objected to the bill on the ground of the sanction it gave to the holding of pluralities, and, as since the former discussion upon the subject the House had received a petition from several clergymen, and as also a memorial from sixty-three clergymen had been circulated amongst the Members of the House, he thought he was fully justified in again bringing the matter before the House. He thought pluralities brought not only unnecessary odium upon the Church, but they were alike prejudicial to the character of the clergy and the interests of the laity. He founded his opinion on the authority of the Church itself. The Church Commissioners had condemned pluralities. Some of the most distinguished Bishops had for some years past acted upon this view, and had refused to give livings in plurality. This occurred more particularly in the poorer dioceses. In the dioceses of Chester and Carlisle for three or four years past, no living had been given in plurality, and what could be done in those dioceses could be done in others. The main reason assigned for holding of pluralities was the poverty of the income of certain parishes. But that reason was met by the fact that in by far the majority of cases, the whole duty was discharged by curates for less than the whole amount of the income of the parish. But, who were, in fact, the holders of pluralities? Not clergymen with small incomes—not clergymen who were forced to hold them by reason of their narrow stipends—but richer men. For one pluralist with less than 200l. per annum, there were six with 500l. and upwards. In the diocese of Chester fourteen out of nineteen livings under 50l. are held singly. Small benefices would not be given unless they yielded a surplus; and it was this pitiful surplus in many cases which the pluralist drew from the working curate. The class of clergy who were forced to be content with the smaller livings are not the class with political and Church interest: it was the wealthy pluralist with political connections who enjoyed the licence allowed by law, and would enjoy it under this bill. The bill would continue a great mischief; pluralities would remain. It would, as the Derby clergymen said, leave the evil untouched. Of the livings at present held in plurality, 3,000 were within ten miles, and this number could be increased, as would be the case by exchanges, which was a scheme recommended by the Church Commissioners, and which the interest of patrons would insure. As to the future existence of pluralities, something might be imagined by the mode in which livings were now bestowed. During the last three years and a half the Bishops had given in plurality one living in three and a half; the Crown one living in about three; rectors with livings in their gift, one in thirteen. Now, rectors were a part of the working clergy, and by this disposition of their patronage showed what their opinion was of the evil which this bill affected to contend with. It was affectation to call this Church reform. The noble Lord, by this bill, was alienating from him the regard of the enlightened and really liberal clergy. The policy of the noble Lord in this matter was—and he said it with regret—precisely that which alienated other friends. He was always afraid of doing too much, or of doing too little; and all parties grew dissatisfied with such policy. The noble Lord had now an opportunity of effecting a great and decided measure of Church reform; he was supported by many of the most distinguished Bishops—the Bishops of Chester, Chichester, Durham, Ely, Exeter, Gloucester, London, Oxford, Peterborough, and Winchester had not given livings in plurality during the last two years, as far as could be made out. Some had never done so. The noble Lord was supported by the great body of the people. The opportunity was, however, to be lost, and pluralities to be maintained. He would conclude by reading an extract from the letter of a most able and zealous clergyman as his best justification for taking up the time of the House. "The experience of about twenty years convinces me that the fearful amount of nonresidence in the Church, and the misapplication of its revenues, has greatly injured its usefulness, and will continue to do so unless the grievance is removed. The number of benefices without a resident incumbent under the proposed limitation and restrictions will be between 3,500 and 4,000, unless public opinion prevent it. My impression is, that the present bill will not lessen pluralities beyond what public opinion is now doing." In that effect of public opinion, he (Mr. Hawes) had no confidence, since the bill of the noble Lord and the opinion of this House was, he feared, about to sanction the holding of pluralities for the time to come—to sanction the holding of 3,000 livings in plurality. The hon. Member concluded by moving that the bill be re-committed.

said, that the hon. Gentleman's intentions were in accordance with the terms of his notice, which was that the bill should be recommitted, with the view of abolishing sinecures altogether. This question had been already discussed in that House, and statements had been made, especially by the hon. Member for Kilkenny. It was not, therefore, necessary for him upon that occasion to enter into the question at any length. The hon. Gentleman said, that all that was necessary to be done was, that the bill should be re-committed, with the view of meeting the case of all persons holding two benefices. Suppose, however, that a living of 40l. a-year should become vacant, and that no one could be found to fill it, it would be incumbent on the bishop to ask the neighbouring clergyman to perform the duties, the parish would be sequestrated, and the clergyman would have other duties to perform than those of the vacant parish, and this would give rise to the evils of pluralities. However desirable the object of the hon. Member might be, yet he felt that unless he should propose such an alteration in the value of each living as would enable the person by whom it was held to live upon the emoluments of his office, he might rest assured that his amendment would be useless, and that persons would not be found who were willing to take the livings upon such terms as were now offered them. Without going further into the discussion, he should merely say, that he should oppose the motion of the hon. Member.

