The Sun.
London, England, 1840-03-04 00:00:00

CHURCH EXTENSION

Mr. HA WES wished to ask the Hon. Baronet, the
Member for the University of Oxford, if he could
state when he r*aant to brim,* on his motion rclati‘e to
Church Extension whether it would involve a
grant of public money, and whether it would b: con-
fined to England?
Sir R. INGLIS said he hoped ne should bring for-
ward the motion as soon as possible after Easter ; that
a person of much less sagacity than the Hon. Member
for Lambeth must bo able to divine that the motion
would involve in some degree a vote of public money ;
and that it would refer to England and Wales.
DEFALCATION IN THE REVENUE.

Sir WALTER JAMES wished to know if the
rumours were correct, that there had been frauds com-
mitted on the revenue, to the amount of 1.50,0001., by
means of attempted removals from bonded warehouses ;
and if so, whether the returns might not be produced ?
Lord PALMERSTON said he had not observed
the paragraph alluded to, and was not able to give any
nformation on the subject.
Mr. PAKINGTON said ho understood a Bill had
passed the Legislature of Upper Canada, dividing the
clergy reserves, and voting the Church of England one-
fourth part of the property. He wished to ask the
Noble Lord whether such a Bill had been received at
the Colonial Office ; and if so, how soon it was his in-
tention today it on the table of the two Houses of Par-
liament ?
Lord J. RUSSELL said that no such Bill had seen
received by the Government ; he believed the despatches
relating to the subject had not arrived, in consequence
of the vessels being detained by adverse winds ?
Mr. HUME asked if the Report from Berlin relative
to the Corn-laws had been received ?
Lord J. RUSSELL answered in the affirmative.
FACTORIES BILL.
Lord ASHLEY said it was not his intention to de-
tain the House with any statements on this subject.
He had s', often, and he feared so undeservedly, on
former occasions obtained the attention of the House to
it that he should only move that a Select Committee
be appointed to inquire into the operation of the Act
for the regulation of mills and factories, and to report
their opinion thereupon to the House.
Mr. BROTHERTON seconded the motion, which
was agreed to.
THE CASE OF MR. DILLON.

Sir FRANCIS BURDETT then rose for the pun
pose of moving the appointment of a Select Committee;
to take into consideration the petition of Mr. J. Dillon,
but in consequence of the noise of Hen. Members
leaving the House, it was impossible for some minutes
to bear a single word. Mr. Dillon was an officer ex-
ceedingly well known, and had been unceasingly engaged
in preventing the crime of smuggling. In the instance
to which the present petition related, Mr. Dillon cer-
tainly did not succeed in capturing the smugglers, but
by the course he pursued he drove them into that posi-
tion in which they were ultimately captured, but upon
his claiming the prize-money, it was refused on the
ground that he had not made the capture. It would
be nothing but common justice if the House wire to
appoint a Committee to inquire into the claims of the
petitioner. The Hon. Baronet concluded by moving
for the appointment of a Committee.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said that the case had been already four times
ander the consideration of the House, and he could not
help saying that the persons who were induced to make
repeated applications to Parliament upon groundless
claims ought rather to be advised to apply themselves
to other employments. It appeared to him, as it had
appeared befcre to Lord Grey's Government and to the
House, upon the fullest consideration of the case, that
the petitioner had no claim, and that lie had no share
in the capture for which he claimed.
Mr. WARBURTON said, that if the case had been
brought forward shortly after the transaction occurred,
it would be impossible to refuse the petitioner's claim.
The only weak part of the case was, that the claim was
so long deferred, which however might well be explained
by a young officer's ignorance of his actual rights and
his unwillingness to risk the expense of the Admiralty
Court. He hoped that this case would yet be re-con-
sidered, and that some portion of the large sum secured
to the Government would be awarded to Capt. Dillon.
Sir F. BURDETT replied, he had heard no reasons
urged why the motion should not be acceded to, and he
should therefore divide the House upon it.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared—
For the m0ti0n....-
Against it
Majority against the motion —27
The motion was consequently lost.
FIRST FRUITS AND TENTHS.
On our re-admission to the gallery we found Mr.
BAINES moving for a Committee of the whole House
to take into consideration the propriety of abolishing
the first fruits of the Clergy in England and Wales,
and the more effectual rating, and the better collection
of flee tithes, applicable to the augmentation of the
maiatainance of the poor Clergy. Ho had on a former
occasion stated the grounds why the real first fruits and
tenths should he taken instead of the nominal, the
latter of which arose from the circumstance of

