The Sun.
London, England, 1837-04-07 00:00:00

they arc willing to follow out the course which Lord Stanley
traced and which they trod with him. It is true that both
he and they, at least several of them, supported Lort
Spencer's Bill ; but they were soon convinced of its inapplf
cability. It is to be remembered also, that, at the time o
bringing forward Lord Spencer's Bill, the Government had
no correct information as to the state of the English Church
property. But the Ecclesiastical Commission, since, ap-
pointed by Sir Robert Peel, has partly lifted the veil behind
which it lay concealed, and has discovered a vast.sunken fund
of unemployed capital which may be rendered active and
highly productive by legislative enactments. There has long
been strong and in some instances painful evidence of the
'()Toss mismanagement and occasional misapplication by bi-
shops, deans, and prebendaries, of the Church property corn-
:flitted to their charge. It is unjust to place private interests
and public duties, in direct opposition to each other. But in
the management of Church property, it is the interest of the
clergy to benefit themselves, who have only a life interest
in it, at the expense of those permanent interests of
the Church, the nation, and their successors, which, as
stewards, it is their duty to protect, but for whom it
is difficult for them to feel so strong an affection as for
themselves and their own families. And if interest tempt
them strongly, power as irresponsible trustees is at hand to
enable them to accomplish their desires. It is not fair to
be hard upon them for having occasionally yielded to this
temptation ; for Bishops and Deans, like the rest of us, are
hut frail creatures ; but it is very hard to continue to ex-
pose them to this temptation. We could give many in-
stances where the property of the Church has been prodi-
gally and selfishly wasted ; where thousands of pounds of
rent are now received by laymen, for lands which have
been parted with for a mess of pottage by the clerical te-
nant for life. But it is better to let these matters pass, and
to look to the future for a remedy. This is now proposed.
For the attention of those Ministers of the present Govern-
ment, who, as the successors of Sir Robert Peel's, became
members of the Ecclesiastical Commission, was soon at-
tracted to the mismanaged and unproductive state of the
English Church property. They resolved to apply to it the
principle of Lord Stanley's Irish Church Bill, and to place
its entire management in the hands of responsible Commis-
sioners, who, having much experience and no temptation to
misapplication, might work out its productiveness,and relieve
the bishops, deans, and prebendaries from a most invidious
and unclerical duty. For if there be any persons who are
least of all fitted for, and whom it is least of all beneficial to
the interests of religion, to employ in the selfish and mam-
mon barterings with the world, upon such subjects as leases,
renewals, distraints, and ejectments, it is our bishops and
the higher clergy. The Tithe Bill of last year recognised this
wise and Christian principle, by releasing the lower clergy
from all bickerings with their parishioners for tithes ; and
the present Church-rate Bill proposes to render a like
service to the hierarchy. It may hurt the worldly pride of
vain-glorious men, to longer to act the parts of great land-
lords, but it will be a consolation to all who deserve to be
shepherds of human rather than of animal flocks, to find
themselves endowed with a fixed income, and relieved from
cares, which, to say the least of them, distract their atten-
tion from their higher and more spiritual calling.
Therefore, both as a matter of worldly profit and of
spiritual good, it is proposed to place the management of the
whole Church property in the hands of experienced per-
sons, and to make such legislative enactments, as will set
this property free for the purposes of building and ins
provable leases. A large increase of revenue will thus
arise, will in fact be created ; and out of this surplus
fund it is proposed to apply 250,000/. a-year to the
building, repairing, and maintenance of our Churches.
This, again, is called spoliation and sacrilege. * * *
The only question is, as to the right and power of the
State over any surplus revenue, which may arise from this
property in consequence of the improYed administration,
and legislative enactments, made expressly for the purpose
of increasing its value and productiveness.
For the satisfaction of those who have any doubts, or
who place any weight in the opinion of Lord Stanley, we
will quote it at large. Speaking of this " increased value,"
he says, " Why do I say this is applicable to the State ?"
And in answer to his own question, he inquires—" What is
the present value of Church property ? The Bishop, by
the conditions which youe the State, have imposed upon
him, cannot grant a lease for a longer period than twenty-
one years. The lease, subject to this condition, if brought
into the market, is worth about twelve and a half Years'
purchase. You pass an Act which increases the value of
these leases to the extent of seven, eight, or it may be nine
years' purchase. Whatever the increased value is, you give
it to the Church. She does not possess it without the Act
of the Legislature : therefore I ask if you, by your Act,
give an increased value to Church property ; has the Church
any right, or can she have any chains to say, It is to me
that you must pay this increased value, which my property
never had, and never could have had, but by your Act ?'
