Clause 14, empowering the Commis- | resources, that his income was considersioners to make a valuation of all livings ably reduced beyond its nominal amount. and levy a yearly assessment therefrom, When the House recollected the educasubject to deductions mentioned in the tion a clergyman received, and the station schedules, such assessment to commence he must uphold in society, he trusted, that from next avoidance, was read. they would not consider it too great a boon to commence the taxation at 3007. Lord Althorp said, that in taxing the benefices of the parochial clergy, the sche-a-year. dules at present were regulated upon a much smaller scale of per-centage, than those already prepared. The effect of this arrangement would be to relieve almost entirely all livings from 2001. a-year to 2501. a-year, and to press very lightly upon livings from 250l. a-year to 3001. Now it was well known, that 2001. a-year in Ireland would enable a man to live better than 3001. a-year in England. Mr. Shaw assured the noble Lord, that the demands upon the Irish clergy were much heavier in proportion to their incomes than those upon the English. They were often the only resident gentlemen to answer the calls of benevolence and charity. On a former evening he thought the principle of not taxing future incumbents even on incomes under 300l. a-year, had been corrected by the noble Lord. It really would be but taking with one hand to give with the other, under the head of Augmentation of Small Livings. He had trusted the noble Lord would exclude all incomes under 3007. a-year from taxation. Sir Robert Inglis said, that a petition had been presented to the House by his hon. friend, the member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Shaw) from the curates of the diocese of Ferns, in which they stated, that the proposed measure would be injurious to them, inasmuch as if the incomes of the Rectors were reduced, they would be obliged to dismiss their Curates, who would then have to seek for some other means of subsistence. He thought the system of taxation unfair in all its parts, but particularly so in that which pressed upon the working classes of the clergy. Mr. Goulburn said, he could not acquiesce in any clause imposing a tax upon the clergy. If it were necessary to raise a tax at all, he saw neither justice nor equity in taxing the clergy alone. They were about to abolish a number of Bishoprics; and the incomes that would thus be saved would, in his opinion, be adequate for all the purposes required. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by entering his protest against the clause. Mr. Henry Grattan said, the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman were quite untenable. He could occupy two hours in reading quotations that would sink the right hon. Gentleman and his arguments to the bottom of the earth. Mr. Shaw said, that notwithstanding the formidable threat of the hon. member for Meath (Mr. Grattan), to sink his right hon. friend (Mr. Goulburn) and his arguments into the earth, and to bring forward arguments of two hours' length in support of his favourite position as to the appropriation of Church property, he did not hesitate to undertake to disprove the assertion of the hon. Gentleman, whenever he thought proper to bring it forward, but he would not anticipate, at present, the two hours' discussion promised by the hon. Gentleman, further than by distinctly Sir Robert Bateson said, that though he felt happy that the noble Lord had made the concession which he had done, yet he trusted he would go a little further, and not commence the tax on any living under 3007. a-year. One of the professed objects of the present Bill was to increase the smaller livings and provide for the working clergy in Ireland. But as yet he saw no intention on the part of the Government of carrying these objects into effect. The noble Lord said, that 2007. a-year in Ireland was better than 3001. ayear in England; but he seemed to forget that the clergyman in Ireland was frequently the only person in the rank of a gentleman residing within a large space. There were therefore constant calls upon him for private charity, and besides there were many taxes which they were obliged to pay. It was mandatory upon the clergy-denying, that any part of the property now man to give an annual sum in support of the parochial as well as the diocesan schools. He was also obliged to contribute at the visitation, and there were in fact so many calls upon his pecuniary possessed by the clergy of the Established Church had ever been appropriated in the manner stated by the hon. Gentleman. Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill, be necessary to introduce a proviso in abatement where no profits were received. Clause 15, enacting that the tax shall be paid half-yearly on the 1st day of July, and 1st day of February, the first payment on account of such annual tax to be made on the 1st day of July or 1st day of February, as may happen, next after the consecration, installation, induction, or collation of the person succeeding thereto, was then read. Mr. Estcourt objected to the payment being made half-yearly, when it was well known, that the revenues of the clergy were only paid annually. He wished to know what was to be done in the event of the clergyman receiving no revenues? If the tax was one upon receipt he could understand it, but as it stood he wished to know how Government meant to act? Lord Althorp said, it was quite manifest, that if the clergyman had no funds he could not pay the tax. It was impossible in an Act of Parliament to recognise the principle, that a man was not to receive what was his due. Mr. Estcourt-But it would remain as a debt against his executors. Mr. Poulter said, that the tax