..42

having an ancient valuation taken instead

the present one, and he thought he had established that
,there could be no reasonable doubt that the poor
Clergy at the present time ought to have on their
one-tenth what the rich Clergy enjoyed on their
nine-tenthr, flee increased value of the livings.
He had occasion to state that great discrepancies
existed between the real and nominal value, and he
thought that he could not do it better than from a
almnaunication made to him by a Clergyman, and from
the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. This
Clergyman bad communicated these lasts to him. He
had taken thirty-four livings, which had been returned
to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, as of the value of

64,738/ , bnt which were paid at present with a very rural

'um of 1,0141., making the difference of 63,7.14/. He
did not state this upon vague and general rumour, but

absolute facts. He gave the amount in the King's
books, the payment at present made, and the value of
the living :

Valued Real Snm paid] Real
Name of Living. at Value. 'as Tenths' Tenth.
Bibury (Gloucestershire) Vi £l3 £1023 £1 6 102
All Canning, ( Wilts) RI SI 11001 3 2 100
Chelsea (Middlesex) RI 13 10031 1 6 100
Winwiek (Laneashire) R 1 102 36161 1'; 4 361
Stanhope (Durham) R 67 48421 614 464
Doddington (Cambridge) R 22 , 7306, 1 4 730

This state of things was not confined to vicarages
and rectories only, but extended to the revenues
of the Established Church, of the first order of the
Clergy—the Bishops. Would it be supposed that
the Bishop of London, whose income, ascertained
by himself, was 13,920/., paid only as tenths,
9011., making a deficiency upon the annual pay-
ment of 13,081. The income of the Bishop of
Winchester was 11,1511. ; the payment as tenths
was 2,8731., making a deficiency of 8,2781. The
revenue returned for the Bishopric of Exeter was
2,711/., ho paid for the tenths 430/., leaving a deficiency
of 2,263/. The Bishopric of Worcester was valued at

6,5591., the sum paid as the tenths was 929/., leaving
a deficiency of 5,6301. He had show❑ on a previous
night, from authority that could not well be disputed,
that the poor Clergy ought to have the advantage of
the increased value of these livings as well as the rich.

How, he would ask, did they operate. Why, the rich
Clergy took the improved value on nine-tenths, while
the poor Clergy were deprived of their value on
one-tenth.—(Cheer?.) Was that a proper state of
things? It was not a state of things which either

the House or the country he was sure would
think proper. He had letters from Clergymen
of almost every diocese expressing the great injustice
done them, rind was it to be tolerated by the Ilouse of
Commons of England, who were guardians of the
public purse, that such circumstances should con-
tinue ? In the time of Queen Anne the payments to
which he had adverted were upwards of 17,0001. a
year. They were now satisfied by paying 13,000/.,
and upon that 13,0001. there was a deduction of 6,000/.
for management. Surely it would not for a moment be
supposed that this state of things was satisfactory. He
(Mr. Baines) WAS more anxious to state the opinions
of others than to express any of Lis own. What had a
Noble Lord, who was much in favour with the Members
on the other side of the House, if there had been any
there—(Hear, and laughter. there being but few Mem-
bers on the Opposition side of the House)—what
had the Noble Lord the Member for North Lanca-
shire said on this subject ? Why he found from an
etract from a speech of that Noble Lord that he
said this : " He thought that pluralities should be re-
formed, hat the wealth of the Church ought to be
appropriated to serve the livings of the poorer clergy,
instead of being devoted to purposes comparatively
euyseelreysse.lassHoer
society,
this opinio in common with
R. Peel's yand one of the first acts of
administration, was to issue a commission
for the purpose of
ducting from the waesacictlritaining whether by de-
and adding to the of the larger -livings
ppooo.riteiro the Church would
not be placed in n
than it was at present for theinhe
sitetrufrcattion In:frethe v aj!poorerbl available
classes of the community."--
(che wished—he wished the tenths taken That was what
en
from
country
should be applied to the benefit of poor.thr. the rich
what was the state of the poorer livings in
as it appeared from the Report of the this
Nw
Commissioners. Why from that Report it appearedslastical
that there were '297 livings under 50/., 305 from/
o
601. a-year, 317 from 60/. to 70/. a-year, '254 from 70t/.
to 80/. a-year, 353 from 801. to 901. a-year, and 401.
from 901. to 100/. ; and there were 4,88'2 livings under
2001. a-year, exclusive of 5,230 curacies of less than
1501. a-year. From the same authority it ap-
pears that there were at the time of the presenta-
tion of that Report 5,7'28 bishoprics, dignities, and
benefices, varying in value from '2OO/. to 20,0001.
a year. That was one side of the picture. The
plan he proposed was to abolish the first fruits altc-
gether. There was sufficient wealth in the Church
without imposing first fruits at all. Then he would
propose to exempt all livings under the value of 300/.,

not only from the payment of first fruits, but
of tenths, after the next avoidance. It was
not till the present Government came into office that
any steps were taken for the purpose of equalising
livings. His object was to advance all the small livings
gradually to 2001. a-year, and that he proposed to effect
in the following manner :

