
which now created dissent in their parishes; and banished
their parishioners from the parish church. In reference to
the measures of the Right Rev. Prelate for the composition
of tithes, the Noble Earl recommended that a commutation
should be at once accomplished, as it would be most incon-
the tithe question again at the end of
With respect to residence, he thought
tv%evneinetnyt. on
eo
yp
ee
an
1..7
that if that were to he strictly enforced to the injury of
the exemplary body of Curates who had grown up within
the last ten or fifteen years, it would probably do the
Church a great injury. To compel residence might de-
' prive these Curates of employment, rod substitute for them
incumbents who were not so competent to the perfor-
mance of the duties,

Lord KING wished only to set himself right with his
Noble Friend. He had Dot made any attack on the Church
or on the Clergy ; he had not said one word against either.
lie admitted that the great body sf the Clergy were an ex-
emplary body of men, and he wished to make them more
efficient. Pluralities were acknowledged to be an abuse—
lion-residence was acknowleAged to be an abuse—and lie
wanted to remove these abuses. The same object was
proposed by his Noble Friend. Ile was not disposed
to take their property from the clergy, and had proposed
to grant them a corn rent equal to their revenue on the
average of the last seven years. With respect to what the
Right Rev. Prelate said of Bishop Kennet, and a book
written one hundred years ago, that would give very
perfect information as to the present time; for, since that
period, many Parliamentary grants had been made to the
Church. There was Queen Anne's Bounty, which had
now been in operation for many years, and increased the
value of many vicarages. Wishing to put his Right Rev.
Friends at their ease, as to the petitions he had yet to pre-
sent, he should imitate the Church in old times, which
established what was called the " peace of the Church,"
from Friday to 11Ionday. In presenting petitions, he should