The Sun.
London, England, 1837-06-13 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Juprz 12.

The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four o'Clock.
Mr. Le Blanc, one of the Masters of the King's Bench,
presented returns of fees paid by attorneys on their admis-
sio❑ into the King's Bench, and also the expenses previous
to admission.
On the motion of Lord CLIVE, Hinde's Estate Bill
was read a second time, and ordered to be committed.
AGRICULTURAL BANK.
Mr. LowTHER presented a petition from certain
shareholders of the Agricultural Bank against the Bill for
dissolving it.
Lord STANLEY brought up the report on the Bolton
and Presto❑ Railway.
Mr. MAHER brought up the report on the Dublin
and Kilkenny Railway.
Mr. BROTHERTON moved for leave to bring in a
Bill, to enable the Manchester Gas Company to extend
and improve their works.—Leave given.
The HoN. MEMBER also presented a petition from
Warrington in favor of the Ministerial plan for the abolition
of Church-rates.
After a short discussion the petition was withdrawn on
account of informality.
Mr. WILKS presented petitions from parishes in Kent
in favour of the Ministerial plan for the abolition of Church-

rates.
Sir W. FOLKES and Mr. ALaTON presented petitions to
the same effect.
Mr. BELL presented a petition against the abolition of
Church-rates, and also a petition against the Poor Law
Amendment Act.
Mr. DOTTIN presented a petition praying that land-
lords might be compelled to pay the rates on all tenements
under 61.
General PALMER presented a petition from Bid),
praying for the abolition of Church-rates.
Mr. FIELDEN presented a petition, of which he had
givcn notice, from the West Riding of Yorkshire, praying for
the repeal of the Poor-law Amendment Act. The Hon.
Gentleman proceeded at some length to state the nature of
the petition, and to deprecate the working of the Poor-law
Bill, but in so low a tone of voice as to be inaudible in the
gallery. He was interrupted by loud cries of " Order."
The SPEAKER said, that though notice of this peti-
tion had been given, still it was impossible that the busi-
ness could be carried on if Honourable Gentlemen took
that opportunity of discussing the merits of any particular
measure. The whole question of the Poor-laws would be
before the House in a very short time, and it would then
be competent to state his own views on the matter, and
to refer to any petitions which had been presented on the
subject.
Sir CHARLES BLUNT presented a numerously
signed petition from the Dissenters of Lewes in favour of
the Ministerial plan for the abolition of Church-rates.
Mr. BAGSH AW presented a petition from the high
and low Bailiffs, and other inhabitants of Birmingham,
praying for the establishment of Steam Navigation to India,

FIRST FRUITS.
Mr. BAINES presented a petition from an individual
residing in London named Jeremiah Livingstone com-
plaining of the improper collection and appropriation of
First Fruits. The Hon. Member would take that oppor-
tunity of giving notice that it was his intention on that day
sc'nnight (as we understood) to move for leave to bring
in a Bill for the better collection and appropriation of
First Fruits.
Mr. MILES presented a petition from Bristol in favour
of the better observance of the Sabbath.
Mr. C. FERGUSSON presented a similar petition
from Cupar.
Mr. FITZROY presented a petition from the Dissen-
ters of Lewes, against the Bill introduced by his Majesty's
Ministers respecting Church-rates.
Mr. HU ME presented a petition from certain inhabitants
of Whitby, stating that their parish was taxed to the amount
of 3,3421. for tithes ; that the curate officiating to 12,000
souls belonging to the parish received only 501. a-year from
the tithes, and that within the last forty or fifty
years the salary had been made up to 1801. from Queen
Anne's bounty and other sources ; but the principle
thing they complained of was, that the lease of the
tithes had been granted in 1835 by the Archbishop of
York for 2,6001., and that consequently the lessee would
obtain 1,6001. during the seven years' lease. When a Com-
mittee on this subject should be appointed, the Hon. Mem-
ber said it would be his duty to move that the petition be
referred to the Committee.
The Hon. MEMBER then presented a petition from the
householders of Chatham, and from 1,842 householders of
Dumfermline, praying for an extension of the suffrage to all
Householders.
Mr. WIGNEY presented a petition from Brighton in
-favour of the Ministerial Church-rate plan.
Mr. DIVETT presented a petition from the Mayor,
Aldermen, and Burgesses of Exeter in favour of the equali-
zation of the land-tax.
Mr. FAZAKERLY brought up a farther report from
the Poor-law Committee.
Mr. ROBINSON presented a petition from Worcester,
in favour of Sir Andrew Agnew's Sabbath Bill.
Mr. W. PATTEN presented a petition from War-
wick against the abolition of Church-rates.
Mr. LYNCH presented a petition from the shareholders
of the Agricultural Bank of the county Galway, very nu-
merously and respectably signed, against the Bill for dissolv-
ing the Company, and praying to be heard by Counsel
against it.
Sir GEORGE CLERK presented a petition from
Edinburgh, against the Dundee Waterworks' Bill.—Re_
ferred to the Committee.
On the motion of Mr. P. STEWART, the Stewart's
Estate Bill was read a second time and ordered to be com-
mitted.
Mr.R. STE U ART presented petitions from Kilmarnock,
and two other places, in favour of the Scotch Municipal
Bill, and one complaining of the facilities afforded in Scot-
land for clandestine marriages.
Colonel WOOD presented a petition from the Guardian;

of the Poor-law Union at Staines, in favour of the Small

Tenements Rating Bill.
Mr. ELLIS presented a petition from Coventry against
the Bill for the alteration of the boundaries of cities and
boroughs, and praying that Coventry might not be included

in the provisions of it.
MUNICIPAL (ENGLAND) AMENDMENT
BILL.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL brought-up the report of the
Committee on the Municipal England Amendment Bill,
upon the subject of which, after the report had been read
by the Clerk, a conference was agreed on with the Lords.
BOUNDARIES OF BOROUGHS BILL.
Mr. DIVETT wished to know from the Noble Lord
the Secretary of State for the Home Department when it
was his intention to proceed with this Bill. He was de-
sirous of obtaining an answer from the Noble Lord, as his
constituents felt strong objections to some parts of the Bill.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that at the present mo-
ment he could not say when he could proceed with the
Bill.—(Hear.) He had ao wish to hurry it through ;
but as it was a measure difficult to discuss satisfactorily in
the House, he trusted the Hon. Member would ascertain
what the objections of his constituents were to the Bill,
before it went into Committee.
BUDGET.
Mr. WALLACE seeing the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer in his place, and this being the 12th of June, wished
to ask when they might expect the Budget ?—(Hear, hear,

and a laugh.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could
only give the Hon. Gentleman the same answer as had been
given on a previous occasion, that if they were called upon to
proceed with the least possible delay with the legislative
business of the House it was scarcely possible for him to pro-
pose financial business. He was only anxious in conjunction
with his Noble friend (Lord. J. Russell) to take an oppor-
tunity of bringing it forward when it would not interfere
with the course of public business. While on his legs he
would take that opportunity of stating to the Hon. Member
for Greenock, in anticipation of a question on that sub-
ject, that he should to-morrow night bring in a Bill on the
subject of the Post-office.—(A laugh.)
Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that if the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman had said that in the present state of our commercial
affairs there was good reason for postponing the Budget,
that he could have understood—(Hear, hear)—but there
was not the least pretence for postponing a statement of the
financial condition of the country, which generally occupied
only one night, on the ground that public business pressed.
There could be no business of more importance than that
which related to the financial statement. The Right Hon.
Gentleman did not ground his delay upon the manufactur-
ing or commercial prosperity, but merely on the statement
that other public business would not permit.—(Hear.)
Mr. C. PELHAM said that his constituents had sent
him into that House to look particularly after the financial
affairs of the country ; but the Right Hon. Gentleman's
statement had been so long postponed, that he (Mr. Pel-
ham) did not know what he was about.—(Cheers and
laughter.)
CORPORATIONS OF LONDON.
Mr. WILKS inquired when it was the intention of
the Noble Lord to introduce a Bill for the Reform of the
Corporations of London and Southwark, founded on the
Report of the Commissioners ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied that he should not
be able to do so during the present Session.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (ENGLAND)
AMENDMENT ACT.