297 livings from 101. and under 50/. will require £48,315
1,629 ... .. 50 ... 100 201,365
1,602 ... 100 ... 150 .. ... 120,150
1,354 ... ... 150 ... 200 ... ... 33,850

Total
Deduct sum proposed for augmentation
by Lord J. Russell 130,000

Leaving a deficiency 0f... 273,680
From which it appears that the sum of 273,680/. a year
would be necessary to augment the small livings to the
amount of 2001. a year each ; and for this sum he pro-
vided by appropriating the tenth part of the livings
above 3001. a year ;
The total clear annual revenue of the Church
revenues, as appears from the Report of the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners, was £3,439,767
Deduct for livings under 300/. a year, not to
be charged

2,402,923

The Tenths on which amount to 240,292
To be augmented by the excess of tithe com-
mutations over the amounts returned by the Ec-
clesiastical Commissioners.—(Hear, hear.) In con-
clusion, he begged to move that the House do now
resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House for
the purpose of taking into consideratio❑ the propriety of
abolishing the first fruits of the clergy in England and
Wales, and the more effectual rating and the better
collection of the tithes, applicable to the maintenance
of the poor clergy.
Mr. G. KNIGHT seconded the motion. He very
much wished to have an augmentation of small livings so
as to secure a resident clergy, and also to provide a
permanent fund for the multiplication of churches. He
agreed, with the Hon. Member for Leeds, that it was
necessary to abolish first fruits. In the present state
of the House he would not trespass upon the attention
of Hon. Members, but he hoped the inquiry would be
consented to, so that it might be seen whether some
improvement could not be made upon the present sys-
tem.--(Cries of " Divide, divide.")
Mr. GOULBURN would not trouble the House
at any length upon this subject, which had been so
1 often discussed. He contended there was no legal
claim under the law as it stood, to impose a tax on any
portion of the clergy to the amount proposed by the
Hon. Gentleman. He was opposed to the system pro-
posed by the Hon. Gentleman, and he did not think an
equalization of incomes of any class of persons would
be a desirable object. The difference of emolument
was the greatest possible inducement to exertion. There
were, however, other and higher motives, which
animated the great body of the clergy.—( Hear, hear.)
But when they as men were legislating for the Church,
they were bound not to put out of view those feelings
which actuated mankind in general. He objected to
that system of equality which the Hon. Member pro-
posed, and therefore if the Hon. Gentleman divided
the House, he would feel bound to vote against him.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL could not agree to the
motion of his Hon. Friend, the Member for Leeds.
The tax proposed by the Hon. Gentleman being
one which would be objected to by a great many per-
sons, and it being a tax that would be unpalatable to
the clergy in general, he did not think it would be ad-
visable that they should go into a general Committee
upon the subject. It was a question which, if any Mem-
ber of the Government felt disposed to bring forward,
that ought to be proposed upon the responsibility of the
Government, giving notice to the whole body of
the clergy, so that they might either oppose
or express their sentiments upon it. He would not
detain the House further, because, as the Right Hon.
Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gouiburn) hail said, the
subject had been repeatedly discussed. He could not
agree with the Hon. Member for Leeds upon the law
of the case. However, there were measures then before
Parliament, which proposed to take a considerable in-
come from the great dignitaries of the Church, and to
apply that income to the augmentation of small livings,
and the increase of churches in populous places. It
was not expedient to proceed with the consideration of
the subject proposed by the Hon. Member for Leeds
at that period, and he was afraid they would make
very little progress with it, unless it was brought before
the House and the public in a way to excite more
attention.

