The Sun.
London, England, 1854-03-29 00:00:00

EPISCOPAL AND CAPITITLAR ESTATES BILL.

The Marquis of BLANDFORD moved the second
reading of this bill, which he said proposed to deal with
property of large annual value, and to provide a new
mode of administering it so that it might be improved
in value, while it was made more available for the spi-
ritual wants of the great body of the people. There
was no subject of more importance than the spiritual
interests and wants of the people, and to none could
Parliament more usefully direct its attention. The
commissioners, which sat upon it a few years ago,
reported that the incomes of the bishops and
working clergy of the Church of England were
most unequally distributed, and shortly afterwards
an act of Parliament was passed for regulating the
stipends of different sees. The property of each see was
transferred to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and
fixed incomes affixed to each bishopric. It was subse-
quently found that the revenues of these sees greatly
exceeded the stipends which had been allotted to them,
for instance, in the case of Durham, the stipend was
fixed at 8,0001. a year, but it turned out that the an-
nual revenue of the see was some times 20,0001.,
but seldom or never fell short of 15,0001., and an
act was passed in the 13th and 14th Vict. which gave
the bishops definitively fixed income without reference
to the revenues of their sees, the surplus of one see over
the income being applied tb making up the deficiencies
of others. In this way the incomes of some ten or
twelve bishops had been provided for, while by another
act the property and incomes of some eight deans and
chapters had been dealt with upon a similar principle.
This legislation, in a like spirit, had taken place with
regard to the property of the Church, and the
object of this bill was to place the episcopal and
capitular estates of the country entirely under the
control of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and
so relieve the bishops of their management. Thus,
the commissioners would have power to appoint
their own agents to receive the revenues; but the fees
which the bishop received in his official capacity would
be exempted from the operation of the bill, though it
would provide that he should make an annual return
of the funds he received in that way. A clause in the
bill would prevent the fee of the property being vested
in the commissioners; but in all cases the management
of the property should be handed over to the commis-
sioners, both in the case of bishoprics and deans and
chapters, and they should be required to pay the digni-
taries an annual income calculated at the rate, say, of seven
years' value of their estates. The bill provided a scheme of
enfranchising upon a rack-rent tenure of all episcopal
and capitular property, which would have the effect of
considerably increasing the value of the estates attached
to the Church, and it was proposed that the surplus
revenue so obtained should be devoted to augmenting
the incomes of small livings and endowments. It was
calculated that a sum of 506,6411. a-year, to provide in
this way for the increased spiritual wants of the people,
and by the machinery of this bill an annual income of
not less than 550,0001. would be secured to meet that
laudable purpose. The noble lord concluded by express-
ing his conviction that this bill, if carried, as he hoped it
would be, would conduce to the glory of God and the
good of man.
Sir W. CLAY appreciated the motives which had in-
duced the noble marquis to introduce this bill, but at
the same time he thought this measure was inadequate
to the important subject which it dealt with. It was in-
complete in its machinery, and though he was quite
ready to admit that clerical persons were bad adminis-
trators of temporal affairs, he yet did not think that the
details of this bill would improve the existing state of
affairs. It proposed, in fact to transfer the management
of the episcopal and capitular estates to the estates com-
missioners, a body acting under the superintendence of
the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who derived their au-
thority from no less than 40 Acts of Parliament, dating
from the reign of Henry VIII. to the present time, and
since the law was thus rendered complicated and uncer-
tain, a bill of this nature, to be useful, should be a con-
solidating as well as an enacting measure. In fact, while
it made Legislative changes in the management of
church property, it should go a step further and
amalgamate the commissioners for the administration
of Queen Anne's Bounty with the Ecclesiastical Com-
missioners, or the bill would fall short of the purpose
which the noble marquis professed to have in view.
The noble marquis had the interest of the church at
heart ; he had shown that, under proper management,
the church property would yield a surplus revenue ;
and since the noble marquis seemed anxious to pro-
mote peace and good will amongst men, it was to be re-
gretted, perhaps, that he did not provide that a
portion of that surplus should go towards the reduction
if not the abolition of church rates. Believing it would
be impossible to attain these objects by remodelling the
bill in committee, there was no alternative left to him
but to move that the bill be read a second time this
day six months.
Mr. HADFIELD seconded the amendment, and in-
sisted upon the necessity, not to say the expediency of
applying the surplus revenue of the Church to the aboli-
tion of the Church-rate, which was a scandal alike to
the Church and the Legislature.
Mr. MOWBRAY opposed the bill in a lengthened
speech. He contended that it would seriously disturb,
if not absolutely destroy, the security of church pro-
perty. Besides he objected to the principle of centralisa-
tion which the bill embraced, and which he was afraid
if agreed to would prove greatly detrimental to local in-
terests. In fact, the central board which the
bill proposed to establish would be liable to overlook
local wants, and therefore instead of promoting the
spiritual welfare of the great mass of the people, it was
likely to prove highly detrimental to their interest. He
agreed that it was highly desirable that the clergy should
be relieved from their temporal functions ; but he thought
the best way of accomplishing that object would be,
rather through the instrumentality of local boards than a
centralised commission.
Mr. HUME thought the subject of church rates was
quite beside the question of this bill. Parliament had
hod already laid down the principle that these estates
were public property, and had passed enactments for
establishing a particular system under which such estates
should be managed. Now that system was at present
not carried out to the fullest extent. The machinery
which Parliament had created for the purpose was de-
fective, and he thought the noble lord was quite
right in introducing the bill. It was simple in
its object, and clear in its details. It pro-
posed to establish a better or more extended means
for improving the value of Church property, with the
view of making more extensive provision for meeting the
spiritual wants of the people, and if he bad any influence
with his hon. friend the member for the Tower Hamlets
be would use it to induce him to withdraw his amend-
ment.
Mr. GOULBURN regretted that this question was
not being discussed in a fuller house as it materially
affected the social condition of the empire, while it equally
bore upon the spiritual wants of the people. He thought,
however, this bill was calculated to retard, rather than
promote the laudable object which the noble marquis
who proposed it had in view. Hitherto Parliament had
acted wisely in providing a common fund for the support
of all bishoprics of the country, and he looked with
alarm upon a bill like this, which provided that a