Mr. BERNAL appeared at the bar, and informed the
House that the Lords had agreed to a Conference with
the Commons, to be held in Committee-room, No. 5, with
respect to the Lords' Amendments to the above Bill.
The Managers on the part of the Commons were Lord
John Russell, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr.
Bernal, Mr. Labouchere, Mr. Wason, Lord Seymour and
Mr. Hawkins.
The Managers of the Conference having returned,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER re-
ported that they had been to the Conference, which was ma•
caged on the part of their Lordships by the Lord President,
and that they had left their reasons and the Bill with their
Lordships.
ECCLESIASTICAL PROPERTY.—CHURCH-
RATES.

Lord J. RUSSELL then rose to move for the appoin
ment of a Select Committee to enquire into the mode o
Oanting and renewing leases on the landed and other pr*
perty held by Bishops, Deans, and Chapters, and other
Ecclesiastical bodies in England and Wales, and into
the probable amount of any increased value which
might be obtained by an improved management, with
a due consideration to the interests of the Established
Church, and the present lessees of Church property. It
was but right that the Mouse should know that he had
proposed the present motion in consequence of the division
that had taken place on the question respecting the abo-
lition of Church-rates, and the substitution of a plan by
which an increased value would be derived from a
different mode of managing Church property as proposed
by his Right Honourable Friend the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. The consequence of that division was to affirm,
by a small majority, the resolution that Church-rates
were to be abolished, and that other means of repair-
ing the fabric of the Church were to be provided.
That was the resolution as it now stood on the
Journals of the House, and which the House
had confirmed. It would not, therefore, he thought,
be proper, even if his opinion were not so strong as
it was, in favour of the plan, that the Government
should propose to that House, or consent to the aban-
donment of that plan.—(Hear, hear.) At the same
time, the majority on that question, while, perhaps, it
was not smaller than might be expected, considering the
obstacles and objections that stood in the way of
the introduction of the plan, were not such as would
justify the Ministers in the hope or expectation that
a Bill founded upon that plan would obtain the
assent of such a majority, as to enable it to pass into
law during the present session. He repeated
the majority was not less that might be expected,
considering the objections made ; because it was to be
considered that the plan as proposed came upon Par-
liament and the country altogether as a novelty—
that it appeared to be a plan dealing with a vast
mass of property, in which a great number of persons,
many of them of great_weight and influence ; and there
seemed to have been a totally unjust imputation thrown
upon the plan that it proposed to abolish the means
of keeping in repair the fabric of the Church without sub--
stituting any adequate -means for that purpose.—(Hear.)
Considering that objection, and the short time
,the plan had
been considered in the country before the adoption of the
resolution by the House—considering also that many opi-
nions had already been made up upon representations of
the plan before it was known—considering all these objec-
tions, the majority, though small, was still considerable tes-
timony in favour of the plan. lie thought it would not
have been astonishing, considering the novelty of the plan,
the many interests which were involved in it, and the acti-
vity with which it had been most grossly misrepresented—
(Cheers)—it would not have been wonderful had there
been a considerable majority against the plan. The result
having been that the introduction of the measure was
sanctioned by only a small majority, and it being con-
sequently deemed unadvisable to proceed with it during
the present Session ; and also, as they, on the one hand had
resolved not to abandon the plan, and on the other did not
mean to proceed with it that year, it remained for them to
inquire whether they could not find out some means by
which the plan might be put upon another and a better
foundation. For that purpose he proposed that the Com-
mittee should inquire into the latter part of the plan ;
for he did not ask for the Committee in order
to consider whether Church-rates ought to be abolished
or not—that question remained to be decided by the
House as a question of sound policy. He proposed that
the inquiry should be confined to the present manner of
leasing the Church property.—(Hear, hear.) Confining
himself, therefore, to that part of the question, he would
endeavour to lay before the House some of the reasons
which he thought would justify the inquiry. It had been
objected on the one hand that there would not be a suffi-
cient surplus even according to the plan as proposed by the
Government ; while on the other it was said that even if
there was a sufficient surplus it ought to be devoted to the
religious instruction of the people—while the Gentlemen
opposite objected to the plan altogether, as being destruc-
tive of the independence of the Bishops and other holders
of Church property, as well as of the interests of the
lessees. These were the objections to which he would
then confine himself. He believed it was agreed on all
hands that they would enter into the inquiry with a
prima facie case before them to show that the present
management of that property was neither for the interests
of the Church, of the lessees, or for the benefit of the
public at large. These were the propositions which those
who opposed his motion would have to make out. The
present plan of leasing that property was either for lives or
terms of years, and fines were taken at certain periods, as in
the case of a 21 years' lease. The usually fixed period
was at the end of seven years. In a lease for three lives
the fine was sometimes taken in the expiring of a single
life ; but up to the present time the fines had been
taken on the exchange of a younger for an old life.
Now, the operation of this was that the party in whom the
property was vested, the lessees, borrowing a sum of money,
on condition of receiving which sum of money he sells to
the person who had advanced an interest to commence, per-
haps, at the end of fourteen years, or the expiration of two
lives. That sum of money being advanced on reversion—
on a species of property that could not be called
a desirable species of investment—was advanced some-
times for five per cent., and in other instances
7; 3 per cent. The description that Adam Stuith
I gave of such cases was this ;--Ho said that some laud-

lords, instead of taking the rent, took a fine for the renewal
of the lease ; this was a practice which was the expedient
of the spendthrift, frequently hurtful to the landlord
and tenant, and always to the community. Those
opinions were so sound, that he believed no gentleman
in the House would attempt to combat them. It was

clear that no landlord, who lived within his income,
would resort to such a mode of obtaining money ; they would
let their lands for fines but at a certain period of rent. Such,

however, was not the condition of those who held this Church

property ; and therefore whatever might: be the case in for-
mer times they found themselves unable to take the course
which a landlord with property would take, viz., letting the
leases expire, and renewing them for a certain term of years
upon more valuable conditions. The Noble Lord, after
adverting to the law upon this subject, observed that the
consequence of those acts was, that from time to time
lands had been let on leases—some on leases demised

and others for terms of years, with a fine taken at a certain

period for renewal : of course the result of this was that
which he had mentioned, that the landlord did not obtain

le full value of the property let.

He would just now

. .
consider what were the effects of it. Supposing the
Bishop had come into possession of this property, would
his situation be a good one as regarded the possession of
that property ? Of course it was very natural to suppose
that he would be in rather an advanced period of life, not

very much used to the management. of property of this
kind, and not aware of the exact manner in which it ought
to be managed. When he came into the possession, he

would naturally ho anxious to be informed whether such
an income was attached to the property as might not be a
source of impoverishment to himself, and a ruin to his family.

