The Sun.
London, England, 1837-03-15 00:00:00

Baronet to which I shall advert but shortly—l mean that part
of his speech in which he asserted that this measure would fail
as regarded the financial calculations on which it was founded.
I shall leave the task of replying more fully to those objec-
tions to my Right Hon. Friend who proposed the plan ; but I
may be allowed to say the statements of the Right Hon. Baro-
net did not give me much reason to doubt the soundness of my
Right Hon. Friend's calculations. One statement of the Right
Honourable Baronet, on which he laid considerab!e stress
was that an increased sum of 100,0001. would be required
for the management of this property ; but he forgot that
the property is not without an expense for management at
present; the number of clerks and other officers now em-
ployed rendered the expense probably much greater at pre-
sent than it would be under the proposed Bills. In the see
of Durham alone the expense of management is 2,000/
a year, so that instead of a large charge on that account, ac-
cording to the reckoning of the Right Hon. Baronet, there is
every probability that we shall derive from that source alone
a surplus. The Right Hon. Baronet has expressed his doubts
of the sum being as great as it has been estimated, because it
may not be 24 years' deferred annuity, but an annuity deferred
for 30 years. lf, however, 2601. repi esents an annuity deferred
for 24 years, it must be a greater sum that represents an an-
nuity deferred for 30 years.--( Hear.) I know, with respect so
the Irish Church Act, that it was stated by my Noble Friend
opposite (Lord Stanley) that I/. claimed at the time repre-
sents what would be al. at the end of 21 years; but if this an-
nuity came into operation at the end of 2 or 3 years, the IL
would represent a sum much less, and if it came into opera-
tion at the end of a term exceeding 21 years, of course it
would represent a sum greater. If the annuity were deferred
for only 5 years, the sum a person would advance at pre-
sent would be greater in proportion to the whale sum. The
result of the calculations made was that if it were deferred
for thirty years, this sum of 260,000/. would represent, instead
of 1,300,0001., 1,986,0001., and instead of a surplus of 250,0001.
my Right Hon. Friend would have a surplus of upwards of
300,000/.--( Hear, hear.) I think lam entitled to say after
this that we ought not to bow all at once to the Right Hon.
Gentleman's authority. Let us rather allow this Bill to be
gone into; let the House allow Mr. Finlaison to be heard on
the other side; and do not let us conclude at once that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury and Mr. Fin-
laison all arc wrong in their calculations. Grant these parties
a hearing before you decide that their calculations must be
altogether wrong. I come now to that part.of the plan which
affects the whole measure ; I mean that part which affects the
landed property held by the Church lessees. The Right
Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) said last night, as has been
said with a sneer in another place, that he ceuhl not imagine
where the surplus, where the " heredifas jams," as he called
it, could have been discovered by my Right Honourable
Friend. If the Right Honourable G Interim had applied to
the Noble Lord sitting next to him (Lord Stanley), he could
no doubt have enlightened him on the subject.—(Cheers.)
The Noble Lord would have recollected having produced a plan
to this House by which he informed the House he would realise
not less than 3,000,0001. of the value of the Church property
in Ireland.—( Cheers. ) But whether that sum was exactly the
sum or not, that a considerable sum may be realised by a dif-
ferent tenure of property I think no man can entertain a
doubt. lam really almost ashamed to speak on this point,.
after what fell from the Hon. Member for East Retford on
the same subject last night. If a man holds property which
lie is obliged to surrender at the expiration of ally life, or at
the end of seven or thirty years, and if ho can change that
holding into a tenure equivalent to a freehold on which be
may plant or build as he pleases, there is a nee value created,
which is a value to the person who possesses the property,
and to the person who occupies it. If it were not so, I
really know not what would bet the value of so many pro-
perties that have been held on mortrnain, and enfranchised.
We have a familiar illustration of the argument in the calft
of a person who, not having a freehold holding, plants trees,'
and on the renewal of his term is obliged to pay for them
according to their value when he cuts them down. But
the Right Honourable Gentleman put as an especial diffi-
culty some cases in which a great part of the land may be
church land, the rest being the lessee's own property. lam
glad to be supplied by the Right Hon. Gentleman with that
instance, because it enables me to point out, to a certain
extent, what will be the beneficial working of these Bills.
Their operation will be to enable a man who has suffered under
that disagreeable tenure, part of his house and grounds being
his own, and the other part only held under the Church, to
make the whole his own,, and thus relieve himself from the
possibility of further inconvenience. With respect to the
right of obtaining some advantage front the lessee, I do not
think that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman or the Right
Hon. Gentleman can either of them make out that we arc
not entitled to ask some advantage from the lessee. I could
state to the House many instances that hive come to my own
knowledge in which those leases have fallen in, and in which
the Bishop has refused to renew, or in which he has put in
a concurrent lease, and the original lease has been altogether
destroyed. That right Was exercised by the late Bishop of
Ely—(Hear)—and while it exists let no man tell me the les-
sees have the right of renewal. I have been told on the
authority of a solicitor in Durham, with respect to that county,
that in 1790 the value of the Church land was equal almost
to freehold aroperty ; but in consequence of the difficult
terms of renewal which had been enforced, of late years
Church land sold for fifteen or 'sixteen years' purchase.—
( Hear.) It is clear that there has been a great change as
regards the terms on which these leases are renewed ; and
are we not entitled to take advantage of the right of
renewal ? But passing on from the lessees, I come to the
objection stated to the plan in a petition—a very fair
and calm petition, I admit—from the University of Oxford.
