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

to perferm. were hound to exercise it io a 3 to b ,n( fie
that church, and preiuote the hest interests of religion.
Of that there coals be n drub'; but the re wee a doubt
whether trio policy souent, to be iteroeueed by the Hon.
Gentleman was a sound policy, that policy being that in
each case in which the patron of a living had exe -cised
his right, and appointed a rector, the House of Commons
might be called upon to interfere, and to pronounce its
opinion whether that patronage had been rigli tly'exer-
eised or not. Such a course would make that House a
court of appeal, and would result in the greatest incon •
venience, as with respect to the present case of the
Bishop of Durham, or the case of any other Bishop,
which might be brought before the House, there was no
one in that llouse authorised to speak with respect to the
facts of the case. The Hon. Gentlemon, who had pro-
posed this inquiry, had not hesitated to confirm one por-
tion of the petition he had presented from the inhabitants
of Bishop Wearmouth, which stated that they had no
complaint to make as to the appointment of the rector to
that parish, who they considered in all respects fitting
for his office, and he should have thought that such
being the case, the strongest grounds for an appeal to the
House of Commons would have been altogether done
away with. It he had been a bad clergyman the Bishop
had appointed, there might have been grounds of com-
plaint; but as he was admitted to be good, in his opinion
there were none. In speaking of episcopal patronage,
he must oppose the doctrine laid down by the Hon. Gen-
tleman that whilst the patronage put into the hands of
bishops was a public trust, and they were bound to exer-
cise it for the public benefit, individuals holding private
patronage could exercise it in any manner they chose.
He considered that individuals holding the right of pa-
tronage to church livings had imposed upon them a
solemn duty in the bestowal of that patronage, and what-
ever might be their private rights in regard to it, if they
exercised it for their individual advantage and not for
the interests of the residents of the district compre-
hended in it, they laid themselves open to much and to
just censure.—(Hear, hear.) If, then, that charge with
respect to the Bishop of Durham had been done away
with, what other charges were brought against the Right
Rev. Prelate? It was said that the spiritual wants of
the district were not sufficiently provided for by the dis-
tribution of those revenues ; but in relation to this there
was a remarkable circumstance of which the Honourable
Gentleman took some notice, but did not give it that
prominence which it was entitled to, and that
was, that while Bishop Wearmouth was connected
with the town of Sunderland, yet the parish of
Bishop Wearmouth and the parish of Sunderland
were two distinct parishes. The Honourable Gentleman
paid that the streets of Sunderland .were miserably bad;
-that the population was destitute; that there was a
great lack of religious instruction. That he believed to
be the case, for he understood from parties not in any
way conneeted with the Bishop of Durham, that while
there were parties in Sunderland who give high interest
for money to be laid out in the building' of houses, yet
that the occupiers of those houses were kept in the most
abject and miserable condition. But the petition from
the parish of Sunderland prayed that a portion of the
surplus revenue of the parish of Bi-hop Wearmouth
might be given to it for the endowment of additional
chapels in Sunderiaud. That he conceived was a matter
the House could not interfere with. Any poor parish
in the metropolis might in the same way demand that
a portion of the revenues of its richer neighbours
might be given to it for a similar purpose.
This, however, was not the law, and if it was so it would
be attended with great injustice. If there was a surplus,
let it be applied for the benefit of the Church at
large, but not for the benefit of any particular parish.
What he understood the Bishop of Durham to have
done was this:--The late rector of Bishop Wearmouth
had an income of about 3,000/. a year. Ull his dying,
the Bishop of Durham in appointing the new rector only
allowed him 1.2001. a year, tied applied the surplus for
the benefit of the chapels erected in the district. There
were some other funds arising from land and coals which
were mixed up with it, and appropriated for the same
purpose, the whole being placed in the hands of trus-
tees, for the purpose he had mentioned ; and whether
that was a proper arrangement was not, in his opi-
nion, a case that the House could go into, as all that
could be said was, that the arrangement had been
made with a view to give a large portion of the re-
venue of the former rector for the purpose of supply-
ing the spiritual wants of the district. But then the
Hon. Gentleman said it was illegal to make any such
arrangement with the present rector; but that certainly
was a case for the proper courts to decide, and, upon
the whole case, he thought it would be better that
Parliament should make some general arrangement ra-
ther than fix upon one particular case; and he could
with safety generally assert in regard to the present
case, that he believed the Bishop of Durham to have acted
in the full consciousness of the responsibility which
rested on him, and that in so acting he had had in view
the best interest of the Church in his district. He had
known that Right Rev. Prelate long, and his belief was,
that since his appointment to the see of Durham, which,
since his elevation to it, had been reduced from 21,000/.
to 8,0001. a year, by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners,
he had always acted with great propriety and generosity,
and was ever disposed to exercise the patronage com-
mitted to him in such a way as to benefit the Church
and the community. As to the reforms in the Church,
which the Hon. Gentleman had alluded to, he had no
doubt that some of these—most necessary—would ema-
nate from the Commission on the subject now sitting,
and to those which from time to time were found neces-
sary, he would be prepared to give his cordial support.
He, therefore, must oppose the motion submitted to the
House.—(Hear.)
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON supported the motion.
It was not many years since the parishes of Bishop
Wearmouth and Sunderland were divided, and, therefore,
he coiceived that it was but justice a portion of the sur-
plus funds of the former should be given to the latter,
which was in a very poor condition. The salary of the
rector of Sunderland was very limited—only 2001. a year
—and it was, in his opinion, but fair that a portion of
the funds of the other parish, of which it once formed a
part, should be appropriated for its benefit. The best
plan to do that would be for the Bishop of Durham, or
the Noble Lord at the head of the Government, to intro-
duce a Bill for having such appropriation affirmed.
Lord HARRY VANE thought it would have been
better had the Bishop of Durham introduced a Bill on
the subject, but he could not agree to the motion of the
Hon. Member for Cockermouth. He could speak from
personal knowledge of the generosity and liberality of
the Bishop of Durham, and of his attention to the inte-
rest of his diocese, and he did not think that the animad-
versions of the Hon. Gentleman were merited.