ought to be placed upon the actual perception of profits, and not on the abstract right of receiving the amount. Supposing the incumbent to die before the harvest, he would not have received any profits at all, though his executors would be liable to the amount of the tax. Colonel Perceval wished to ask the noble Lord whether it was just that a living should be taxed where no payments had been made to the Rector? He was acquainted with a parish in Erris, co-extensive with the county of Dublin, in which only one Magistrate resided. The parish was valued at 300l. a-year, and for the last two years only 107. had been received out of it. And why, it might be asked, was this? The clergyman had applied frequently to appoint a second Magistratetwo being necessary to enable a person to recover tithes but the Irish Government paid no attention to his remonstrances. The Rector of that parish was now acting as a Curate in the county of Sligo, and had sent his brother to officiate for him. On last Good Friday, he was obliged to remain in his House to avoid being arrested for 71. This was one of the instances he (Colonel Perceval) alluded to the other night, when he asked the question respecting the appointment of a Chief Secretary. Mr. Anthony Lefroy said, that he knew, several clergymen who had not received tithe for two years, in his neighbourhood. He thought imposing the tax half-yearly a great hardship. Clause agreed to, as were the clauses to 19, when the House resumed, and the The Solicitor General said, it would only Chairman obtained leave to sit again. APPENDIX TO VOLUME XVII The following Speech of the Right Hon. C. Poulett Thomson on the State of the Country as affected by the Monetary System has been corrected by authority, and is to be substituted for that in p. 444 of this Volume. Mr. Poulett Thomson could assure the House, that it was with great pleasure he had given way to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Foster), whose speech could not have failed to produce a great effect upon the House, coming, as it did, from one practically engaged in the banking and commercial affairs of this country. He was not surprised that the hon. member for Knaresborough should complain of the manner in which the Motion of the hon. member for Whitehaven had been met; for he seemed, by some happy turn of mind, to imagine, that he could engraft on a Motion, introduced distinctly and avowedly for one purpose, another purpose completely and entirely different; and that he would have an opportunity, by voting for the Committee of the hon. Gentleman, of making that Committee subservient to promote his own plan. Such, however, could not be the case. After the Amendment of his noble friend, it was impossible that the House could consider that any other question was before it than whether it should affirm or negative a departure from the standard of value as established by law. That was the question which was now before them, and that was the question on which the country was now looking for the decision of the House. The people anticipated that an end would be put to the agitation of the question-an agitation which, even then, was paralysing in some degree, the trade of the country, and which, if allowed to continue, would be likely to be attended with yet more disastrous consequences. The simple question before the House was --shall there be depreciation or no depreciation? The hon. Member, in introducing his Motion, had entered into a long discussion respecting the distress which he alleged existed in the country, and no doubt the hon. Member acted wisely in so doing for the purpose which he had in view, because, by taking that course, he might find support, perhaps, from some few who, differing from him as to the remedy, would wish to go into a Committee with a view of inquiring into the causes of the distress. He was prepared to maintain, that although there might, and unfortunately did, prevail among certain classes a considerable degree of distress, yet the condition of the country at large was very far from what the hon. Member had described it to be. In spite of the hon. Gentleman's sneer at official documents, he should venture to advert to some to which his position in the Government had given him access, and which he thought the House would consider neither delusive nor valueless. Unless the House was willing to take some of the general facts upon which the hon. Member relied in detail— unless it was willing, in some degree, to take the amount of relief afforded to the poor as a guide to show their increase or diminution-unless it was willing to look to the consumption of the country and the statements of intelligent individuals-he knew not what could be had recourse to as indices of the public welfare. wished to touch lightly on the subject of the distress; but at the same time he did not consider it consistent with the honest and upright conduct he should always desire to pursue, if, entertaining, as he did, views different from those of the hon. Gentleman, he did not state his opinions respecting that distress, notwithstanding the unpopularity which might attach to the avowal of them. He did not mean to deny that distress always existed, and always must, to a certain extent, in the country; but that was not the position of the hon. member for Whitehaven (Mr. M. Attwood). He had stated that the distress at present was unparalleled -that every branch. of industry was going to decay-that the landholders were all but He ruined that the farmers were in a state per cent, the charge having been at the rate of 13s. 1d. per head in 1811, and 9s. 9d. in 1831. The following tables (which the right hon. Member read) would show the House the particulars of his statement:— Sums expended for the Relief of