The Sun.
London, England, 1833-03-13 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, MARCH 12.
On the LORD CHANCELLOR taking his seat at five o'clock,
Lord KINNOUL presented a petition from Perth,
praying for an alteration in the Cuurts of Law in Scotland.

- On the petition being read,
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he thought
hardly any alteration was necessary in the present
system of law proceedings in Scotland, where, be-
sides many advantages not possessed in England, the
Sheriff of each county was a kind of local judge. Us.
fortunately many alterations were requisite in the English
law, and in a few days he should present a Bill to their
Lordships for extending local judication.
The Bishop of DURHAM presented a petition for the
better observance of the Sabbath.
LORD SUFFIELD presented a petition from the
Baptist Congregation in St. Mary's-street, Norwich,
against Sunday trading. Also another, to the same effect,
from Princes street Chapel, Norwich.
The Bishop of GLOUCESTER presented a similar pe-
tition from the parish of Hanbury, in Gloucestershire.
Lord STEWART DE ROTHSAY presented a peti-
tion against the Beer Act.
The Earl of RODEN presented a petition from the
town of Killaloe, in Mayo, imploring their Lordships to
interfere with his Majesty's Ministers, who intended to
take away from them their Bishop, from whom they had
received so much benefit. The petition stated that
the town- was rapidly improving under the fostering
care of their Bishop, and the exports yearly increasing.
Lord KING presented a petition from a parish in Cork,
for the abolition of tithes and Church cess. Also, a si-
milar one, from the Protestant inhabitants of a parish in
Kerry. They stated that they paid a great sum of money
under the Composition Act, and received in return neither
church, chapel, or pastor. Also a petition from Ashbur-
ton, in Devon, praying for the abolition of slavery. The
Noble Lord said, as he had given notice yesterday, he
begged to move for a return of the application of Queen
Anne's Bounty. The more he looked into it the more he
saw the gross misapplication of that fund. He was glad
to see so many of the Rev. Prelates present ; he could not
now be accused of bringing forward a question concerning
the Church without notice. He hoped to make out such
a case before he sat down as to show their Lordships that
it was necessary, not only to redress, but that the parties
should be obliged to refund. lie would show that many
of the heads of the Church, as well as Deans and Chapters,
held places of preferment, in which the duty was done by
curates, to whom they allowed only a miserable pittance,
while they were in the receipt of very large sums collected
as tithes. They were told that a very large addition had
been made, within a few years, to small benefices. No
doubt such had been the case; but where bad the money
come from ? Why, very large sums had been taken for
that purpose from the fund called Queen Anne's Bounty,
and from the Parliamentary grant. That money had been
taken under false pretences ; for it had been taken pro-
fessedly to augment poor livings, while, in fact, it was
applied to augment small salaries, not those that were paid
to the curates, but to parishes where the impropriators of
tithes were drawing large sums. It was taken from that
fund, and applied in such a manner, in order to save the
pockets of the Rev. Gentlemen, who themselves ought to
have paid their own servants. He must say a word or two
upon the avoanner in which that fund had been raised.
The returns showed that, since the Act passed, only about
four millions bad been paid in as first fruits and tenths ;
while, if the spirit of the Act had been complied with,
' upwards of thirty millions would have been paid in. Yet
the dignitaries of the Church, who had thus avoided pay-
ing their due share into that fund, drew large sums from
it, in order to pay their own curates. The Noble Lord
then read from the returns a long statement of the aug-
mentations made to parishes of which the Deans and Chap-
ters of Winchester and Windsor were the impropriators.
" Dean and Canon of Windsor, impropriator of the following
parishes, received from Parliamentary grant and Queen Anne's
bounty :—Plymsted, 1811, 6001.; 1812, 400/. ; 1815, 3001. Plymp-
ton, —, 600/. St. German's, 1811, 800/. ; 1814, 4001. Wembury,
1817, 2001. ; 1816, 1,4004 Northam, 1764, 2001. ; 1812, 4001.
South Moulton, 1813, 600/.
" Dean and Canon of Winchester, impropriators of tithes of
two large parishes in Wales :—Holt, 1725, 2001. ; 1733, 2001.
lseoyd, 1749, 2001. ; 1757, 2001. ; 1798, 2001. ; 1818,200/.
" Dean of Exeter, impropriator of tithe :—Landkev, 1775,
2001. ; 1810, 2004 ; 1415, 1,400/. Swimbed, 1750, 20(4. ; 18-11, 400/.
" Dean and Chapter of Carlisle, impropriators of valuable
tithe :—Hesket,lBl3,6oo/. ; 1815, 2,000/. to purchase land; 1816,
300/. ; 1817, 300/.
" Dean of Bangor, impropriator of tithe (curate paid 32/. is.) :
Gyffin, 1767, 2001. ; 1810, 2001. ; 1816,1,4001.
Bishop of Bangor, impropriator of valuable tithe (curate paid
30/. 125.) :—Llandegar, 1812, 2001. ; 1815, 1,6001.; 300/. ;
—, 300/.
" Bishop of Lichfield,impropriator oflargc tithes in Merioneth-
shire (curate paid only 271,) :—rallylyr, 1808, 2001. ; 1816, 1,4001.
Penal, 1810, 2001."
Thus, he said, these returns proved, that for thirteen
parishes these Rev. Gentlemen had drawn 14,5001. which
ought to have been paid from their own pockets. He was
of opinion he had stated enough to show that it was most
improper, that so much of the public money had been so
misappropriated, in order to save the pockets of Deans,
Chancellors, Prebends, Canons, and other rubbish of the
cathedrals. The public were willing to cry to these gen-
tlemen, " Begone, give place to better men, and eat us not
up in this manner." They were frequently told that the
labourer was worthy of his hire—that he who served the
altar should live by the altar. Such were his opinions.
He would willingly pay the real working clergyman, but he
must say the money was grossly mis :pplied when paid into
the bands of those drones of the Establishment that he had
named. The Noble Lord then moved for an account of