If he were to refuse to renew to the lessee, it was very
probable he would obtain a similar value from others for
the concurrent lease he was enabled to give. If, for in-
stance, one life in a lease of three lives was to expire, and

he were to offer a concurrent lease to some other person,

these persons would not come into the enjoyment of
the lease till the other two lives had expired ; and
therefore it was a property that would not
be of very great value. He was, therefore, placed in a
situation of considerable difficulty, if he wished to
maintain the income which his predecessors had en-
joyed. Such were the disadvantages with respect to
the lessor. There were other disadvantages with respect to
the lessee. The lessee, for instance, who had an expectation
of the lease being renewed, but no security that that
lease would be renewed, and he was unable to lay out the
same amount of capital, unable to. calculate with the same
security to his children and his family, as a person in pos-
session of an estate would be able to do ; therefore, while
the lessor would have the full value of the property, the
lessee was not enabled to lay out sums on the property with
security. The advantages that might be obtained from doing
away with this condition, was well stated in a pamphlet
written by Mr. Charles Henry Wellesley, and recently
published. He would now put the question as regarded
the Church in general, and as it regarded the community
in general. It depended upon the age and temper of the
party, as to how the interest of the Bishop or the lessee lay.
He would put the case of a man just taken from the studies
of his College or University ; and it was evident that he must
be totally ignorant of his interest, and could not avoid being a
loser. In the other case of a man of great worldly experi-
ence, with a large family, the Church might by his selfish
proceedings sustain great loss and much injury in its cha-
racter.—( Hear.) Whatever were the disadvantages of
the position in which the Bishops stood in that respect
as regarded the lessees, they had been much enhanced
by the Act of Parliament that had lately passed, and
from the enquiries that had taken place before the Ecclesi-
astical Commissioners. The Noble Lord here instanced the
case of the Bishop of Durham, who had been obliged to pay
11,000/., and to part altogether with 13,0001. per annum.
In the case of the Bishop of Ely a sum of 4,0001. had been
demanded by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, which they
had afterwards reduced to 2,000/., although the Bishop de-
clared that that was a larger sum than the See could afford
to pay. This was the instance of a Bishop who had always
been opposed to a fixed income ; he was now anxious for a
Parliamentary allowance. The Bishops had agreed to the
late change by which all of them were to have a fixed in
come. There was another Act passed last year which was
for the restriction upon ecclesiastical persons granting
leases ; it was rendered necessary by the arrangement
which had been entered into with the Bishops ; and
if the Chapters were reduced from twelve to four, and
the property were diminished accordingly, it was evident
that the four would have an interest in making as much as
possible of the renewals, when eight parts of the twelve
went to general religious purposes. Formerly it was the
custom to change the lives, and thus afford a facility to
lessees to sell their interests. There was then no difficulty
in changing the lives, as there was a power of making over
the interest. The Act of last year, however, took away
that. Another clause in the Act requires a declaration
that there is no abuse in the transaction, and that the lessor
and the lessee will consult the interest of the commu-
nity. It was also enacted by that Bill that any person
making a false recital should be considered guilty of a mis-
demeanour. This clause showed that the House con-
templated the possibility of a false recital, and that Par-
liament were not ready to take such transactions on trust.
He merely adverted to this to show that the caution was
necoosary, as abuses were recognised by the fact of
Parliament taking the means to suppress them. He
would now endeavour to show to those who held such
property that a change was desirable in the mode of leasing
out Church lands. In some instances it might be desirable to
sell, and in others to grant, building leases for the purpose
of improvement ; not to grant for building to the injury of
the Church, nor to give up any interest which might be
made to bear an improved value. He had in his hand a
list of Acts passed with respect to Church property, and he
found that sometimes the fee simple was disposed of, and
sometimes leases of 99 years were granted. He would not
go into the circumstances of any of these cases. It was
very fit that a Committee should be appointed to inquire
into cases of this kind, for where any thing might be appa-
rently unfair some explanation might be given which would
clear it up, and justify it.—(The Noble Lord here referred
to the case of a Prebend in St. Paul's, in which an Act of
Parliament was passed making a lease for sixteen years for
the Corporation. Ultimately, by an agreement with the
Prebend, and by the sanction of another Act of Parlia-
ment, a lease was passed to the Common Council for 99
years, with the consent of the Dean and Chapter and the
Bishop of London, and of this property only one-sixth
came to the Church, whilst the rest fell to the Corpora-
tion and to Dr. Wilson and his descendants.) These cases
might be explained satisfactorily before a Committee,
but appearances were such as to require an explanation.
At the expiration of the lease there would be a profit
of 400,0001., and of this only one-sixth would accrue to the
Church—(Hear, hear)—and the community in general.
Instead of regulating such transactions by private Acts it
would be well to have some supervising power ; and though
the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Colonel Sibthorp), if he were
in his place, might make his usual objection, he (Lord J.
Russell) could not help thinking that a Commission on this
subject would be of service as well to the Church as to the
community in general.—(Ministerial cheers.) There were
several other transactions which would show that the re-
solutions of his Right. Hon. Friend the Chancellor of the
Exchequer were called for. There were several instances
where Church property had been made a matter of sale,
and the greatest sales took place under the Act for the
redemption of the land tax. This was a proof that Par-
liament was willing to sanction such sales as were made
with advantage to the Church and the community.
Having stated the objection which existed to the present te-
nure of Church property, he was of opinion that Honourable
Members must see the advantage of some commutation. It
would have the effect of permitting Bishops to attend to their
episcopal. duties, instead of, on the one hand, entering upon
speculations for which they wanted the knowledge of the
world ; or, on the other hand, grasping as much as they
could from Church property to settle on their own fa-
milies. The lessees, instead of being, as in the present
instance, placed in a state of uncertain and vexatious ex-
pectation, would be put in a secure condition, and the
renewal of leases, so troublesome and expensive—at-
tended in almost all cases with an expense of 301. or
40/., and in some instances with as much as 300/. or
400/., would be done away with. This would in itself
be a great advantage, as amendments were made in cases
of the most trifling mistakes. Besides that, the lessee is
afraid to build, or plant, or renew a lease, as he may
be subjected to some additional charge ; but by such a
plan as that proposed he would be allowed the full
profit accruing from any change, and great benefit would
also accrue to the pablic. Due profit cannot be obtained
from the productions of the land, nor can the tenant'culti-
vete it in a way the most likely to benefit himself. Won-
der has been expressed that a law may be made by which
two parties can be gainers.—(Hear.) Now he thought it
might be shown that both sides might be gainers. You
might buy a house, or a horse, or a carriage, and gain
might be made by both parties.—( A laugh.) He could
easily conceive this ; the one party getting rid of what be
did not want, and the other gaining the commodity of
which he stood in need. He would not go into particular
cases to show that fraud might be practised under the exist-
ing arrangement, but satisfy himself with expressing a con-
viction that a general;plan might be adopted by which both par-
ties might gain—the one obtain a secure title, and the other
have a certainty of his income. With respect to the manner
in which changes of this kind were effected he certainly
remained of the same opinion, that the proposition of his
Right Hon. Friend was one founded on fairness and jus-
tice, and conducive to the interests of both parties. No
doubt there might be cases which would form an exception
to the general law. There might be cases of a complicated
nature, smelt as pt.,,perty in wines anci ollwr prop,rty; .wt
he was convinced that by the plan proposed great gain would

