1145] prevailed in the city, the act of the 37th | Hen. 8th established a commission, with full powers to give to their decisions the force of law, if they were enrolled in the High Court of Chancery before the 1st of March, 1545. The same act made their decisions a dead letter, if they were not enrolled in the manner pointed out. Now this enrolment had never taken place; consequently, the decree had never had force, and the petitioners had completely failed in establishing this, the strongest point, in their petition. The decree, as it now stood, was like an award, which every man in the House knew was not final, unless it was made before a given day, and unless before another given day it was made a rule of court. The hon. baronet had indeed produced the act of Henry 8th, and had produced the decree, as if it had been registered, which he could assure the House it never had been. Indeed, if the hon. baronet had consulted the excellent edition of the statutes at large, edited by Messrs. Tomlin and Raithby, he would have found that they had placed at the bottom of this decree a note of the following nature:-" This decree is not enrolled in the court of Chancery, nor in any roll belonging to any other court; neither is it annexed to the roll of the act in the parliament rolls; neither is it to be found in any of the old editions of the statutes themselves; it first appeared in Rastell's abridgment of the statutes, printed in 1555." That decree, then, had never been possessed of any validity, because it had not complied with the provisions of the act, out of which it emanated. The committee had been of this opinion in the proportion of 10 to 3, and had declared their opinion to the country by the resolution into which they had entered. They had been induced also to form such a resolution by the conduct of the clergy themselves. It was clear that they wanted to gain, by progressive acts of parliament, that object which, if declared at once, would disgust the House from the rapacious disposition which it would evince. It was clear that it was nothing less than one-sixth of the rack rental of the city of London which they wished to obtain; and it was because the committee had seen through their intentions, that they had come to the resolution of frustrating them. It might be said, that this was not treating the petitioners liberally: in his opinion they had no right to be liberally treated, inasmuch as they had foisted into their Mr. Dent put it to the chair, whether it was not only highly indecorous, but against rule, for any member to come forward with a bill after a committee had reported so decisively against it. The Speaker did not apprehend that the course pursued by the hon. baronet was irregular. He suggested that the subject, if it was thought expedient, might be referred back to the committee. Mr. Wrottesley objected to the mode in which Mr. Harvey had argued the question. Such a speech might have been very proper after the bill was brought in, but was quite uncalled for in the present stage of the proceeding. He insisted that the subject ought to be fully and fairly discussed, after an opportunity of proving their case had been afforded to the petitioners, and that the committee had arrived at an unwarranted and unprecedented conclusion. Sir W. de Crespigny spoke shortly in favour of the motion. clergyman of St. Peter's, Cornhill, received 6324. per annum, he was non-resident, and was also vicar of Tottenham: another was paid 481., another 450l., another 3861., another 3767. and another 300l. per annum, besides emoluments derived from other benefices, and situations; for instance, the clergyman of Allhallows, had also the living of Stonesfield, and had a stall in a cathedral; another had preferment at Stoke-Newington, and a second at Shrewsbury, while several were minor canons of St. Paul's. Nevertheless, most of these reverend gentlemen employed curates at very low salaries, and because they would not pay enough for men of talent and information to discharge the duties of the pulpit, many of the congregations were put to the heavy expense of paying for evening lectures. Sir W. Curtis said, that the living of St. Peter, Cornhill, was worth only 3002. a year. Mr. Gipps hoped the House would allow the merits of the case to be discussed. The clergymen in question had a fair claim on the attention of the legislature, whose duty it was to maintain the character of the church. Sir T. Baring could assure the House, with respect to one of the parishes in question, that of St. Anne and St. Andrew's, Blackfriars, containing a population of above 6,000 souls, that the minis 2 and 300l. a year. An hon. member had spoken of the rapacity of those gentlemen, and had declared that they let their houses for the purpose of profit. He was persuaded that there was not an individual who had signed the petition who would not be ashamed of doing such a thing. He must enter his protest against such random assertions. Mr. Alderman Wood said, that no instance could be shown where the decree so much talked of had been produced. In the city of London two persons had been employed for a month in making the most diligent search, and though they had discovered a decree of bishop Bonner, which was made for some temporary purpose, they had found no trace of the decree in questión. No