the poor livings in the different dioceses in England and
Wales, which had received grants from Queen Anne's
Bounty, and from Parliamentary grants, where the tithes
belonged to any Dean or Chapter, or "ere annexed to any
See.

The Bishop of LONDON said that the Governors of
Queen Aune's Bounty had voluntarily presented to Par-
liament a very minute account of their proceedings up to
1826 ; it would therefore only be necessary to continue
that account up to the present period, and the Noble Lord
would be in possession of all the information which he de-
sired. He begged to inform the Noble Lord that the
Bishops and ecclesiastical bodies who were impropriators
stood in precisely the same situation as lay impropriators.
A Bishop held his tithes on the same condition as a lay
impropriator—namely, to provide a certain sum to the
curate, which was generally fixed in the leases, and could
not he altered until the leases ran out. That was the con-
dition in which matters stood until the Archbishop of Can-
terbury introduced his Bill in 1831. Up to that time
the Bishops could not charge the tithes with a higher re-
muneration for the clergy than was fixed in the leases. If
the Bishops had done as the Noble Lord wished them to
do they would have been unable to maintain the dignity
of their station, which was so necessary, not for their own

aggrandizement, but for the interests of religion. The
language in which the Noble Lord had indulged with
respect to Deans and Chapters, and " all the rubbish of
cathedrals," was not new. Precisely the same language
had been used before the great rebellirn, by Harry Martin
and Sir Harry Vane. He could assure the Noble Lord
and the House, that the Governors of Queen Anne's
Bounty dispensed the funds at their disposal with the ut-
most impartiality, and that in no instance was any favour
shown with respect to livings held by Bishops or ecclesias-
tical bodies.
. .

The Bishop of CHESTER had seen a petition, a fac
simile of the one lately presented to the other House of
Parliament by a Noble Lord, which was full of the grossest
misstatements, and displayed an utter ignorance of the
whole nature of impropriations. He merely alluded to
the circumstance to show with what caution such a state-
ment ought to be received, and to declare that if ever the
opportunity should offer itself, by the presentation of that
petition to the House, he should feel it his duty to contro-
vert its statements in detail, by entering into an explana-
tion of the circumstances to which it referred.
The Earl of HARROWBY rose, not, indeed, to add
anything to the statement made by the Right Rev. Pre-
late (the Bishop of London), which was in his (Lord
Harrowby's) estimation complete, but to give his testi-
mony in favour of that statement, lest it should be sup-
posed he did not fully concur in it. The Noble Earl de-
fended the conduct of the governors in their distribution
of the Royal bounty. He thought not the least doubt
could be entertained with respect to the impropriations
which bad fallen so unfortunately under the Noble Baron's
lash being precisely similarly situated to lay impropria-
tions. But whether that were so or not, he (Lord Har-
rowby) thought it rather bard that the faults of their pre-
decessors should be visited on the present board. He en-
tirely agreed with the Right Rev. Prelate that the best
mode of meeting the views of the Noble Baron would be
to order the production of a copy of the book to which al-
lusion had been made. _ _ .

