The Express.
London, England, 1849-03-21 00:00:00

Durham, and observing how the six which bad fallen vacant
in the episcopacy of the present prelate had been disposed of,
must be convinced that the view practica'ly taken in h's
case, and taken in many others, was, that the patronage
of the church wee not a public trust, to be used
for a sacred purpose, but might be need to gra-
tify the private wishes and feelings of the individual
patron. The waste of church property was a still mere
serious matter ; its extent was such that it was impossible to
contemplate it without surprise and grief. In the parish of
Bishop Wesrmouth this abuse had been very recently prac-
tised, and 1,0001. a year was now received from aco mine
opened wi'hin a recent period. This being a mineral dis-
trict, and the wealth of the church there being principally
mineral wealth, it was obvious that the system of spoliation
there going on must be speedily arrested, er it tumid soon
exhaust the revenues of the church. It was so illegal that
no ecclesiastical offence was visited with higher penalties.
On this subject he would cite one authority, taken
from what had occurred in this very dicer:et. In the case of
"Jefferson o. Shute, Bishop of Durham," Chief Justice

Eyre concluded tie elaborate judgment with same observe
liens, which had been commended by Lord Chancellor
Bides, and which were deserving of general attention. He
said—
Few who know the hon. •ind right rev. prelate, who have been
winsome to the munition' e which he has displayed In repairing and
beautifying the fabric of his church, of his males, and his paiaces,
will suspect him of having intentionally wasted the posse salons of the
we of Durham. At the same time, It le by no means impersible, that
he, as well as many other churchmen, may unwarily have slid into
this heavy ecolesiutical offence, which all agree to be a cause of de-
privation, and which may probably be found to be also an injury cog-
nisable by some of the lines temporal courts.
-

Mr. instier.Rooke oiserve;i—
I tonekler the bishop ea having, to certain purposes, a fee simple in
hi bitlrpriz. Bat he is seiaed to a special intent sa a public officer