separate account should be kept for each chap-
tor and each bi-hopric The bill, in point
of fact, would render the stipends of the dignitaries of
the church most uncertain and insecure, and he hoped
the house would not sanction the second reading.

Mr. HORSMAN thought the opinion of the right
hon. gentleman who last addressed them should be re-
ceived with very great caution, because he had always
been the champion of church abuses whenever
any reform in the church was proposed to Parlia-
ment. All the objections which had been or could
be urged against the bill were mere matters of
detail ; its principle was both sound and just,
and he thought those who opposed some of its pro-
visions would do better to reserve their opposition for
the committee on the bill, than resist the second read-
ing. The real object of the bill was to extend the use-
fulness of the Established Church, and he was quite at
a loss to understand how any section of the
house could oppose such a laudable object as that. The
Church was not a matter of private property, but
it was intended to be a great public blessing,
and in order to increase its usefulness it was
indispensably necessary that its clergy should be relieved
from their temporal duties in the manner proposed by
this bill.
Mr. GOULBURN, in explanation, denied that he
had always been opposed to Church reform, and in proof
of that denial he stated that he was the Secretary of
State who first signed the commission appointing the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners.

Mr. LIDDELL said it was highly desirable that the
house should be in possession of the opinion of the Go-
vernment on the subject of this bill, and it was, there-
fore, much to regretted that this debate bad been carried
on in the absence of all the Cabinet Ministers. He
objected to the bill on precisely the same ground as the
hon. member for Durham, Ratitely, that each diocese and
chapter had a right to its own revenues, and there ought
to be no common fund applicable to the whole country.
Sir G. GREY said there was great inconvenience in
discussing a bill of such importance, in the absence of
all the leading members of the Government, who were
detained elsewhere by very important and pres-
sing. duties. (Hear, hear.) He considered, more-
over, that all the considerations and suggessions sub-
mitted by the hon. member might be much more advan-
tageously discussed when the bill was in committee.
Mr. HENLEY said he, like almost every other per-
son who had addressed the house on this subject, did so
under great disadvantages, by reason of not knowing the
views of her Majesty's Government on this bill. He
thought the real principle of this bill was different from
what had been stated ; but he confessed the bill was not
very clear to him. He believed most good would be
effected by putting Church property into a common
fund—that was the Ecclesiastical Commission--on the
ground that if they laid hands at all on the property
of others there might be some little palliation
in putting it to a good use. He was sure the house and
the country were under a great obligation to the noble
lord (the Marquis of Blandford) for bringing this subject
forward, as it was one of great importance.
Sir J. YOUNG hoped the noble lord would consent
to postpone the farther consideration of the bill in the
unavoidable absence of the leading members of the Govern-
ment.
After some further discussion, in which Mr. Ingham,
Mr. Wigratn, Mr. R. Phillimore, and Mr. Spooner (who
moved that the debate be adjourned to 6th April),
The Marquis of BLANDFORD said he concurred
willingly in the motion for adjournment, owing to the
absence of the Government. (Hear, hear.)
The debate was then adjourned to Thursday, 6th
April.
COUNTY COURT EXTENSION ACT AMEND-