evidence of its existence had been produced before the committee of the House, but such as was supplied from a modern copy of the sta-ter of that parish received only between tutes. In fact, the common sense of the thing had warranted the conclusion at which the committee had arrived. The clergy made it an allegation in their petition, that they were entitled to 2s. 9d. in the pound, by a certain decree, and they had been called upon to prove that allegation: they had failed to do so by any competent evidence, and of course the commit tee could come but to one determination -that the allegation had not been established. The House was probably aware that all the clergy who would de entitled, if any were entitled, had not come forward: some had been prudent enough not to bring themselves and their emoluments before the public; or perhaps some of them might feel how unreasonable it was at the present moment to visit the citizens of London with any fresh infliction. Looking, however, for a moment at those who did thrust themselves forward as claimants for increased stipends, it would be found that they were all well provided for, both in the city and out of it. The Mr. Wynn denied that the minister of Allhallows had the ecclesisatical preferment attributed to him by the worthy alderman. There were other clergymen besides those who had applied to the House by the petition in question, who had a plurality of livings; and he could see no reason for making that circumstance a part of the present consideration. With respect to the decree in question, its existence had not been mooted, because it was never doubted. For two centuries it had been acquiesced in, which was quite sufficient to rebut the circumstance of the decree not having been found enrolled. The question was, whether or not the parties had placed themselves in such a | he had a right to say, that in his opinion situation as was consistent with the rules that decision was erroneous. The petiti and orders of the House? He was himself oners having founded their claim on the inclined to say, that the report of the com- existence of the decree, the committee mittee was sufficient to justify the bring- had a right to ask, if that decree had been ing in of the bill. When the bill was be- enrolled, when it appeared that it never fore the House, that would be the time had. To talk of the situation of these to enter into all the arguments on the gentlemen was beside the question. They main question, and to ascertain whether had different emoluments. If any of them the benefits enjoyed by the petitioners were sufficiently provided for, let them were all to which they were entitled. come forward and make that statement. Here, however, was a set of gentlemen combining at the solicitation of one individual (with the exception of sixteen or seventeen honest men) in order to establish a common claim.-[Loud cries of Question! question! and coughing]. It was a claim which had no foundation. The 2s. 9d. in the pound was not granted in lieu of tithes. At the time when it was granted, the clergy of London had several expensive duties to perform. They had to maintain the poor; they had to repair the churches. The statute of Charles 2nd contained no recognition of the decree on which the petitioners founded their present claim. So lately as in 1804, the petitioners had made an application to parliament, and had obtained a large increase of their emoluments, not founded on the decree in question. The grave reason assigned for the measure was the pressure of the property tax. That no longer existed; so that, in point of fact, the clergy of London were at present in a better condition than they were in at that period. He conceived that when a claim was brought forward the effect of which was to excite discord and ill-blood in the city of London, the committee were perfectly justified in availing themselves of the imperfect statement of the allegations in the petition, in order to make the report which they had submitted to the House. Mr. Alderman Waithman said, that if the House had entered into a premature inquiry into the condition of the clergymen in question, it was indebted for the excursion to the hon. baronet. With respect to the situation of those clergymen, there were several things to be taken into consideration. A great difference existed both in the size of the parishes and in the stipends attached to them. The beneficial things annexed ought also to be taken into the account. As to the parish of St. Anne's, Blackfriars, it seemed to him very extraordinary that the minister of that parish should be found among the petitioners. That minister had but recently been presented with the living, by the parish; but no sooner was he seated in it, then he turned round and asked parliament to lay a tax upon his parishioners. As to St. Peter's, Cornhill, that living was in the disposal of the corporation of London; and he recollected having been warmly solicited, not long ago, for his interest; and now the minister of that parish, enjoying another living, came to the House and asked it to tax his parishioners [Question! Question!]