The Bishop of EXETER did not rise for the purpose of
speaking on the general question, but for the sake of
doing justice once more to certain individuals who had
been particularly adverted to by the •Nobles Baron, and
subjected by him to grave charges7—he alluded to the
Dean and Chapter of Exeter, whom the Noble Baron had
that night charged along with others with conduct dis.
graceful to themselves and to the church to which they
belonged. He had described them as drones—the suckers
of the honey of the others who did their duty. It would
certainly be in the recollection of the House, that he (the
Bishop of Exeter) only a few nights ago had satisfactorily
shown how innocent those parties were of the charges
which bad been alleged against them, and, having done
F o, he had hoped that the Noble Baron would not have
come down to the House to reiterate those charges, or, at

least, would have refrained from bringing them promi-
nently forward without instituting some inquiry as to
their truth. He needed hardly to repeat that they were
entirely destitute of foundation. What might be the
feelings of the Noble II iron on occasions like the present
he (the Bishop of Exeter) knew not, but this he would
say, that he for one would rather be esteemed guilty of
the greatest abuse of power ever charged—he would not
say proved by the Noble Baron—against any individual,
than have it said of him that he was in the habit, night
after night, like the Noble Baron, of bringing forward
unfounded allegations on flimsy and unsubstantial infor-
mation, and treating that information as if it were really
entitled to credit.—(Hear.)
Lord KING declared that if he had said anything im-
proper he was sorry for having done so, but his remarks
were not directed so much against the individuals as
against the Deanery itself—not against the men but the
system. He did not mean, on the other hand, to impute
any partiality to the Board, but he wished to know why
they and not the impropriators of the parishes were tke
parties to reward the curates for the duties they performed?
He could only say, that had the knowledge of this appro-
priation of the funds placed at the disposal of the Board
been obtained by Parliament previously to the last grant,
that grant never would have been made. With respect
to the amendment moved by the Right Rev. Prelate, he
had one observation to make, anti that was, to repeat
his wish that the separation specified in his motion should
be made from the whole mass of the information.
The Bishop of LONDON said thatt if the Noble Baron
would not agree to have a return of all the parishes held
iiy inspropriators, he should feel it his duty to divide the
House upon the question•.
Lord KING said, his only objection to that was the
difficulty which would thereby be occasioned, in getting
at the particular information he required, in so large a
mass.—(Hear.)
Lord ELLENIIOROUGH thought the motion should
be withdrawn, and another of a more general nature sub-
stituted in its place.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE denied that the Noble Baron
(Lord King) had shown how any distinction could be
drawn between the clerical and lay impropriations in the
present instance. Besides, who could assume the power
of alienating any part of the revenues of the deaneries in
question ? He (Lord Wharncliffe) thought the Noble
Baron would find it a difficult task to show that any per-
son possessed that power. He contended that the clerical
impropriators bad no more failed in their duty than the
lay impropriators.
Earl GREY did not rise for the purpose of defending
the conduct of the Governors of the Royal bounty,—the
Right Rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) had absolved
him from that task,—but to say a few words with respect
to the nature of the question which was before the House,
which, in its present form, he thought open to objection,
inasmuch as it would place the parties to whom it referred
in an invidious position. No distinction whatever, it ap-
peared to him (Earl Grey), would, by the motion in its
present shape, be made with respect to those clerical
persons standing in the situation of lay impropriators. He
would suggest the propriety of having those returns which
were already completed up to 1826 laid on the table, ac-
companied by returns from that period up to the present
time. This would render the information complete ; but
if the motion were persisted in in its present form, he
(Lord Grey) should feel bound to votefor the Right Rev.
Prelate's amendment.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said it would be much
more convenient to the House, as well as to the officers
who would have to compile the information, and it would
be infinitely the best mode for rendering that information
clear and distinct, for the Noble Baron to withdraw his
motion, and ask for the production of the returns up to
1826, which were in existence, accompanied by others
which would carry the information he sought down to
the present period. By this means the whole object of
his motion would be attained. He would not advise the
alteration of the motion, so as to reduce it to a different
shape, as he was convinced that would be attended with
considerable difficulty, but would recommend its entire
withdrawal.

Lord KING ultimately withdrew his motion, with the
intention of submitting another in its stead on Thursday
next.

The Duke of RICHMOND presented two petitions
against slavery from places in Sussex and Bedfordshire.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY presented two
petitions from Gravesend and Bath, for the better observ-
ance of the Sabbath.

The Bishop of LONDON presented petitions for the
better observance of the Sabbath, from St. Albans ; from
a place in Essex ; from the congregation of the Episcopal
Chapel in Chelsea ; and some other places.—Adjourned.