« PreviousContinue »
cature and Scotch tiends bill were agreed to. The several bills read a third time in the commons were brought up and read a first ti ne. The other bills were forwarded in their respective stages. Adjourned.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
SATURDAY, JUNE 25. The Speaker attended in the house of lords, and on bis return stated, that be bad heard the royal assent given, by commission, to a number of public and private bills.
Mr. Tyrwhitt brought in a bill to enable the king to appoint a police for Plymou h dock-yard. Read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time, and to be printed.
Mr. Grant, from the commissioners of military inquiry, pre ented the sixth report of that board. Ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. Huskisson presented, pursuant to order of the llih of April, a return fall the public offices in Great Britain.
The marriages legalization bill went through a committee, was reported, read a third time, and passed ; as were the Derry school bill, the consolidated funds bill, and the commissioners' m eting bill
A message from the lords s'ated their lordships' assent to the American flur and grain importation bill, the distillery bill, the Dublin police bill, &c. The lords' amendments to the Scoich tiends bill, Scotch local militia bill, and the English local militia bill, were agreed to.
Mr. Huskisson presented an account of the sums paid into the ha'ds of the receiver-general of Great Britain, on account of fines for substitutes in the militia.
The Chancellor of the Excheqner stated, that it was not his intention 'o move the second reading of Mr. Palmer's bill. A cominunication had been made to him, that it was not the wish of Mr. Palmer that any further step should, at present, be taken on it, therefore, agreeably to what he had said last nigh', he shonld not proceed fur. ther in the bill. Adjourned till Weduesday; not a bill remaining on the table.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
MONDAY, JUNE 27.
The Archbishop of Canterbury presented a petition from certain of the clergy, and landholders of the county of Suffolk, against the curates bill. Ordered to lie on the table.
The Bishop of Exeter presented a petition to the same effect, from certain clergy and others in his lordship’s diocese. Ordered to lie on the table.
A petition was presented on behalf of his grace the duke of Northumberland, against the bill for subdividing the parish of Simonbourn into a number of distinct parishes. Ordered to lie on the table.
After a short adjournment at pleasure, the house being resumed, the privately stealing bill was read a second time, and committed.
On the motion for its second reading,
The Earl of Lauderdale took occasion here to reprobate the manner in which, of late years, grants of money were brought before their lordships, and which went to deprive their lordships of all power of inquiry into the. causes of such grants. These grants were made part of the appropriation act; and as their lordships could make no alteration in the act without disturbing the arrangement of the supplies for the public, they were therefore de barred from making any amendment at all in the present act. This act contained the grant to the college of Maya nooth: and another of 1,500,0001. to the East India company. He thought these two grants ought to have been made the subject of two distinct bills, that they might be discussed on their respective merits. Above all, were their lordships prepared to concur in the grant of the latter sum, without à tittle of information before the house to shew the fairness and propriety of such a grant ? Were their lord ships' hands thus to be tied up respecting such important matters, they might as well close their doors, for surely that house would then have become useless, and as such, must utterly sink in the estimation of the country.
His lordship could not suffer this item to be proceeded in without some information. He should therefore move, that a message be sent to the commons, requesting the report of the committee of their house on the state of the affairs of the East India company.
Lord Hawkesbury saw no ground for the objections of the noble earl. Ever since the union, the grant to the Maynooth college formed an item of the appropriation act, and he saw no reason why it should now have been made the subject of a distinct bill. With respect to the grant to the East India company, it was expected that an ample explanation of its affairs would have been laid before parliament, but it is not yet in perfect readiness, but will at an early period of next session be submitted to the consideration of the house. What was now granted to that interest was a part of the sum or relief solicited ; and it was asual to make such grants, as the practice of several years back would shew.
Lords Holland and Suffolk concurred in censuring the grant, without a full explanation of the grounds upon which it was to be afforded. The company's affairs got worse every year, and there was little reason to hope that they ever would be able to repay the advances to them.