. He was sorry to obtrude on the time ofthe House. He would be the last man, on his own account, to force himself on their notice; he would rather forego addressing them altogether. But he trusted he should never want sufficient confidence to stand up for his rights, not as an individual, but as one of the representatives of the British metropolis. Having been a member of the committee to whom the petition was referred, he knew that the question was neither more nor less than this:-The petitioners asserted, that before the fire in London in 1666, the incumbents of the parishes in question were entitled, under the act of the 37th Henry 8th, to a payment in lieu of tithes of 2s. 9d. in the pound. He thought that this allegation was not true. He was sure that it had not been proved. Whatever might have been the decision of the court of Chancery on the subject, * Mr. Peel said, that the committee above stairs was appointed in order to ascertain whether or not the standing orders had been complied with by the petitioners, and nothing more. To that the committee ought to have confined their report. What monstrous consequences might ensue, if a committee above stairs, so appointed, were allowed to come to a decision which should preclude the House from forming any opinion on a subject submitted to them! Let the House consider how such a committee was constituted. It did not consist of a definite number of members. It was not a select committee appointed well provided for. Nothing could be by the House. All the parties who chose to come to it had voices. The conse- more indecorous, more cruel, than to leave quence, therefore, would be, that if such the clergy-men of expensive education a precedent as the present were establish-men employed in the religious instruced, the parties adverse to the prayer of a tion of a highly civilised and refined society petition would have nothing to do but to with means so narrow as to render them attend the committee, and to combine in the objects of pity, by the members not the report to the House, that the allega- of the other professions only, but of the tions of the petition had not been proved; other occupations of life; and then, if and on that the House was to be precluded they endeavoured to amend their condifrom considering the case! The House tion by obtaining other sources of income, must see, therefore, the importance of the to exclaim against them as pluralists, not point; they must see what would be the entitled to any such increase of emoluinevitable consequence of allowing a comment. mittee above stairs to exceed its powers, and to report an opinion on the merits of a case referred to them solely for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the standing orders with reference to it had been complied with. Mr. Wilberforce considered a committee above stairs as of the nature of a grand jury, constituted for the purpose of enabling parties petitioning the House to bring forward their own proofs of their own allegations. He could not but say that there appeared to him to be some suspicion in the circumstance of the strong opposition, contrary to all usage, made to the present stage of the proceeding. It would be a most dangerous precedent to allow a committee above stairs to stifle a petition referred to them, without allowing the House any opportunity of examining its merits; and this the more especially, as the committees above stairs were certainly not one of the best parts of the system of the House of Commons. Nothing could be more contrary to justice and to the established usage of parliament, than for a committee constituted as the committee in question had been, to enter into the merits of a petition referred to them, merely to ascertain whether or not the standing orders respecting it had been complied with, and to report that the allegations of the petitioners had not been proved. He was astonished to hear the transactions and circumstances of private life gone into by more than one hon. member; for he was persuaded that was a kind of discussion in which the House would not indulge. All unnecessary inquisition into private affairs ought to be avoided. One of the greatest grievances of the property tax was its scrutinising and inquisitorial character. The House had been told, that the claims of the petitioners ought not to be granted because they were otherwise provided for. He was always desirous to see the clergy It had been asked, whether it would not have been better had these gentlemen applied to their respective parishes instead of to the House of Commons? He thought not. He thought it would have been unworthy of them to have done so. It would have been to put their claims on the ground of individual favour, rather than of undoubted right. There were no persons for whom a reasonable provision, such as would enable them to meet their parishioners on equal terms, ought with more cheerfulness to be made than the clergy of the city of London. He confessed that he was disgusted to hear general declarations of attachment to the church from those who, when the subject came to be particularly considered, manifested a reluctance to the increase of a pittance, which would not be deemed a provision for a person in any other line of life whatever. Mr. Plunkett, as the committee had exceeded their authority by entering on an inquiry to which they were not competent, thought that the best mode of remedy would be to send the report back to be re-considered, and to be rendered more conformable to the