accrue to the lessees as well as to others, by which the title
of the property would be more secure, and both parties
would have a more certain object in view. lie did not
know on what grounds the proposition could be opposed.
Hc could see if the present mode of letting Church lands
was not objectionable that the lessees might require a pro-
bable amount for the increase of the value ; but he would_
not go into the proposition if there would be any increase of
value, because the matter was so evident that attempting to
discuss it would only throw a doubt on the resolutions to
which the House had already given its consent. He wished
to call the attention of the House to the probable am ount
that the value of Church lands might be increased to, and to
the mismanagement of the property. Many persons ob-
jected to the measure, because the interests of the dignitaries
of the Church would be injured by it. But he thought
that no such result would be the consequence ; on the
contrary, that by the change the property would be greatly
improved and better secured. It had been urged against
him that the proposition of his Right Hon. Friend had been
proposed and unanimously negatived in the Church Com-
mission. He certainly was one who negatived the plan,
and did it on the ground that large sums might be ad-
vanced to make up private incomes and let the leases
expire. It was stated as an objection that those who ad-
vanced the money would be gainers ; and that though
there would be an increased value of the whole property
no advantage, no portion of that increase, would go to
the Church by the adoption of such a plan. He owned
that these appeared to him well-founded objections ; but,
on consideration, be could see no inconsistency in opposing
and supporting the resolutions agreed to by the House. If
they said the State should advance the sums, and the State
should have all the advantage, the State or the parties ad-
vancing the money should be the gainers ; but if by an Act of
Parliament the State alone was to advance the amount re-
quired, and to receive the amount of the increased value, then
he said Parliament might dispose as it pleased of the surplus.
Objection had also been made on the part of the lessees, but
he thought that was owing rather to the particular plan p1:0-
posed ; because no lessee denied that there would be an in-
owased value, though it might not be so large as the increase
in the rent which the lessor might be disposed to ask. lie
did not, therefore, see why some plan might not be adopted
by which the lessees might be gainers with the rest of the
community. He could not sec how any one could object to
inquiry, unless they knew of something which they did not
wish to meet the public eye.—(Hear.) He was willing to
resort to that test of the proposition made by his Right
Hon. Friend.—(Hear.) " We are not afraid," said the
Noble Lord, " of any light that can be thrown on the ques-
tion by inquiry.—( Hear.) We think there should be in-
quiry, and accordingly have taken care that all papers and
documents relating to the subject should be ready to be
laid before the Committee, should the inquiry be gone into.
I do not think any blame can be imputed to those who pro-
pose to submit a great plan to the test of inquiry. It will
be for the House to say, after the Committee have reported,
what plan they will adopt, and what will be the applica-
tion of the surplus, which must be considerable. I consider
the best application of it will be a substitute for Church-
rates, in accordance with the resolutions of the House.
cannot see any possible better application. Others say, is
there is a surplus, it ought to be devoted to religious instrue,
tion ; and those who say so ought to strengthen themselves
by supporting the motion for inquiry—(Hear)—for if they
can prove that the surplus that may arise from the increased
value of the land should be set apart for religious instruc-
tion, in preference to the abolition of Church-rates, then
we ought to have their support. I therefore do not see
what objection can be made to the measure. It is for the
interests of the Church, it is for the interests of the cow.
munity ; and those who object to it only betray their un-
willingness to have facts exposed to public view ; and
although some object to it, I think unnecessarily, because it
may lower the pride and dignity of the heads of the
Church, I prefer rather the good of the Church, the har-
mony of the community, and the religious instruction of the
people."—(Cheers.) The Noble Lord concluded by moving
for the appointment of a " Select Committee to inquire
into the mode of granting and renewing leases of the landed
and other property of the Bishops, Deans, and Chapters,
and Ecclesiastical bodies of England and Wales, and into
the probable amount of any increased value which might
be obtained by an improved management, with a due consi-
deration of the interests of the Established Church, and of
the present lessees of such property."
Mr. G. PALMER objected to the motion, because the
consequence of it would be to alienate Church property and
make the heads of the Church stipendiaries. It was for the
advantage of the Church that it should possess real pro-
perty, and that property, according to all the ancient laws
of the country, ought not to be sold. By destroying
Church property they destroyed every species of property
held in the country ; because no tenures were so anciei t as
the tenures of Church lands, and if they were destroYed
what security was there for any property whatsoever ?
support of these arguments he would quote a passage from •
an eminent political writer, who, in the early part of his life,
espoused the opinions of the other side of the House, he
meant Edmund Burke. The Hon. Gentleman here read •
the passage in question, which adverted to a proposition
of that day similar to the present. The House had been
told that the dignitaries of the Church should no longer
have real property, but that their emoluments should as-
sume the shape of stipends. Once let them become sti-
pendiaries, and they would soon cease to be Bishops.
Sir HARRY VERNEY wished to ask the Hon. Gen"
tleman who had just sat down, whether his Majesty's Go-
vernment had injured the property of the Church by toe
Tithe Bill of last year. So far from it, that the Bill bad
very much improved Church property. Receivers had been
greatly benefited by it, and payers had been greatly eased.
He (Sir H. Verney) should vote for the proposition of the
Noble Lord certainly, but he should not consent to apply
any surplus to any but an ecclesiastical purpose while the
Church remained so inadequately provided for.
Mr. GOULBURN, to the Noble Lord's motion,
should give all the opposition in his power, because he eon'
ecived, notwithstanding the Noble Lord's statement, end
indeed in consequence of that statement, that it wad
fraught with danger to the property of the Church, afr
with danger to every other description of property. Pe
(Mr. Goulbourn) did not stand there to maintain what the
Noble Lord called the pride and dignity of the Church
but he did stand there to maintain the right of the Char'
to enjoy in security the property assigned to it by the lag'
and to enjoy the power of employing it in the disseminv
tion of religious instruction. It was impossible to listen
to the Nobl Lord's speech without feeling that the fleus;
were again called upon 'to pronounce upon the sanly
question so recently under their consideration. The Noble
Lord had indeed told them that he had abandoned al
Church-rates Bill for the present session ; but he 80"
that the smallness of the majority gave him great satisfaefi
tion, as it afforded a proof of the approbation of the 011
sure by the country. He (Mr. G.) hoped that this kin.
of proof would always be given whenever such a propoc
tion was made. If the Noble Lord was satisfied with hie
small majority, how much more so would he be wbe° b
found himself in a minority ? Why, he would be the 11',113;
piest man in the country ; and he could assure the N° do
Lord that he (Mr. Goulburn) and his friends would u
everything in their power to secure for him so high a g a;
tification. tification. He (Mr. Goulburn) did not deny that impsc
ments might be made in the management of Church pr,,
perty consistently with the Church keeping that Props as
in its own hands. He had always said that the pl:eceere,
of such employment ought to be employed in diffusing
the
ligious instruction. He was of that opinion still. If
Noble Lord wished for an improvement in the in
tir're
mcnt of Church lands, it was his duty to bring a melhis
for that purpose into the House on the responsibility °g the
Majesty's Government. When an improvement inf,oo,
management of the Crown lands was proposed, was a,
oils
mittee first appointed to consider the subject ? The Lle
as
Lord had at his own disposal means of inquiry as ar°l),s
any that such a Committee could possess. He de.
member of a Commission appointed for the purpose o
the
rising the bust means of employing the revenues nt
Church to forward the pastoral instruction of the people.e.lo
that Commission the Noble Lord would find the best ni
of ascertaining the fact which he was desirous of kt°!nitijylis
and without danger. Had the Members of his Ide.lesdal
Government no voice in that Commission ? They "%olio-
in number the Ecclesiastical Members of the Ce,,/oals
sion. It was clear, however, that the object of the r; "
Lord was not to have the subject fully investigated'
had other objects in view. When a Committee on.to hod
taxation was proposed in that House the propoage' Right
been very wisely resisted by the Noble Lord and the
very
very
Hon. Gentleman opposite, on the ground that
,nlio ere-
appointment of such a Committee would injuretrPen:se_aoctfietahs;
dit, and interfere with private pecuniary
The Noble Lord ought now to bear in mind srth e
carlY
arguments which he used on that occasion.
that one o
part of the Noble Lord's speech he had said
nsider the
t
the objects of the Committee would be to en,,,ch might
best means of applying any surplus revenue
of Church
accrue from an improvement in the manageam
I %one' in %let
property to the abolition of Church-rates,
_t a pol_r.
latter part of the speech he admitted that thaltiw,"he (.n
Goulburn)
it might be expedient to postpone. -inso," mode:
Goulburn) would ask the House if it was any such
that the great object still in view was t° amPPIL naYn'e,..‘
soufrcplhuusrctoh-trhaeterse?liefsoefethheolwandloendginttherisest fro
rate on the interests of the Church. Hien qc_uutui n::Eqas'ituee's6:l::oll:
positive fact, that already the agitation w
of Church
pew
perty. Tenants of Church property
had considerably affected the stabilihty
dc;aneed m°neY °f
their leases ; and persons who had
a r thcir loans' t Pro-
citated t° re els
Church property were anxious to recovern.,,,,e that Aa
course, the appointment of spe.h a Comm`
, a Utch CO
I,LI .i'e : ~,„001. yr.
present 260,0001. per annum of the 4av v