After a short explanation from Lord Lauderdale, the question was put upon his lordship's motion, which was rejected without a division, and the bill was then read a second time.
CURATES' BILL. The Earl of Buckinghamshire thought it necessary that every possible information on this subject should be laid before the house, before their proceeding further in the discussion of this bill. He should therefore move, that there be laid before the house, an account of the number of livings beyond the amount of 4001. per anaum. distinguishing those where the incumbent resided, and those where a resident curate was employed.
Lord Ilarrowby proposed an amendment, to leave out the words, " distinguishing, &c." upon which a short conversation ensued between Lord llawkesbury, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Sidmouth, and Lord Holland, after which the house divided on the question, that these words stand part of the bill :
9 The Bishop of London then rose, and moved the second reading of the bill. The right reverend, prelate took a wide survey of the nature and tendency of the bill, which, he said, had two objects ; first, to enforce the residence of the clergy ; secondly, to better the condition of those who performed all the minuter duties of their profession, by a continued and uninterrupted residence, which could not be done but by that attentive and punctual performance of those duties which went much further than reading the service, &c. of the Sunday,
The Earl of Moira argued against the bill, on the ground of its being an open violation of private property ; he felt it to be equally the duty of the landed interest to attend to the comforts of the inferior clergy, as of the higher dignitaries of the church.
Lord Harrowby followed the noble earl, and argued on a different principle in favour of the bill.
Viscount Sidmouth opposed the bill, as uncalled for either by rectors or curates ; as interfering unreasonably with the property of the former, without improving the condition of the latter : for he contended, that it was no improvement of the condition of the curate to give him for a short and uncertain period, which may be terminated at any time by the determination of the rector, an income far beyond what he could look to permanently; he was also adverse to the bill as it did not so much go to pro. vide a resident clergy as to mulct the income of non-resi. dents. If residence was the object in view, why did not the bill apply to the incomes under 4001. a year, as well as to those over that sim ? On these grounds, and for several minor reasons, he proposed that the bill should be read a second time this day three months.
The Earl of Suffolk stated, that when about three years ago he had it in contemplation to bring the situation of the curates under the consideration of the legislature, he received above two hundred letters from individuals of that body, representing the hardslips under wbich they laboured. This certainly amounted to a call on the part of that body for legislative relief. The noble earl stated some cases of peculiar distress, and concluded with giv.
ing his vote for the second reading of the bill, though possibly some of its provisions may not be such as he should altogether approve.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire argued against the bill on the same grounds as lord Sidmouth. He could not conceive why the lay impropriator was left to manage with his curate as he should think proper, while the income of the beneficed clergyman was so extensively invaded.
The Archbishop of Canterbury traced the principle of an interference on the part of the bishops to provide a maintenance for the officiating persons, from the earliest period of the history of the church of England. He cited a mandate from the pope, enjoining this interference, in the reign of Henry II., and adverted to several successive acts prior to the Reformation, and since, down to the time of his present majesty. On constitutional grounds, therefore, the right of investigation was perfectly clear. The most reverend prelate then argued the propriety of the present bill, and contended, that unless some such measure were passed, the situation of the curates must be eternally coming before their lordships, year after year.
The Lord Chancellor, after the principle of the measure had been recognized twice by the other house, and once by their lordships, thought the bill ought at least to be read a second time, though he was not prepared to say that he would afterwards give his approbation to all the provisions of it.
The Duke of Norfolk argued in favour of the bill, on the ground that some remedy was necessary, and that the present measure was better than none. The noble duke replied particularly to the arguments of the earl of Buckinghamshire.
The Earl of Lauderdale spoke at considerable length against the bill, which, he contended, militated directly against the professional exertions of the young clergy, checking their ambition, by affording at once the enjoy. ment of a comfortable ease, and repressing their talents by removing the stimulus which was found most powerful in every profession. The noble lord then entered into the general arguments to prove, that the incumbents of livings would be injured, without serving the curate, the church, the christian religion, or morality.