54] 



ANNUAL REGISTER, 1813. 



be appropriated to the curate. He 

 was convinced that the part which 

 was intended to leave discretion 

 to the bishops would not cure its 

 defects ; and he concluded with 

 moving, •' That the bill be read 

 this day three months." 



The Lord Chancellor made many 

 objections to the bill, founded on 

 the hardships that in various cases 

 might result from it, and its in- 

 competence to attain the ends pro- 

 posed. 



Lord Redesdale defended both 

 the principle and the provisions of 

 the bill. He did not consider the 

 property of the church in the light 

 that some others appeared to do, 

 as private property belonging to 

 individuals, but as belonging to the 

 church as a whole. Much had been 

 said aboutjthe poverty of the church; 

 but, in his opinion, it was rich 

 enough, and the only defect was 

 in the unequal distribution. One 

 of its indispensable duties was, to 

 provide a resident clergyman for 

 every parish in the kingdom, 

 M'hich was the principle of the 

 present bill, and its provisions were 

 well calculated to produce the 

 effect. He had asserted that there 

 was a great decrease in the per- 

 formance of duty by the lower 

 orders of the clergy, and his obser- 

 vations had been commented upon 

 with warmth by several of the 

 bishops; but he knew it to be fact 

 in many places. His lordship then 

 made various other remarks in 

 favour of the bill. 



The Bishop of Worcester spoke 

 in opposition to the bill, and con- 

 sidered any interference of legisla- 

 tive authority to be of dangerous 

 consequence to the ecclesiastical 

 constitution. 



The Earl of Liverpool, in de- 



fending the bill, expressed his dis- 

 sent from the opinion of lord 

 Redesdale, that the church was 

 rich enough, and that its duties 

 were more neglected than former- 

 ly. He praised the system of hie- 

 rarchy in this country as being un- 

 equal, and of a mixed complexion, 

 and therefore more consistent with 

 the other parts of our constitution. 

 He thought the principle of the 

 bill was perfectly simple, and that 

 it was well calculated to produce 

 the desired effect of residence. 



Lord Ellenboroush attributed the 

 non-residence of the clergy to the 

 want of houses, the poverty of the 

 benefices, and pluralities; evils that 

 would be augmented by the bill, 

 which he regarded as a bill of 

 confiscation and forfeiture of the 

 smaller livings. Although he was 

 confident that such was not the 

 object of the noble lord who intro- 

 duced the bill, yet he had no doubt 

 that several had in view the re- 

 duction of the value of the small 

 livings in order that they might be 

 purchased by a fund which he knew 

 to bebusily employed in purchasing 

 livings, with the view of filling 

 them with persons holding doc- 

 trines most injurious to the church 

 of England, and, he would add, to 

 sound Christianity. 



The Earl of Harrovihy stated 

 that the poverty of the church was 

 not the cause of non-residence, nor 

 of pluralities, for they abounded 

 most upon the richest benefices. 



A division now taking place, the 

 numbers were. For the third read- 

 ing of the bill, 37; against it, 22-; 

 majority, 15. 



On July 5th, the order of the day 

 standing in the House of Commons 

 for going into a committee on this 

 bill, it was opposed by some mem- 