for publi trusts.
In spite of this law, so strong and so decided, the spoliation
and waste in the diocese of Durham bad gone on as profusely
and ae notoriously as if there had been no law on the subject.
From the highest dignitary to the lowest Incumbent the sys-
tem prevailed; it was one perpetual scramble o: busy, inces-
sant, raoseious, active digging, as if it was in California itself.
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) And who was to interfere?
Certainly not the bishop of the diocese ; for while a compa-
ratively poor rector added a few hundreds to his income,
thousands found their way into the episcopal coffers ; and the
bishop, who had been exempted from the operation of that
measure which would have reduced his income to 8,000/.,
had received in one year no leas than 21,0001. if this spolia-
tion wanton—if thieves had broken into the treasury of the
church in Durham—it was a rtainly not the diocesan who
could be sent after them in punuit—he was too heavily laden
with the spoil to be able is move in that direction. This was
a matter of such serious importance that, before long, he
hoped to make it the subject of a substantive motion.
When he had formerly alluded to it be had been met on the
threshold by the noble lord at the head of the government,
who said it was not a question at all for parliamentary in-
terference, and denied that the legislature could take cog-
nisance of it, thereby implying that the patron was invested
with certain rights and privileges which, during his lifetime,
he was entitled to exercise without challenge, just as any
private patron might exercise any right conferred on him
by the law. He entirely denied that doctrine. Between
the right ofa private and a public patron there was no ana-
gy whatever. The right of a private patron was a private
right ; that of a bishop was a public right. In the one
case it was personal property attached to the individual, and
which he might use for his own individual profit ; in the
other, it was attached, not to the individual, but to the
office ; and every administration of it was an official act for
which he was as much reepetsible as any other public
functionary for his act.. This was at °nee the law, the constitu-
tion, and the practice of the c 'awry. As to the low he need go
no urther than what was notorious to every body, and what
was seen every day. • private patron might acquire a right
by inheritance or purchase; he might alienate it, or do with
it as he pleased. But a public patron net only could not
alienate or sell his right, he could not exercise the smallest
prospective right, not even to make the next presentation
during the lifetime of the incumbent. The law itself was
specific on this point. In the cue he had already cited, Mr.
Justice Rooke said: "I consider the bishop es having, for a
certain !purpose, a fee simple in his bishopric; tut he is
seised for a special intent, as a public officer, and for a public
trait." He then cited Sir W. Blackstone, who said : " The
design of an ecclesiastical corporation is to be the furtherance
of religion, end perpetuating the rights of the chur:h." And
Sir Edward Coke said: " Masters and fellows are mind to
them and their successors for ever, in jure collegti, pro bores
nubile°, and to pious and charitable uses." 'io the seme
effect a great variety of authorities might be cited. The
highest ecclesiastical authorities all concurred in ihowir g not
only that this principle of law was correct, but that it flowed
from a source which rendered i: impossible that it should be
otherwise. He would only mention one, that of Hooker,
who aid :
Pe nne eceleeiastie a are God's stewards, not mile that he bath yet
them over his family as the ministers of ghostly food, but even for
this came also—that they are to receive and dispore of his temporal
revenues, Meets and oblations which men bring him.
And he quotes in confirmation of this view the words of
Tertullian, who said :
Touching such goods—viz., estate', fee., of Whops—the law civil,
following mere light of nature, &heeds them to be no man's, because
no man nor community of men bath right of property In them.
And again, Hooker says, in another passage :
For the better information of men which carry true, honest, lad
indifferent minds, these things we will endeavour to make clearly
manifest—first, that In goods and livings of the church none bath pro.
party but God himself; secondly, that the honour which the clergy
therein bath is to be as it were, God's receiver.
No one would deny, such being the law of the land, that
persons in authority in the church were vested with a public
trust, proceeding from the very highest source, and bel
under a solemn and sacred responsibility, which those autho.
rides insisted they could not and ought not to violate, Ile
would briefly state what had been the practice on the sub.
jest. The last time the question was brought before parlia-
ment was in the case of the Bishop of Ely, in the House of
Lords. It was a much stronger ease than the ',resent, inas-
much as there was parliamentary interference, not merely
in the administration of temporalitim, but with the exercise
of a purely spiritual function. The Bishop of Ely had
determined on a certain list of questions which he submitted
to every candidate for ordination, and made the answers to
those questions the condition of ordination. Lord Bateman
presented a petition from one of those candidates, with the
view of founding upon it an address to the queen The
Bishop of Ely protested against the interferenc-, and said
there was no authority for it, that it would be a
dangerous precedent, and would lead to serious em
barramment. The house did not adopt that view.
Lord Harrowby, a great friend of the church, voted for in-
quiry; Lord Calthorpe said it ought to meet with the repro-
bation of the house. But the strongest denunciations were
uttered by the political friends of the noble lord. Earl Grey
said that he thought the House of Leeds bad the power of
applying a remedy, and the Marquis of Lansdowne used
elosilar language. Not a single bishop in the House of Lords
took the view of the Bishop of E. They were taunted
with their silence, but not one of them ventured to vin-
dicate the doctrine of ecclesiastical irresponsibility, of which
the noble lord unexpectedly came forward as the advocate.
With regard to measures of ecclesiastical reform, he had re-
ceived strong assurances from the noble lord of action on the
part of the government with respect to them. But uo very
great alacrity had as yet bees shown in repealing the present
system. He did not impute blame to the noble lord for that.
He would not come prematurely to the conclusion that mea-
sures of a large and satisfactory character would not be intrc-
duced before long. There were, no doubt, obstacles in the
way, but the noble lord must have felt that these obstacles
were to be apprehended, and it was in this respect that their
hopes and expectations might to disappointed. It
that were the case it would not be long before he tested
the doctrine of episcopal irresponsibility now broached.
He would invite the house to go with him from diocese to
diocese, from parish to parish, and he would show them the
manner in which ecclesiastical duties had been performed,
the mode in whichestatea had been managed—in which tem-
poralities had been administered and patronege bestowed.
The materials which he had in hie possession (which, how-
ever, he did not mean to use except in the last extremity)
were such as would startle both the house and the public.
He would give them an opportunity of pronouncing an
opinion as to the propriety of imposing responsibility and
control where the want of responsibility and control had been
hitherto attended with such disastrous results. But
this was foreign to the present motion. He would now only
ask the house to consider the an: which the es petitioners
presented, avid the prayer which they made to the house.
Their object was simple, and their prayer S 4 moderate, that
he would venture to say i s rejectim would lead to very
serious consequences, if the character of the parishioners as
given by the Bishop of Durham himself, in a Charge to his
Mergy on his introduction to the diem.. fn 1836, was cor-
rect. Every word of that Charge was se admirable, 63
statesmanlike in re character, so truly episcopal in the pre-
cedents introduced—it showed an e3e that sew so clearly, a
heart that felt so warmly what was the responsibility, and
what the duty that devolved on him, that he would read a
portion of it to the house :
Perhaps, he says, this diocese differs from most others, if not in
peculiar features of country, yet in the singular and most appalling
banana/1y with which changes of population take place in it. There
is no douse In which so many thousands are found to Is, so scattered
as to he thrown at a most Inconvenient &duos from existing places
of worship ; noels there perhaps any diocese's which such numerous
instances (CCU( of the hihabinintssompidlylliereleing. or beingeosud-
denly created. When' barren moor lately presented the appearance of a
desert, never inhabited, and hut rarely visited by man, a railroad may
perhaps be formed, sr a coal-pit opened out; cottages built, and
men, women, and children appear dldrently employed in gaining
their daily bread, but seeking in vain for that bees which sustains
the vital principle even to everlasting ages. Lastly*. I fear there is no
diocese which presents so many instances of redundant population and
scanty endowment; for it should be remembered that, In large
part-Yea, the care of one man, however zealous and active, will not
suffice. The united exertions of two or more are probably required,
while the income may not afford adequate remuneration even to
the laborious and conecientions incumbent. Hence It appears that
in many cases a necessity exists for the erection of chapels, and pro-
either for the due discharge of lured duties in them. In other
cases it must be apparent that schools should be built, and diltigent
and well-qualified maters appointed to superintend over them.
In some parishes, again, however °meat may be the want of moist-
ance to the incumbent, his income la so limited, or his family so
eirmunstsneed, that it cannot provide him with that aid of which he
Is so deeply sensible, his perishionere, as well as himself,
stand in need. • • I am bound to say of my pre-
decessors that they seem to have held their almost princely
revenues u good stewards of the manifold grace of Get 4
and freely imparted to all as all had need. • • And
I have only to express an earnest with that, in any future arrange-
ments which may be made, whether In revising such as have now re-
ceived the Meteor law, or In any other contemplated changes, ell the
resources which arc drawn from one part of the eeclesiastie;,l fiend of
the diocese, may, as much as possible, be devoted to the assietance
and improvement of the others.
Having thus shown what was the condition of this diocese
on the highest authority resident within it, let him show
what was the condition of the popul Mon generally, and the
character of the times whiffs rendered great reform in the
shush necessary. He held in his hand an extract Rom
• sermon, of one et the greatest ornaments and lights which
Hie eheleh had ever seen, the late Dr. Arnold. In a sermon
I, ggll tgsd by him in 1813, he sage:
WAIN% ht as came to what we can conceive at any rate, MA ask