the Poor. £ 689,971 Average of 3 yrs., 1748, 49, & 50 1786 Average of 3 yrs., 1783, 84, & 85 1803 1,556,803 2,004,237 4,267,963 since that time of not less than twenty-six In 10 years, to 25th March, 1832 62,959,066 Proportion of Poor Rate Years. of the United Amount raised Expended for the relief of Poor. . In order, however, to show the real state | parishes of the Royalty, exclusive of the subof the case still more clearly, he had en- urbs, was— deavoured to obtain information from some of the principal towns, and he had selected four manufacturing places of great consequence, (Glasgow, Manchester, Sheffield, and Birmingham). He considered that these four towns afforded a fair sample of the town population of Great Britain; and if there were any material distress in the country, it could not fail to pervade those industrious communities. He would begin with Glasgow, and first call the attention of the House to a statement as to the poor. The right hon. Member read the following paper: Glasgow.-Poor Rates.-The assessment for the maintenance of paupers in the ten The House must remember, that the population of Glasgow in 1831 was nearly double what it was in 1810; so that, with double the population, there was a diminution of the Poor-rate by nearly one-half. He would next read to them an extract of a letter from the Secretary to the Chamber of Commerce at Glasgow, I have reason to believe that during the year which has just expired, the hand-weaving branch has been enjoying a profitable trade, and the prospects for 'the coming year are so favourable, that 'the more prudent manufacturers entertain fears that a little further prosperity may 'occasion a revival of the spirit of over'trading. The calico-printing business is ' understood to have been extremely prosperous from the moment of the repeal of the tax on that article, and its prosperity 'still continues. The silk manufacture, 'too, is considered to have been doing 'well. The hands generally belonging to 'the different branches of industry are in 'full employment, and, with the exception of the hand-loom weavers, at good 'wages.' a man on whose authority the House might | four-fifths of the working population place the utmost reliance:of that town were in the parish books, when the Poor-rate was only four shillings in the pound. He had not the slightest hesitation in giving a direct contradiction to the statement of the hon. member for Whitehaven, and that contradiction was confirmed by the following facts respecting the great county of Lancashire, which included, not only Manchester, but Liverpool, and many other large towns. The aggregate Poor-rate in Lancashire was, in 1817, 336,000Z.; 1818, 372,000.; 1831, 290,000l. Thus, there was a diminution of thirty per cent in the Poor-rate, although the population had increased by 300,000 souls. He held in his hand a communication from Manchester, in which it was stated that since 1813 there had been a progressive and very material imHe would next go to Sheffield, the par-provement in the condition of the people: ticulars of which were equally striking, as appeared by the following statement :Population of the township of Sheffield '—1811, 31,314; 1821, 35,840; 1831, • 59,011. that in consequence of the new inventions and increased speed of machinery, onefourth fewer hands were required to produce a given quantity of yarn than twenty years ago (and the reduction had been chiefly in the labour of children); the people were better fed and clothed, and their employment was never more regular and constant. He would then proceed to the town last upon his list, which had been referred to on a former occasion by the Thus there appeared to be a diminution of the Poor-rate by one-half since 1820, during these ten years, which had been spoken of as years of misery and dis-hon. Member opposite, who represented it; tress, in a town with a population increased from 35,000 to 60,000. From the statements of the Master Cutler, it appeared, that the artizans in that town were receiving, in general, good wages. He next came to the town which he had the honour to represent (Manchester). He knew, that if he looked only to the increase of his popularity, the argument which he now brought forward with regard to the distress complained of was not the right way to attain that object. But he never meant to deny, that distress did exist there; he only contended against the exaggerations which prevailed upon the subject; and he would do so in the face of his constituents as well as of that House, because he thought it ar better that the truth, and the truth alone, should be stated, than that any delusions should be suffered to prevail through the means of statements that required only to be touched to fall to pieces. How could it be possible, according to the statement of the hon. member for Whitehaven, that and which he had represented in such an extraordinary state of distress, that had he not before his eyes the evidence of the parliamentary writ by which the hon. Member was returned, he should almost doubt whether the hon. Gentleman had ever set his foot within the place. He had been forestalled in his intended statements of the decrease of pauperism in Birmingham by the hon. member for Walsall (Mr. Foster), and the House could not have failed to observe how completely his statement negatived the exaggerated accounts of the distress of Birmingham. The fact, that the number of paupers had decreased as compared with the population, from eighteen per cent in 1811, and twentyfour per cent in 1817, to sixteen per cent in 1832, was one of great importance. The hon. Member might doubt his statement, and he would therefore read the particulars of the progress of Pauperism in Birmingham obtained from the authorities of the town. |