orders of the House. The Speaker observed, that when he had stated to the House that it was not the practice to make such a motion as that proposed by the hon, baronet, on the report of the committee, he had accompanied that statement by another, namely, that he believed there was no instance of such a report having been presented. Consequently there could be no instance of any subsequent proceeding on such a report. In the formation of different committees, the House used different and set terms. When an opinion was required from a committee, that was expressly declared in the vote by which it was constituted. That the claims of a petitioner were good or not good that the allega 2 1155] Settlement of the Poor Bill. tions contained in a petition were proved or not proved-those were opinions which a committee, constituted as the committee in question had been, were not authorised to report to the House. Such a committee was to be regulated by the two standing orders to which he had already referred. By the first they were required to see if the standing orders of the House had been complied with, and to report the matter of the petition to the House. By the second, they were precluded from hearing the adversaries to the petition. This last order rendered it obviously impossible that the House should call on such a committee, to inquire whether or not the allegations of a petition were proved, since they were precluded from hearing more than one side of the question. Such a committee was not only not bound to give an opinion-it was not capable of giving an opinion. It was merely the channel for communicating information to the House, with which information the House had afterwards to deal as it thought proper. There were three courses to be pursued with respect to the report, which would be consistent with the forms of the House. The first was, to ask leave at once to bring in a bill. A more ordinary course, where there had been an irregulaThe rity, was to recommit the report. third course was to disagree with the report, to resolve that the allegations of the petition were proved, and then to ask leave to bring in a bill. The House would feel that it was of the utmost importance to ascertain the duties of committees, and not to expect that they would give opinions, when it was not referred to them to do so. Mr. Sturges Bourne, in moving for leave to bring in a bill to regulate the Settlement of the Poor, observed, that it might be necessary, in order to render the subject perfectly intelligible, that he should treat it somewhat historically; the first statute establishing a compulsory assessment for the poor was the 14th Eliz., which was farther regulated by the 43rd, Eliz., and the law remained unaltered until the 13th and 14th Car. 2nd, which was in truth the foundation of the superstructure which had spread so wide, and excited so much dissatisfaction. It was required, among other things, by this last statute, that before a settlement could be gained by a pauper, by a residence of the forty days, he must give notice in the church of his coming to reside. This enactment imposed heavy fetters upon free circulation of labour, and by an act of William 3rd certificates from parish officers were substituted. As these certificates were granted or refused, at the option of the overseers, the evil was only partially removed, and, down to a very late date, and through what were called the best times, it had continued in the power of parish-officers to remove any labourer or family, without cause assigned, from one end of the kingdom to the other. This immense power was, however, partly restrained by Mr. Rose's bill for the encouragement of friendly societies, in 1793, and farther limited by Mr. East's act of 1795, which, although making a most important change, and doing more for the benefit of the lower classes than had been accomplished since the Revolution, had passed sub silentio, without any expression of national gratitude. The great reduction in the wages of the poor within the last few years had, however, had the efcondition as before 1795; and the intrifect of reducing things to nearly the same cacies in which settlements were involved were all restored. The evils attending the present system were threefold:-1. The enormous expenses incurred by parishes, in prosecuting or defending appeals, and in removing paupers; 2. The injustice under which parishes laboured, to which old paupers were sent back, after they had spent their youth and strength elsewhere; 3. The hardship upon the paupers who, having resided many years, and formed connexions at a distance, were sent home to their parishes, and separated from all their friends and consolations to die in a SETTLEMENT OF THE POOR BILL.] remote poor-house. This last was by far Mr. Wynn thought that the best way of getting rid of the report was simply to disagree with it, and to give leave at once to bring in the bill. The Speaker submitted to the House, that to give leave to bring in a bill would be in itself to disagree with the report. Simply to disagree with the report, without a resolution that the allegations of the petition were proved, would be to raise a doubt whether or not the committee were empowered to give an opinion on the merits of the petition. Leave was given to bring in the bill. (VOL. XXXIX.) |