fiPoeseesd. the income of the Church depended entirely upon
, If the plan of the Noble Lord were to be adopted
put! lards at least of the income of the Church would be
wouide peel, because no man who held under the Church
tom i"ow renew expiring or expired leases. It would
reissi) etelY defeat the recommendation of the Church Com-
or hirers• The Noble Lord complained of the operation
El °wit Bill in regard to the Bishoprics of Durham and
Y. could If the present measure became law the Noble Lord
h .
luainin a" to 'sing a similar song of sorrow over the re-
tail_
.Bishoprics in the country. Was this a time to
; et diverting the funds of the Church when pastoral
ca.esrrtruetion for the destitute was so much needed ? To
Jlhe Plan of the Noble Lord into effect there should
ityid"erelopment of the pecuniary resources of every in-
that "I l
, holding property under the Church. Woo
Labe unattended with injury to those individuals ?
Cries of Hear, hear," and cheers.) The Noble
eL'd had proposed also an inquiry into the tenure by which
uurch
sod 1.0 Property was at present held on old lease!—
deed ri.tuat purpose to institute a search into the title
posyo,lti! of estates. For what did he propose this ? Not to
idate
h„ any bargain of which the ancestors of the present
e Ought to have been ashamed, but simply to brand
of memory with the act. Was that a fair or wise course
hepr°ceeding? It was for those reasons that he (Mr. Goul-
4T) should oppose the appointment of the Committee.
deemo itwever, he should fail in his opposition to it, he should
.
the his duty to propose an addition to the motion of
Noble Lord, for the purpose of limiting the application
Dicefunds to accrue from the inquiry to those ends for
erea he contended they were strictly designed, the in-
tateseef religious instruction among the spiritually desti-
of p of the Population, and the augmentation to that effect
astoral superintendence. It was for the high and noble
'eject
the hi of extending to two millions of his Majesty's subjects
well "sings of pastoral aid and religious instruction, as
leasers for the protection of the Church and those holding
t under it, that he (Mr. Goulburn) opposed the motion.
oeb, ri.C4. KNIGHT said, as he thought that inquiry could
th e"eit the truth, he should vote for the appointment of
e'
Committee.
pose Nlr. lt. WASON said that there was no reason to sup-
thethat the revenues of the Church were insufficient for
deny
of the spiritual destitution of which lie would not
HeY the existence, though he felt bound to say that the
_use bad no exact information as to its extent. The Hon.
habMember then read several statements, to show that the ac-
revenues of the Church were much greater than they
heeo'returned by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. If
: Property of the Church were fully and fairly applied to
thatpta,rPoses it should be, he (Mr. Wason) was convinced
oar_ for would be quite sufficient to do everything neces-
tor the relief of destitution.
theUolonel SIBTHORP would most decidedly vote against
Pro Position of the Noble Lord, and against every other
proposition for such a purpose as it intended. If the Noble
himself
Was such a sincere friend of the Church as he stated
Illemself to be, he (Colonel Sibthorp) called on him, as a
rnitnit I'4 of the noble house of Russell, to give to the Com-
noi_ee an extension of its objects, and to facilitate an in-
4tterY into the Church property held by his family. Every
the remembered the celebrated address of Mr. Burke on
eurrsuuject in 1796, and he (Colonel Sibthorp) fully con-
the ed in it. If the Noble Lord did this—if he allowed
of Committee not alone to go into that inquiry as a branch
o Tnineir purpose, but also afforded them the facilities for
g-sif he not alone did that, but suggested to
the committee, and recommended to the bead of his
tahoeble house, that all the property acquired by it, at
a,.exPense of the Church, should be given back to it
substantial
he would then really evince his feelings in the most
hrtenti
at way, and give the best proof of the sincerity of
heeded to the Church. If that inquiry were pro-
ed with it would be found that upwards of fifty mil-
e:cis of Church property had been plugdcred by a tyrant,
144 bestowed on his favourites. If that were made avail-
as able it would preclude the necessity of robbing the Bishops,
e Plan of the Noble Lord proposed to do. The Hon.
and u
v," Gallant Member then read a series of propositions to
the effect above stated, and concluded.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that, as allusion bad been
to to the report of the Church Commission, he would,
save trouble, make a short statement in explanation of it,
le would not say whether or not the inquiry were better
Coducted by a Select Committee or by a Commission :
at when the plan for the management of Church property
~,
"as first communicated to the Church Commissioners, they
would not agree to be instrumental in any means of further-
ing it or carrying it out. When, however, it afterwards
came
before Parliament, there was a kind of compromise
effected.
Mr. VERNON rested his objection to the Committee
upon two grounds—the first was, that he thought it the
allty of the Government to take up the subject on its own
responsibility ; and, secondly, that he was of opinion that all
Church property ought to be applied for the benefit of the
Church itself.—(Cheers.) He believed that the Noble
Lord felt it to be impossible for him to go on with the
raeasure he proposed, having only a majority of five in that
louse to support him.—(Cheers.) Therefore, the Noble
Lord hit on this ingenious device of a Committee to get out
of the dilemma he was in. If the Noble Lord would leave
the matter in the hands of the Commissioners he did not
doubt that a measure might be carried out that would be
Perfectly satisfactory.
dill ord JOHN RUSSELL said that the Commissioners
red so widely from the views and intentions of theMem-
°era of the Cabinet upon this subject that it would be alto-
gether useless to have any meeting or explanation with them
the subject.
air. HARVEY said that the friends of the Church had
been accustomed to describe the Church not as the richest
uthe world, but as the poorest ; but in answer to this
s
ertion he would refer to the report of the Ecclesiasti-
cald Commissioners, which he bad been looking over that
23'. In that report he found it admitted by the Com-
"'sioners that the net revenue of the Church, distin-
guished from the gross amount, was three millions and a
half, and he had not the slightest doubt that if the Church
Property were strictly and honestly inquired into, it would
a: all
an annual net income of five millions. He did not
to, see that the plan proposed by the Noble Lord would
detrimental to the lessees, because regard was to be had
111 existing interests. He looked upon the proposition
pa_ue from the opposite side to leave the matter with the
sure as a most insidious one. He was quite
:_u,e that a Committee was the only means by which the
°.leet could be properly inquired into, and he hoped the
Nobleile Lord would not be diverted from that inquiry.
hoped, too that the inquiry would not be narrowed,
e should very much like to know the names of those
intended to be placed on the Committee, in order to see
there should turn out to be a surplus not only to supply
e amount of Church-rates, but a sum beyond that
amount,_ then the remainder ought to be applied to the
education and religious instruction of the people belonging
the Church. All Church property ought to be consoli-
date
d for Church purposes, and with this view the Church-
rates ought to be converted into a land tax. Let the mem-
bers of the Established Church pay Church-rates if they
Pleased, and let the Dissenters pay a land tax. It was his
°Pinion that the Dissenters ought to pay a land tax, and
get rid of the stigma cast upon them by the Hon. Baronet
the Member for Westminster, who very classically said that
they were influenced not by a religious motive in resisting
Church-rates, but by their breeches pockets.—(A laugh.)
lie could not see why landed property generally should be
eased from the payment of Church-rates, to which it had
been subject for ages.—(Cheers.) It was evident the
Established Church had numerous and efficient supporters
in that House, whereas the Dissenters were neither sup-
Ported there by the Government nor by their own Mem-
bers. For his own part he acknowledged himself to be a
issenter, but he acknowledged no leader.—(A laugh.)
'lO could not consider, to use another classical phrase, that
r, the Dissenters were embowelled in one Member.—(A
g.ngli.) He did not see why Church•rates, or the mode
n levying them, should be so generally objected to, because
o'
'le Principle was essentially democratic. The inhabitants
assembled and decided for themselves what amount was
required, and how it should be raised. Surely this
spas Purely self-government. As to the principle of Dis-
,,at, the Protestants themselves were Dissenters from
'tie heresy of the Church of Rome. It was founded
t:111 the principles of Luther and Calvin, which were
.bes rtht of private judgment founded on the Scriptures.
"e Dissenters felt that they were not compelled to sup-
°rt. a Law Church. It had been said that the agitation
got
up against Church-rates was of modern growth, and the
„ere offspring of political dissent, and that this agitation
i:7B caused by only a few Dissenters, with whom the great
P.roodydid not co-operate. Now, against this picture he
tested, in the name of the great body of the Dissenters.
great deal had been said as to there being nothing in the
orks of Baxter, Robert Hall, and other eminent writers
4.1 that class to sanction many of the opinions attributed to
hoe 13issenters, with respect to the support of an Establish-
nr 1331 those who were not members of it. But as there
Rau been a quotation from some of the works of Robert
wish insuPport of the views of Hon. Gentlemen opposite, he
ern.o to call the attention of the House to a work of that
4n!riet d divine, which had been published since his death,
'rhhich was expressly written on the subject of Dissent.
in elir. Gentleman then read an extract from the work
question,tiuuw in which the author maintained that the reli-
ai,s "huePtlions of the Dissenters were so different that there
agre d ones ntiment on which the whole body of them was
against namely, the assertion of the right of conscience
religion all human control whatsoever, the conviction that
"gion
With Prospered better without an Establishment than
a deene, and the principle that all human laws were rather
tritnent than pa
benefit to Christianity. The Hon.
-reotlt
Itebt lean then stated that he had referred to the works of
rt Rail, for the purpose of rescuing him from some