I say it is perfectly consistent with the principle that the
real revenue of the Church ought not to be appropriated to
other purposes, that you should appropriate to secular or
any other purposes, the increased value you now give to
Chu ch property convertible into pounds, shillings, and pence,
which it never would have been without your Act." 4 This
is the recorded opinion of a Noble Lord who is acknow-
ledged to have high flown and romantic opinions respecting
Church property, yet here he deliberately assigns this in-
creased property to the State, and gives his reasons. *
By what authority, if not by this sole constitutional
authority, were tithes and the collection of Church-rates
originally legalised ? What transferred all the property of
the Church, its titles and endowments from the Catholic to
the Protestant? What restored them in the time of Queen
Mary, and what re-transferred them in the time of Eliza-
beth ? Upon what other foundation than the statute law,
does the property of the bishoprics and dioceses of the new
foundations rest, as Oxford, Bristol, Peterborough, &c., and
the chapters of Ely, Carlisle, Durham, &c. ? What gave
tire first-fruits and tenths to Queen Elizabeth and the
Crown ? What granted them to the poorer Clergy, in the
clime of Queen Anne ? What presented the Presbyte-
rians in Scotland with the property of the Episcopalian
Church ? Or, to come to later instances, what authorised
a Bishop of London in 1768, to allow of the alienation by
one of his prebendaries, for a heavy fine for his own
profit, and for a paltry rent to the Church of 2001., of the
whole manor of Tottenhall, which now pays Lord South-
ampton 20,0001. a-year ? By what authority has the pre-
sent Bishop of London been enabled to build a city at Pad-
dington ? By what authority did a Bishop of Bath and
Wells sell the manor of Wivelscombe to the son of a for-
mer Bishop ? And by what authority did the late Bishop
of Durham endow the University of Durham out of the
property of his see ?
These and a thousand other matter-of-fact cases of a
similar nature might be quoted, as to the constitutional,
legal, and beneficial interference of the Legislature in the
affairs of the Church; and after all, in what does this in-
terference of the State consist in the present instance ?
Merely in providing, when other means have failed, that the
1 uildings of the Church shall be kept in repair, not by dimi-
nishing the present property of the Church, but by the cre-
ation of a new property.
Indeed, Sir Robert Peel himself seems to feel the diffi-
culty of directly opposing these plain instances of the
practice and the theory of our Constitution, and therefore
forgetful of the sacrilege and spoliation cries of the bishops,
he has sought to get rid of the ministerial measure, in
other words, to embarrass the Government, and leave our
Churches to decay, by means of his favourite manoeuvre, a
side-wind. He has broken forth with a new-found zeal
for Christianising the land (a poor comgment to the
religious zeal of the Clergy), exclaiming, " If this in-
crease can be made to the income of the Church property,
let it be employed in building Churches for the ignorant
population of our great town, or let it go towards raising
the incomes of our poorer Clergy. 7 This is not the first time
it has been said, when one good deed was doing, why was not
such a thing sold for so much money, and given to the poor.
It is certainly deplorable that there should be many nor-
tions oclferoguyrmluenrg,lm,
larger and more recently grown towns, where
there is a want of Churches, and more especially of' resi-
dent their doctrine and example, might
spread the holy precepts of the Gospel ; but the extent of
this evil is much exaggerated : the Dissenters, and parti-
cularly the Wesleyans, have long curried, and are still
zealous in carrying their light into these dark places ; the
Clergy of the Established Church are following their good
example, and an awakening charity amongst the laity is
rendered manifest, by their numerous and munificent sub-
seriptionst towards the building of new Churches. It is
well known, also, that the present Liberal Ministers
(these enemies of our Church), are strenuous in their en-
deavours to do that, which those friends of the Church,
the Tories, never would do, arel will not now even aid the
Liberals in doing, viz., enforcing the residence of every be-
neficed clergyman in his parish, by abolishing pluralities.
Sir Robert Peel well knows that this alone would plant
many a clergyman in his own parish, and attach him to his
duties where they are most required, and best felt ; and he
is too much a man of business not to admit in his heart
how much more wise and necessary it is for a Govern-
ment to use its best endeavours, first, to provide with re-
sident clergymen, and to keep in decent repair, the
Churches we have, before it proceed to build and endow
new ones. This should we do, and not leave the other
undone. And so the present Bill provides, for it hppre
priates, after the payment of the 250,000/. a-year '.or
the maintenance and repair of Churches, the .
oilrt;i;eritslitsrtreooerts'
,oftll.tpe, re mai ning surplus for the a tier aceruine
Act-autism of
It
ula-
the incomes of the poor clergy. *
rirler lepsroapned*rt:
We now come
hout.i‘oviai rell aendlai:A):
iasegtb,catntteei
it:tun
is to be placed in the heads of certah4 odiejal`nts .
Church, th7 elY2s,
1833.

Amongst these subserl2rs, are the names of the Allow-
ing infidel Liberals, for the paltry sums set opposite to their
names. Duke of Bedf9-4 1 0001, ; Mr, George Bing, '4OOO/.
t,