Mr. DISRAELI said he agreed with the Noble Lord,
that inquiries of the kind proposed were very injurious,
but without entering into any personal details, he wished
to know why the Bishop of Durham should not be the
party to introduce a Bill to settle the question, which it
was agreed on both sides of the House was necessary.—
(Hear.) If the Right Rev. Prelate did not choose to
do so, what was to hinder her Majesty's Government
from doing it 2 and if they promised to do so, he should
be most happy to be spared the vote he otherwise should
feel bound to give.—( Hear.)

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that he thought that the Honourable eientleman (Mr.
}foreman) and other Honourable Members should see
that it was not in the power of the Government justly
and fairly to interfere with that question by the introduc
tion of a Bill, because the incumbent had a right to have
whatever was promised to him at the time of his ap-
pointment; and therefore if a Bill were introduced by
Government, it would be au act of spoliation to take any
from the incumbent of what the Bishop of Durham had
previously given him. He should add that he did not
think that justice had been done to the Bishop of
Durham, because he knew, on good authority, inde-
pendent of that of the Noble Lord (Lord Harry Vane)
that he was most liberal and munificent, even out of his
own private money, to the poor of his diocese (Hear,
hear.) And that irrespective of any such donations, or
any losses he may sustain, he hail agreed to give 2,0001.
per annum to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He
thought that the House should not deal with one parti-
cular portion of those ecclesiastical matters, but that a
Bill applying generally would be far preferable.
Sir R. PEEL said that he did not wish that any mea-
sure that would be disrespectful to the Bishop of Dur-
ham should be supported by the House, because from the
manner in which he discharges his duties as a pious
prelate, and as a most refined and erudite scholar, he
considered that such a resolution of the House would be
dealing very severely with him, as it would betray a
want of confidence in him. In 1844, when the Ecclesi-
astical Commissioners were appointed, he, as First Mi
nister of the Crown, from his confidence in the Bishop
of Durham, left that incumbency to him, to be arranged
as he thought proper; and he felt happy to state that
his subsequent arrangement fully confirmed his (Sir
R. Peel's) opinion of him. Yet he should say that he
could not refrain from expressing his concurrence
in the main object of the motion, for he
thought it would be a good example for the
Church to make a proper distribution, by the
Right Rev. Prelate assenting to such a plan, now that
the opportunity presents itself, and particularly as many
had already come forward to divest themselves of a pa-
tronage of 5,000/. per annum. He did not agree with
the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) when he stated that
the Crown should not interfere with Bishop Wearmouth;
for, when they considered how the spiritual interests of
the poor population of those districts, both Sunderland
and Bishop Wearmouth, had suffered since they were
disunited, Sunderland had more claim on the distribu-
tion than had any other place; he thought it became the
Government to attend to the spiritual wants of the people.
He thought that it would be very advantageous if the
Noble Lord (Lord J. Husseli) would give advice to the
Bishop of Durham to set the example by an Act of
Parliament, so as to appropriate the suplus funds to
the spiritual wants of that people who have the best
claim on their notice.

Mr. MANGLES said that he did not think that the
Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) did justice to the Hun.
Member for Cockermouth (Mr. florsman) when ho at-
tacked his (Mr. Horsman's) motives. Instead of being
the enemy of the Church, he believed him to be the
firmest and most staunch supporter it had in that. House.
The Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) said that his Hon.
Friend (Mr. Horsman) had failed in making out a
charge of simoniacal practices against the Bishop of
Durham. Such were nut his motives, but rather to pro-
tect the Bishop's character against any such charges, by
laying the groundwork for an Act of Parliament, which
was essentially necessary. He considered that it would
be a great relief to him and other members of the
Church, if the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) would give
the House an assurance that he would bring in such a
Bill as would obviate the present motion.—(Hear.)
Lord ASHLEY said that he regretted that a different
course had not been adopted, so as to preclude the ne-
cessity of such a motion. He was fully convinced that
the .Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Horsman) did not ob-
ject to a distribution, for he knew that it was a proper
distribution he (Mr. Horsman) sought for. He ad-
mitted also that the purpose for which the Bishop of
Durham deposited this yearly accumulation of money in
she had. Qf trust 06 MAO kll9l7Di sad OM it 0119144