remarks which had been made upon him.—(Hear.) But
that he might not be met with the objection that that
eminent Divine was only a recent writer, and that the pas-
sages he had alluded to contained modern opinions, and not
those of the earlier Dissenters, he begged to refer Hon.
Gentlemen opposite to a tract written long ago, by Michael
Towgood, who was a great authority among the Dissenters,
and who said that all non-conformists denied any necessary
connection between religion and an Establishment.—(Hear.)
But the fact was, the House had been led to underrate the
numbers and resources of the Dissenters, who had been held
up as persons of little note. This was a most unmerited
imputation—(Cheers)—and it had now become the duty
of that House to show what was the amount of voluntary
contributions which the Dissenters annually paid towards
the general support of religion. By a return which he held
in his hand, which had been drawn up with the greatest pos-
sible care and accuracy, and which was divided into four
separate heads, it appeared that the total amount which the
Dissenting body annually contributed to the support of their
various ministries, missions, schools, and in the purchase of
books, was the enormous sum of 2,980,240/.—(Hcar,
hear.) This was nearly equal to one-half of the whole ec-
clesiastical revenue of the country—(Hear, hear)—and it
was surely too much to say that they were actuated by
selfish views, that they were insignificant in numbers, and
that they were not entitled to the kind consideration of that
House.—(Cheers.) It was argued that the Established
Church must fall unless supported by compulsory means ;
but he denied and repelled the imputation, as far as the
Dissenters- were concerned, that the voluntary system
would be the ruin of the Church.—(Hear, bear.) He
repelled, too, the accusation that the Dissenters wished
to upset the Church, and to deprive the Establishment of
its just emoluments. He had never heard any one Dis-
senter who had not expressed a wish that the Church
should retain all her revenues.—(Hear, hear.) All they
desired was, that they might not be compelled to support a
system from which they conscientiously dissented.—( Hear.)
A great portion of them concurred in the doctrines and
views of the Church ; but the Dissenters, as a body, con-
sidered religion to be a pure and unearthly spirituality, and
denied the right of one man to dictate to another the way
in which he should hold communion with his Creator.—
( Hear.) Having made these observations, it was his inten-
tion to move an amendment, by way of addition to the mo-
tion of the Noble Lord.—( Hear.) He considered that by
the course the Government had adopted, the Dissenters
were now further from the attainment of their object than
they were before. That course was, to say the least, a
clumsy one, for it was impossible that Church-rates could
be abolished by any other means than by the recognition of
a great principle. Now, almost all the Members of that '
House were in favour of that abolition, but it was the diffi-
culty as to a substitute for the rates which threw so many
obstacles in the way of carrying the principle into effect.
Of all the substitutes which had hitherto been propounded
to the House, that of the Noble Lord he considered the
worst, as he had encumbered the question with the hostile
interests of the Church lessees.—( Hear.) When the Hon.
Member for Leeds brought forward a motion for an inquiry
into the state of Queen Anne's bounty, and relative to the
intent and meaning of the Statute of Anne, the Noble Lord
thought it too sacred a thing to be touched, and said the
House ought not to go so far back as the reign of Queen
Anne ; and yet, on the subject of the Irish Church, the
Noble Lord went as far back as that of Henry VIII. It
was quite right to go back to the time of the Henries, but
why refuse an inquiry into Queen Anne's bounty, for by it
both tithes and the first-fruits of every production were
liable to the support of the Established Church ?—(Hear.)
According to the plan which the present Goverment had
adopted the question of Church-rates would remain unsettled
for years ; but as almost all parts of the House were in
favour of their abolition, he wished,to see who was and who
was not sincere in the expression of such a desire. All.those;
he was sure, who were sincere in their desire to see these
rates abolished would vote for his (Mr. Harvey's) amend-
ment. The Noble Lord had said that he did not connect