That petition objects to the situation in
_which the measure
places the Bishops. We are told that the Bishops at present
are in tha enjoyment of property, and according to these Bill.;
they may become mere annuitants ; that we arc bound to pro-
vide for the great interests of religion ; anti that the inde-
pendence of the Bishops cannot be impaired without danger
to those interests themselves. This is certainly a subject
well worthy the consideration of the House. Those who la-
bour for the instruction of the University of Oxford ought to
have informed that learned but somewhat tardy University of
the nature of the Bill which passed last year. It is-true, be-
fore
the Act I have referred to passed, the Bishops had com-
mand, without restriction as to leases, of the property of the
Church ; and it might be argued, as has been argued, that
there is no question. The Bishop of Durham possesses as
clear a right to his property as any man of landed property in
the kingdom, and we are no more entitled- to inquire what his
income is than we have to inquire what is the income of the
lay proprietors. This might have been the state of things for-
merly, but the Act of last year has placed them now upon a dif-
ferent footing. The Bishop of Durham has been commanded by
that Act to transfer the sum of 2,000/. a year to the see of Ripon,
and another 11,000/. to the hands of the Church Commis-
sioners, and then the new Bishop created by this Act is to
receive further an annuity of 2,200/. from the Church Com-
missioners. Now what is the situation of these two Bishops?
The one, out of a varying and precarious income, is bound
to pay 2,0001. a year to the Church Commissioners; the other
is to all intents and purposes an annuitant upon those Corn-
niiisioners.—(Hear, bear.) The one of these- Bishops is
clearly an annuitant ; whilst the other is not exactly in that si-
tuation which, as regards his own interests, could be said to
be a very easy or comfortable one, because it will be observed
that if the incomes of the see of Durham were to be de-
preciated, and fall, through any fortuitous circumstances, to
4,0001., 3.000/, or even 1,0001. a year, the Bishop would
still be obliged -to pay over 11,0001. to the Church Com-
missioners, and 2,000/. a year to the Bishop of Ripon. This
being the ease, no one can tell me that this Bishop is in a po-
sition to have unlimited command over the property in
hand, or to exercise, under all circumstances, his own free
will and inclination in its disposal ; for he may be obliged,
when he would rather not do so, to renew leases which may
fall in, under very disadvantageous circumstances, in order
to meet this certain, this unvaryine, and imperative a ,nual
call.--( Hear, bear.) Say the Bishop's income amounts on an
average to 19,0001. a year ; out of this lie has to pay 11,0001.,
reserving the other 8,000/. for himself But it', instead, of
taking the chance of time lives which fall in, by which in one
year he might get 22,000/., and in another only 10,000/., we
say to him, we will take care that you shall always receive
19,0001., out of which you may with regularity meet the de-
mand against you of 11,000/. a year, and with as much cer-
tainty reserve the 8.0031. a year to } ourself—l say that if we
wcr2 to do this, so far from doing an injury to this individual,
we should be confetring a great benefit upon him, by attaching
a greater degree of certainty to his ineonse.—(Cheer:;..) So
much with regard to the character of this measure as it re-
gards the Bishops. With respect to the'management ()folio. ,
property of the Church, the Commission which we props' a to
appoint will consist LI the majority of members of the 'trauma,
whilst at the same time I admit that the weansamt,tlt of the
landed property. of the Church will be *rottini,y, conducted by tho
three lay Commissioners, who vial. be appointed for the pur-
pose. Two of these CommisT;r..ners will he appointed by the
Crown, the other by the Chexeli, Now,, if it had been pro-
posed to me that, instead or
should be appointed by two of time Commissioners
time Cluarcla, end one only by the
Crown, I should haw been quite ready to listen and accede
to that alteration.—( Hear, hear.) DUE ill order to do that it
is necessary that we should have the Bill, and that we should
go into Committee upon it.--(F/mr, hear.) I repeat that I
am quite ready to assent to any al....erations in the details of the
measure which, on consideration, may be deemed advisable;
bat before I can accede to anythi ag of the kind, we must have
the Bill in our hands on which we propose to introduce Versa_
aiterations.—(Cheers.) The Hon. Membei for Ea;;,lte•:fora
assures mu that after having belongalto the Chur eta Cs.umnts,
sigh I have made an utensil of them Church. I. On
- other
hand, must rather say that, the Chorach Cornreass'-4, bus ma In
an utensil of me.—( Laughter.) We wen's itatas the Commis.
sion upoei this subject, in conjuneaioa wit's
Church who formed part of it, with:t a Prelates of the
.e full desir, and inten-
tion of listening to all the plasma foe
which they could suggest, with ato e, recorm of the Church
rented our attention to the correct;
c'era.s.vish whilst we tli-
lishment to do so in a sas (so abuses' in that Estab-
views and sentiments ofw was
Pry -r•al atible as possible with the
tte a 1 aye my consent to
the propositions which wer;tk, • g
'4/ Treed upon, but at the same
time I must remark that tlea,„
than mine. And I wile take this are positions were mole theirs
a es
in answer to abet le;,/ ll
am the
what the membes-Member for Weymouth,
.of the Churib Cormit»ission know full web,
that I said T shgui4
"
ie mare have e,in desirous that, we prebend
s!lould reeci
Ulan 4,0 3 Jl., mind that nal canon should
have here than e-y sur.--(Loud cries of " Hear.")
Bat whilst this was my own >pinion, I was willing, neverthe-
hese, to a3.opt the scheme he the reform of certain abuses
whictit was framed by the Commission. I proposed that
schema to the House, find Is hen the Hon. Member for Mid-
(Heist; warned me that by at :ting elms I was ruining.the pro-
spects of tho Ministry to wl, ich I belong, I told him that, re-
gardless of consequences, I had adopted that measure, and
that I was determin:,ll to t tali) or fall by it, co:waiving the
11,',41
iQta. cf the Athaiuistrati tq, be involved la t,—(Lou:l