would mention a case which he thought required attention at the hands of the House. The cathedral of Gloucester was now served by four minor canons, who were compelled to be resident for seven months in the year, and during that time they had to perform two services every day. For this they received 90l. a-year, and it was usual, after they had the offices for ten years, to present them with a living in the neighbourhood, in order to improve their means, and which they held at the same time that they were attached to the cathedral. Now, the effect of this bill would be that they would be prevented from holding either the cathedral or the living, because he had already said they must be resident at the cathedral during seven months in the year under the present law, and under the new law they would be required to be resident at their living during seven months. He merely mentioned the subject for the purpose of drawing the attention of the House to it; and when the clause in which the enactment he had alluded to was contained came under consideration, he should suggest that some amendment should be made in its provisions in order that the exemption allowed in other cases might be extended to these gentlemen.

said, that although he objected to the principle of benefices generally, yet lie must say, that he thought there were many cases in which the general rule might be departed from. He might instance the case of contiguous parishes which was proposed to be provided for by an amendment of the hon. Member for Buckingham.

The House divided on the original Motion:—Ayes 145; Noes 34: Majority 111.

The House then proceeded with the clauses of the bill.

On Clause 2,

Sir H. Verney moved an amendment, that the words "but such two benefices shall not each involve the cure of souls" should be introduced after the word "diocese."

The House divided on the Amendment:—Ayes 42; Noes 96: Majority 54.

The Clause agreed to.

On Clause 4,

moved, that Clauses 4 and 5 be omitted, and the following clause be substituted:—"And be it enacted that no spiritual person, holding any benefice involving the cure of souls, shall accept or take to hold therewith any other benefice involving the cure of souls, unless such benefices are situated contiguous to one another, and the parish churches are within three miles of each other, and the united population of such two benefices do not exceed 3,000 souls, and the united incomes of such two benefices amount to less than 750l. per annum."He stated that Dr. Chalmers had said in his lectures, that in no case should the population of a place under a single clergyman exceed 1,500 or 2,000 persons, whereas he had proposed that the number should be limited to 3,000. He believed, that the clergy of the Church of England were the most exemplary, useful, and excellent body of men that could be met with, and he did not censure them, but the system. It appeared, that in England there were not less than 5,000 benefices held in plurality, and of course the major part of these parishes were without resident clergymen.

seconded the amendment. It would have a tendency to corrupt the morals of the clergy; it would expose them to temptation. The House should remember, that in no country was education more wanted than in England, and this was the period to provide for this moral necessity. In no country in Europe did there exist so much crime as in England at present, and in no country was there to be witnessed so much misery resulting from that criminality. In his opinion there should be no pluralities, and although he should vote for the amendment of his hon. Friend as the lesser evil, yet the course best calculated to serve the cause of true religion, and consequently benefit the people, would be to abolish pluralities altogether.

said, that hon. Members who were so anxious to lessen the Church revenues, should recollect that it was necessary to afford clergymen a sufficient inducement to perfect themselves, not only in that education which would pass current amongst their flocks, but that ecclesiastical education which would tend to render them fitting, by teaching and example, to improve the moral condition of their flocks. It was a one-sided view, which looked no further than to mere reduction, without considering whether that reduction would be to such an extent, as would tend to lessen the efficiency of the clergy of the Church of England for those duties which it was intended they should discharge. When hon. Members objected to the bill as not going far enough, they should remember that it not only limited the clergy with respect to residence, but also to population and revenue. It had been said, by an hon. Member on the other side, that clergymen could be found to undertake curacies for a very small remuneration. This was a most fallacious mode of reasoning; for a young clergyman, expecting future preferment, would gladly take a living, if it were worth no more than 5l., in order to place himself in the way of advancement. To act upon such a principle, as allowing the smallest stipend that would be received, would have a most injurious tendency. It would produce the effect of causing a constant succession of curates, thus removing a clergyman when he was becoming acquainted with the characters and feelings of the people under his spiritual care. In this respect, the Church should be looked upon like any other profession, where the junior branches availed themselves of small remuneration, merely because the position which they attained, placed them on the way to advancement. He (Mr. Goulburn) trusted, that the inferior clergy would be better paid before much time should elapse, for he was happy to say, that the general feeling to provide for them was increasing every year, and he trusted the remuneration afforded, would be always sufficient to encourage men of superior attainments to undertake those important duties.

said, that in permitting the holding of livings within a distance of ten miles, they rather embarrassed than assisted by the spiritual superintendence which it was thought by some hon. Members, was calculated to do so much service. A resident curate only required occasional superintendence. They should endeavour to afford an inducement to young gentlemen of talents and attainments, to enter the Church as a profession. Now, he found that the pluralities were all in the hands of persons possessing great influence—in fact, that those received the advantages of pluralities who least required any assistance of that description. In one case, there were five benefices held by an individual, and one of them was worth 1,000l. per annum. Surely it was not such benefices that required to be united? He objected to the limits proposed by the noble Lord, for, instead of putting an end to pluralities, it went rather to sanction those existing at present within the limit of ten miles.