this inquiry with the abolition of Church-rates—(Hear)—
and therefore it was that he (Mr. Harvey) wished to brinc,
the House to the recognition of the abstract principle of
their abolition.—(Hear.) He would, therefore, without
further troubling the House, propose as an amendment
the addition of the following words to the motion of the
Noble Lord : " And further, that whatever may be the re-
sult of this proposed inquiry, it is the opinion of this House
that from and after a time to be fixed, Church-rates shall
cease."—( Hear, hear.)
Colonel THOMPSON briefly seconded the amendment
Mr. C. PELHAM made a few observations, which did
not distinctly reich the gallery. We understood the Hon.
Member to express himself strongly opposed to the motion.
Lord HO WICK felt bound to oppose the amendment
of the Hon. Member for Southwark. He should do so
because he had never professed himself favourable to the
abolition of Church-rates without establishing an efficient
substitute for them. He should vote for the appointment
of a Committee, becaus2. a Committee would be able to
point out how that efficient substitute could be best pro-
vided, and how the deficiency created by a different dis-
posal of Church-rates could be remedied. He should also
feel bound to oppose the proposition of the Right Hon.

Member for CaMbridge, for he (Lord Howick) thought
the appointment of a Committee desirable for the purpose
of giving the House information on the subject. To such
a Committee he certainly did not think that it. ought to be
left to decide what should be the application of any sur-

plus that might be created ; but he thought that very great
benefit would result from their inquiring into the nature
of the different interests connected with this property,
and what advantages were to be derived from an im-
proved management of it. The Committee would have
to consider the real state of the question ; they would
ascertain what the condition of the property of the
Church was at present ; and whether an improved sys-
tem of managing that property would not be alike ad-
vantageous to the Church and the lessees of the Church.
When the conclusions of the Committee were placed be-
fore the House and the country, he did not doubt that a
measure for the settlement of this question would, when
the House possessed more information on the subject, re-
ceive a favourable reception. An Hon. Member who had
that evening addressed the House, had argued that this
inquiry ought to be placed in the hands of the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners. Now he differed from that opinion. Even
if the Members of the Church Commission had refrained
from expressing any opinion on the subject—if they had
not expressed an opinion adverse to that entertained by
the Government on this subject—he would not think the
Church Commissioners as well qualified as a Committee of
the House of Commons to investigate this subject. An
inquiry before the Church Commissioners would to a great
extent be private in its nature—there would not be the
same canvassing of opinions as before a Committee of the
House. It would not, besides, have the same effect as an
inquiry before a Committee of the House. But the Church
Commissioners had removed all doubt as to their opinions
on this subject, for they had objected to the plan proposed
by his Majesty's Goverment. They had objected to the
Ministerial measure on two grounds. They had objected,
in the first place, to the proposed application of any surplus
revenue that might be produced ; and, in the second
place, those connected with that Commission in the other
House of Parliament had pledged themselves not to con-
sent to any measure by which the controul of the Church
property was to be taken out of the hands of the dignita-
ries of the Church. He therefore was not willing to en-
trust the proposed inquiry to those who were pledged
against any appropriation of the surplus which the Govern-
ment had thought might be created in the manner proposed.
The second objection of the Commissioners made him still
more decided against submitting the question to them. The
very essence of the plan proposed by his Majesty's Govern-
ment for the improvement of the property in Church leases
consisted in taking that property out of the hands of those
who possessed merely a fleeting and transitory interest in it,
and placing it in hands that would be disposed merely to
Ipoofrooktpheterot
Cyi thswuperrecerhmt,
oai ntceonwnttaivsnaul
impossibleueei
nant
ha e improvement.hatnhda staonfimproved
ow, i thisf
dignitaries
ma-
nagement
of it could be effected.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
Let them look to all past legislation on the subject to be
convinced of the truth of this. If they wanted to adopt an
improved mode of managing Church property they must
place it in hands that would not have merely a temporary and
short interest in it, but that would manage it with a view to
its permanent improvement, and to the increase of its
value for a long series of years. When the Ecclesiasti-
cal Commissioners had expressed so decided an opinion
that the controul of this property ought not to be trans-
ferred from the dignitaries of the Church, it could not be
thought that this inquiry ought to be submitted to them.
He thought that the inquiry could only be advantageously
conducted only by a Parliamentary Committee. As there
were many Gentlemen in the House who might not have
heard the objections of the Right Hon. Member for the
University of Cambridge he was anxious to offer a few ob-
servations respecting them. The first objection that the
Right Hon. Gentleman urged was to the enormous extent
of the inquiry. He stated that the Committee would have
to go into an examination of the circumstances of each par-
ticular estate of every Bishop and Dean and Chapter, and
that, therefore, the inquiry would be interminable. Now,
he did not join in that apprehension. He did not think it
would be at all necessary for the Committee to go into the
particulars of each estate, but, from an examination of the
bearings and connexion of different interests, they would be
enabled to come to a safe conclusion without the neces-
sity of such minute and detailed inquiry. Another ob-
jection of the Hon. Member was, that during this inquiry,
there would be great inconvenience felt, inasmuch as the
lessees Would refuse to renew, and that this would Subject
the dignitaries of the Church to great inconvenience. Now,
on this point he entertained quite a different opinion, and
he believed that the tendency would not be so much to