Mr. VERNON begged to say a few words in con-
sequence of an expression which had fallen from the
Hon. Member for Leeds. The Hon. Member had
stated that the Bishops and High Dignitaries of the
Church had violated their duties in not attending to the
poor in the administration of Queen Ann?'s bounty. He
would tell that Hon. Member that the Bishops, as Go-
vernors of Queen Anne's bounty, had no more power of
assigning a shilling to the poor than the Hon. Gentle-
man himself, and the mistake into which the Hon. Mem-
ber had fallen could only be attributed to his incapa-
bility of understanding a plain Act of Parliament.—
(Hear, hear.) The object of the whole speech of the
Hon. Member appeared only to be to throw obloquy on
the Clergy. The question had been so often discussed
that he would not trouble the House further.
Mr. HORSMAN must protest against the doctrine
that it was necessary to maintain an inequality of livings
in order to induce educated gentlemen to enter into the
Church—thus making a mere speculation of the holy
ministry.—(Hear, hear.) In Scotland the clergy per-
formed their duties in a most exemplary manner, with-
out any of those prizes to look forward to. He
thought the doctrine laid down was a most dangerous
one, for if men only could be goaded on to the per-
formance of their duty by the hope of gaining these
prizes when they attained to those places, where increased
attention was necessary, having no more prizes to look
for, their zeal, of course, cooled. It was an unfortunate
doctrine, and one that would be well used in the mouths
of the worst enemies of the Church.

Mr. GOULBURN explained amidst cries o
" Spoke, spoke."

Mr. A. WHITE could not agree with the doctrine
laid down by the Right Hon. the Member for the
University of Cambridge. The gross inequalities now
existing in the livings of the Church must lead to the
degradation of the Church in the eyes of the people.
The Curates were disgracefully paid, many of them not
receiving so much as a gentleman's butler, although they
must be educated men. He would cordially give
his support to the motion of the Hon. Member for
Leeds, who, he thought, deserved the thanks of the
country for his perseverance upon this important
question.

- Mr. BAINES then replied. He could assure the
Hon. Member for Bassetlaw, or any other Hen. Mem-
ber, that he would perform his duty fearlessly in that
House, notwithstanding the sneers he might he
met with as to his being a Dissenter. Whether Dis-
senter or Churchman, all were equal in that House ;
and he would pursue his course, unmindful of all such
insinuations. He would not be restrained from the free
exercise of his judgment upon any matter before the
House. His Noble Friend and the Hon. Member op-
posite argued on the law of the question, hut there
were high authorities against them. Lord Eldon was
against them, so also was Mr. Apr, Queen's Counsel,
Sir John Newport, and --
Mr. GOULBURN—Mention the authorities on
the other side.

Mr. BAlNES—Certainly. Lord Plunket is against
us, so also was Lord Grey ; but it was evident that he
spoke twithout information upon the subject, for he said
that there was an Act of Parliament which prevented
the rr-valuation of toe benefices. He was quite sure the
Noble Lord had been misled, for there really was no
such Act. The Statute of Anne prorPed that all
doubts should be construed in favour of the poor clergy,
but had that ever been done ?—(Hear, hear.) His
objects had been misconceived—he wished that no
minister should have less than 200/., but he never for

a moment proposed to bring down the Archbishops of
Canterbury and York to a❑ equality.—(Laughter, and
cries of " Divide.")
The gallery was then cleared for a division.
The House divided, when there appeared--
For the motion
Against it
Majority —2l
On our admission, we found
Mr. BAINES on his legs, proposing a resolution to
the effect, that it was expedient to make provision for
the abolition of the first fruits and tenths, as at present
enforced in England and Wales, and to levy an annual
one-tenth of the clear annual value of all bishoprics and
benefices, the income of which was above 300/., to be
applied in the first instance to the maintainance of the
poorer clergy, and afterwards to building and repairing
of churches, and such other purposes as may be con-
ducive to the interests of religion.

Mr. GOULBURN might Make a long speech against
;he motion, but as he could not hope to reduce the

number from thirty-eight, he would defer it till another

opportunity.—( Laughter.)
Mr. Alderman HUMPHERY hoped the sum would
be fixed at 500/., he thought 300/. too low.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. BAINES then moved—" That a Bill be
brought in founded upon such resolution, and that such
Bill be brought in by Mr. Baines and Mr. G. Knight."
Mr. G. KNIGHT begged leave to decline the
honour.—(Laughter.) He understood that the sum
was to be left blank.

It was then moved that the Chairman report pro-
gress, and ask leave to bring in a Bill.
The House then resumed.
OFFICIAL PENSIONS.
Mr. HUME then moved for a return of the " amount
of money paid as pensions to each parson under the Acts
57 Geo. 111., c. 65, and 6 Gco. IV., c. 90, from the
passing of them up to this time, stating the amount
paid in each year to each person, and the total ar4ount
to each person ; also the aggregate charge to the
public for those pensions in each yea: to the present
time, and the total pald."