said, the argument of the mover of the amendment was, that there ought to be a further limitation of pluralities than was contemplated in time bill; but the hon. Member who had just sat down, had contended, that there ought to be no limitation, as if a limitation was made, then the House would actually sanction to a certain extent the holding of benefices in plurality. The hon. Member who had last spoken, mentioned the case of an individual who held four benefices in plurality, and complained that such a state of things should be permitted; yet, when he brought forward a bill, which would have the effect of preventing such cases from occurring in future, the hon. Member expressed his determination to oppose the measure. He thought the bill better as it stood, than if the amendment proposed, were agreed to, and he should, therefore, vote for maintaining the present provisions of the measure.

regretted extremely, that he felt obliged to give his vote differently from his right hon. Friend (Mr. Goulburn). He did think, that in the case of two livings, within ten miles of each other, and each of the value of 500l., that such livings ought not to be held by one person. He was willing to allow, that a small living might be advantageously held in conjunction with a large one, but he considered a living of the value of 300l. to 350l., a sufficient inducement for men of talent to enter the church. Could it be said, that the duties of a parish could not be adequately performed by a person who looked to no higher an income than 350l. per annum? No one, he was sure, would say so, and he knew of cases where livings were not so large, and where the duties were properly performed, although the incumbents looked for no higher preferment. He did think, that where the livings amounted to 300l., 350l., 400l., or 500l., that the parish ought to have the benefit of a resident clergyman, although he should willingly increase such livings, if means could be devised for that purpose. A curate was always looked on by the parishioners as one who was only to remain with them till such time as he could obtain preferment, whereas, the incumbent remaining permanently in the parish, had it in his power to be much more useful. Having to choose between two propositions, he should, for the reasons he had stated, support the amendment, which went to limit the holding of benefices in plurality.

did not rise to defend the bill as it stood, but to express his regret, that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Wynn), had not been present when the bill was discussed on a former occasion. It was no doubt desirable that every parish should have a resident clergyman; but the attainment of that object was impossible, and therefore he was bound to inquire what next best could be done. In his opinion, the next best mode of supplying the people with religious instruction would in a great degree be attained by the present bill, and he should, therefore, give the clause his support. It had been argued that there were no pluralities allowed in the church of Rome; but such was by no means the case; for pluralities had been allowed in that church as well since as previous to the Reformation. Indeed, the holding of bishoprics in plurality was tolerated in the church of Rome, and nepotism was practised to an extent which would not be allowed in any Protestant country. Did the hon. Member who argued, that pluralities were not allowed in the church of Rome remember the number of livings held by Cardinal Wolsey? He considered that the bill before the House was calculated to be productive of much good, and as he approved of the clause under discussion, he should vote against the amendment.

said, that the case mentioned by the hon. Member opposite of five benefices being held by one person, related to benefices which were valued at less than 10l. in the King's books. It was those cases which were considered grievances, and which would be entirely got rid of by the present Bill.

The House divided on the original motion—Ayes 57; Noes 53; Majority 4.

Amendment rejected, and clauses agreed to.

On the 35th clause Mr. Freshfield moved as an amendment that the Bishops should be enabled to grant licences for non-residence to any spiritual person who shall be prevented from residing in the proper house of residence, or within the limits of the benefice of such spiritual person, by any dangerous illness or infirmity of body of himself, or of his wife, or child, making part of and residing with him as part of his family, or by any incapacity of mind of such spiritual person.

opposed the amendment, which he thought would open the door to a series of evils.

agreed more with the noble Lord the Member for Durham than with the learned Member for Penryn. This was one of the latest points considered before the bill was introduced by the members of the episcopal bench, whom he had consulted, and who concurred in thinking that the door ought not to be opened to that which might lead to a prevalent abuse. To the words, "dangerous illness" he would not object, because there might be a check, but when the power was extended to all cases of infirmity of body of the clergyman, or of his wife, or child, he thought that the door would be left open for evils. And for these reasons he should oppose the motion.

Amendment withdrawn, remainder of the clauses agreed to.

proposed to add the following question in the second schedule—"What is the gross annual value of your benefice?"

The House divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 81: Majority 46.

moved the insertion of a clause, exempting from stamp duty all instruments connected with the admission to benefices under the annual value of 200l., of spiritual persons not holding any other benefice, or cathedral preferment of the annual value of 150l.

saw no reason for extending such an indulgence to this class of persons in particular. No doubt the stamp duty was found burdensome in a great many cases, but this was not the only class of persons who felt the inconvenience, and,if the stamp duties were remitted in every case where they were found inconvenient, there would be no stamp duties collected at all.

The House divided:—Ayes 46; Noes 55: Majority 9.

Report received, and Bill to be engrossed and read a third time.