avoid renewals as to hurry on renewals, pending the inquiry
before the Committee. His (Lord Howick's) apprehen-
sions were in quite a different channel. He felt that it was
a subject on which it was particularly necessary that Par-
liament should speedily decide. Pending the inquiry, and
until the question was settled, there would be a difficulty of
managing this property satisfactorily. There was another
point to which it was desirable that attention should be
called, namely, the waste of the property of the Church
which took place from time to time. It was notorious that
several private Acts were obtained by which this waste was
permitted to take place, and he thought it exceedingly de-
sirable that some means should be taken to put an end to
it. It was astonishing how little check there existed upon
proceedings of that description, and he was sorry to say
that, by these means, the Church had greatly depreciated
the property which it ought to possess. It was desirable
to give to the property of the Church a secreity which it
did not now possess, and the House was not perhaps aware
of the enormous extent to which the waste of the pro-
perty of the Church was carried on. He would state a
tact illustrative of this. A particular lease of property
belonging to the Dean and Chapter of Durham, consisting
for a great part of coal-mines, was held by Lord London-
derry since 1819 ; and there had since that year been paid
for renewals of this lease a sum exceeding one hundred
thousand pounds. And that was a kind of property which,
when once worked out, was of no further value. The sur-
face property was stated to be of very small value, and
scarcely sufficient for the support of the resident popula-
tion. By this means the capital of the Church was greatly
sunk, as directly as if the fee simple of so much property
had been disposed of, and thus, for the advantage of the
existing members of that corporation, that which might
produce an income of three or four thousand pounds a
year was permanently lost to the Church. He would only,
in conclusion, repeat that he felt it to be for the interest of
the Church itself that the management of its property
should be improved and altogether altered, and be did not
see any means by which this object could be better effected
than by the appointment of a Select Committee.—(Minis-
terial cheers.)
Sir ROBERT PEEL was not surprised at the impa-
tience that was manifested to escape from this question.—
(Cheers.) He bore in mind the reminiscence furnished to
the House by the Hon. Member for Southwark, who stated
that the main question had already been debated in the
House for five nights. It seemed to him, however, as if
that Hon. Member regretted that for those five nights he
had not an opportunity of delivering his sentiments on this
subject, and that he had taken the present opportunity of
rescuing the House from the disadvantage of not having
heard him express the opinions that he entertained on this
question.—(A laugh.) The real question was, whether it
was fitting th it they should consent to the appointment of
a Committee, for the purpose of enabling his Majesty's Go-
vernment to escape from a difficulty.—(Hear, hear.) He
well knew how plausible a proposition it was to ask for the
appointment of a Committee. He knew well that if there
was some object to be carried how easy it was to prevail on
individuals to assent to the appointment of a Committee.
Now, he (Sir Robert Peel) considered the appointment of
a Committee for the purpose proposed so objectionable in
principle, so bad in precedent, and so inexpedient altoge-
ther that, no matter what difference of opinion might exist
upon the subject, he could not, for one, acquiesce in the ap-
pointment of that Committee ; and a Committee for what
purpose ? For the purpose of performing the duty of the
executive Government of the country.—(Cheers.) It was
a dangerous precedent, which might be acted upon in any
season of political difficulty, when a Government felt it de-
sirable to escape from a pressing embarrassment.—(Loud
cheers.) There was a great question brought forward by
his Majesty's Government, and made the subject of repeated
discussion in that House. A greater number had divided
upon the question than on any previous occasion during the
session. It was impossible to overlook that in the second
instance the division had been taken upon the principle of
that measure—(Cheers.) What was the principle of that

measure ? Whether this property should be preserved to
Church, or whether it should be diverted to other purposes?
Now, if his Majesty's Government felt that the opinion of
House was in of their measure—if they felt that the
plan they had propounded was one that they ought to per-
severe io—why did they not go forward in the course they
had proposed to adopt?—(Cheers.) Instead of that, for
the first time they were called upon by his Majesty's Go-
vernment to consent to the extraordinary proceeding of re-
ferring a great public question to a Select Committee, and a
Committee, too, of their own nomination.—( Cheers.) Why,
if they consented to establish such a precedent as this, what
would it lead to ? In any future time, if a Government
found themselves on a great question supported only by a
very small majority, and if they wanted either the manliness
or the perseverance to go on with their measure, they had
only to come forward, and on the 12th of June ask the
House of Commons to concur in the appointment of a
Select Committee to inquire into the subjeet.—(Cheers.)
Why, what was the meaning of this ? It was neither
more nor less than the appointment of an Ecclesiastical
Cabinet.—(Laughter and cheers.) And this Cabinet
would possess the advantage, too, that it was not to be
appointed by the Crown, but by the House of Commons
—Loud cheers)—and the appointment of. this Eccle-
siastical Cabinet was intended to relieve the Executive
Government from all responsibility,—(Cheers.) He
hoped that they would so manage as not to appoint too
numerous a Cabinet.—(Laughter.) He ventured to sug-
gest that it would be a matter of some importance that
the House should be put in possession of the names of the
individual members of the new Government.—(Laughter.)
He thought at all events the chairman should be named,
and let him have the appointment of his official col-
leagues. He should endeavour that there should be
no elements of discord—no conflicting opinions, which in
the new Cabinet would be exceedingly undesirable.—( A
laugh.) He supposed that the discussion of the great
principle of the measure would be left an open question.
If the new Cabinet were selected from different sides of
the House, • there might be some inconvenient difference of
opinion, where it was so desirable to be unanimous.—
(Laughter.) He saw nothing better than that they should
leave the great principle of the measure an open question
for the new Government, which it was now proposed to
establish.—(Cheers.) By the express terms of the refer-
ence, they did propose to leave to the Committee the con-
sideration of a great and -broad principle ; for the Commit-
tee were to decide on the probable amount of any increased
value to be derived from the improved management of
Church lands, with a due consideration of the interests of
the Established Church, and of the present lessees of
Church property. Now he (Sir R. Peel) would at once say
that a due consideration of the interests of the Established
Church was a proper subject for the attention of the King's
Government, as well as the consideration of the interests
of the lessees of Church property ; but this Committee
was to consider not merely whether or not the surplus de-
sired to be realised could be obtained, but whether it
could be realised consistently with those two principles
of which also it was to judge—the interests of the Church,
and the interests of the Church lessees ; and until they
had decided upon these two questions of the respective in-
terests of the Church and of the lessees it was impossible
for them—nay, he defied them—to come at the probable
amount that could be realised from the improved manage-
ment of Church lands.—( Hear, bear.) Must not this po-
sition be quite clear ? The Noble Lord said that the
Committee would have to determine what were the present
instances of the abuse of Church property by private
means, and that when it had discharged that part of its
duty it could proceed to consider the more important mat-
ters that would be brought under its consideration—
namely, the increased value which might be given to Church
lands by an improved management of them, a due consi-
deration being had to the interests of the Established
Church and to those of the lessees of Church lands. Why
how would it be possible for the Committee to ascertain
that fact without a minute inquiry ? How could it
ascertain the probable amount of increased value to be
added to Church property from an improved manage-
ment of it without some local inquiry into the value of the
property, and into the increased value that might be given
to it by new arrangements, depending upon local circum-
stances ? Now if the Committee were to do all this no-
thing could be more apparent than that the final close of
their labours must be very much protracted. Assuming
for a moment that further inquiries were necessary, nothing
could be clearer than that inquiries of this kind could be
conducted with more effect by the Executive Government.
—(Hear, hear.) It might be necessary for the Govern-
ment to obtain more information on what they held to be
the workings of the present system, in order to reconcile
the public to the changes they proposed to make. But the
inquiries by which that information could alone be gained
must of necessity be local ; and, surely, the Executive Go-
vernment would have more effectual means at their com-
mand than a Committee of that House. He remembered
the Committee on the English Municipal Corporation
question, over which the Speaker presided. That Com-
mittee sat some time, and great delay took place. At
last it was discovered that local inpuiry was necessary,
and the result of the whole was, that the Government
were obliged at last to have recourse to the alternative
of appointing a Commission to make those local in-
quiries.—(Hear, hear.) He also remembered his Right
Hon. Friend the Member for Bute proposing the appoint-
ment of a Committee to inquire into the state of religious
instruction in Scotland about this time of year, he be-
lieved. But the Right Hon. Gentleman was then told by
Hon. Members opposite that no progress whatever could
be made in Committee, that the Committee was not the
proper medium of instituting the inquiries. Warranted by
the result that had attended the former Committee to
which he had alluded—the Committee on Corporations—
the Noble Lord anticipated what would have been the re-
sult of the appointment of a Committee. He refused the

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 1837.