The Sun.
London, England, 1836-07-09 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, JULY 9, .1836.

providing for the democracy in the Church. They were
enlarging the ornaments of the edifice, when they ought to
be extending and strengthening the foundation. With re-
spect to translations it was to be remarked that the majo-
rity of those belonging to the Church were opposed to, and
Doctor Burton, of Oxford, declared that he never yet
had found a single clergyman who was an advocate for
translations. He confessed that he could not consider the:
measure then submitted to them as a measure of rea'
Church Reform. They ought to look more to the demo
cracy of the Church than they had done.
Sir LOVE PARRY knew, he said, of a Right Rev.
Prelate, in whose diocese was the Cathedral town that he
represented. That Right Rev. Prelate had not an income
beyond 3,8001., and he had announced in an address to his
clergy, that he had no desire to be translated from that
diocese.
Mr. IVA SON observed that if all the patronage now
7 in the hands of the bishops were placed in the hands
Commissioners, a fund would be provided sufficient to in-
crease small livings and for the building of churches. H€
could not see why this ought not to be done. The bishops
said their incomes varied from 4,0001. to 5,0001, a year.
For a bishop, he thought, 4,5001. a year ought to be suffi-
cient. The extra 5001. a year would form a surplus, from
which spiritual aid might be provided for 136,000 of the
King's subjects. He thought they ought not to proceed
farther with this Bill.
Mr. HARLAND observed that the Bill proposed to
them was founded on three Reports, and they had only two
of those Reports before them. Under these circumstances
he thought the Bill ought to be postponed to the next ses-
sion. He hoped the House would not sanction the taking
away 10,0001. a year from the diocese of Durham until the
spiritual wants of the people of that diocese were fully
provided for.
Mr. HUME wished to enter his protest against this
Bill, at the same time he was not at all desirous to stop ;
because, so far as it went, it was good. He protested,
however, against it as a settlement of the question. It was
allowed that the Deans and Chapters had enormous in-
comes, and, in connection with that fact, he thought they
were bound to consider how they could deal with the ques-
tion of Church-rates.---( Hear, hear.) As his Majesty's
Government had pledged themselves to a reform as to
Church-rates, the public expected and hoped they would
have the courage to make such a proposition. That House
would support them. Every day the feeling respecting
Church-rates was becoming stronger, and he assured his
Majesty's Ministers that neither eould Church-rates be
paid out of the Consolidated Fund ; and to go on with
them, as they were now, was impossible.—(Hear, hear.)
Why not provide for Church-rates out of the sinecures of
the Church ? The Noble Lord stated his wish to continue
the connection between Church and State. Unless the
Noble Lord put an end to Church-rates, questions would
be constantly arising which would risk that connection.—
(Hear, hear.) It was to be remarked that the revenues of
the bishops were not simply from 4,0001. to 5,000/. ; but a
bishop, by the patronage in his power, could provide for all
his relatives in the male and female line. He could not
allow the Bill to pass without entering his protest against it.
Sir R. PEEL remarked that upon the proposal of the
Noble Lord to go into Committee, a motion was made and
seconded to prevent the translation of bishops. The Hon.
Gentlemen who proposed and seconded the amendment
confined themselves strictly to the merits of the amendment
they supported. All those who supported them, in his
opinion rather strayed away from the amendment.—(Hear,
hear.) With respect to the case of the see of Durham, as
oe did not see that it had any necessary relation to the ques-
tion at large, he could not discuss it at present. He thought
however, that before the question was debated further, it
would be very convenient to know whether the Hon. Mem-
ber intended to press his motion to a division or not.
Mr. LUSHINGTON said it certainly was his inten,
ion to press his motion to a division.

Sir it PEEL in that case should certainly adhere to
the Bill of the Noble Lord, because he cordially approved,
in the main, of the principle upon which it was framed. He
did not believe that there were any sincere friends of the
Church, more desirous to clear it from its imperfections,
and to place it upon a reformed footing, than the bishops
who composed the late ecclesiastical Commission. The
whole conduct of those bishops showed how desirous they
were to give practical efficiency to their views of remedial
measures ; they unhesitatingly followed the example just
set them by the then Ministry, and relinquished a large
share of patronage, in order that it might be applied to
purposes of general utility. The Honourable Member
for Liverpool, in the course of the present debate,
had endeavoured to raise a distinction bcween what
he was pleased to term the aristocracy and the
democracy of the Church, and seemed to assume
that clergymen in the lower stations of the Church had no
interest in the emoluments attached to the higher prefer-
ments. Now this was a position which he (Sir R. Peel)
must unhesitatingly deny. He maintained, on the contrary,
that by upholding the dignity and the emoluments of the
higher offices in the Church, they were also defending the
interests and the rights of the so-called democracy of
churchmen. When they read the names, and recollected
the history of those pious men, who had risen by the force
of their intrinsic merit and extreme learning to the highest
dignities in the Church, would the House require any fur-
ther argument to show that there was no real line of de-
marcation between the democracy and the aristocracy of
the Church ?—(Hear, hear, hear.) He maintained that
by holding out those high offices to the emulation of the
clergy at large, as a reward for distinguished merit or ex-
traordinary service, they were encouraging a very laudable,
and, at the same time, a cheering spirit of ambition amongst
them. No doubt considerable inequality existed in the
emoluments of the different bishoprics ; but he apprehended
that, from the peculiar usages and customs in different sees,
and the difference in expense attendant upon them, that
inequality was less in reality than was generally reported.
But there was another point of view in which he thought
this subject should be considered. It appeared to him
that by allowing of some degree of inequality between the
different sees, they would assimilate the Church Establish-
ment in some degree to the other civil institutions of the
country, and with an evident advantage not only to the
Church but to the country itself. Certain he was that
the system of unequal division had not been countenanced,
either by preceding Governments or by the present Go-
vernment, with any view to influence the Bishops in their
political conduct by the hope of promotion.—(Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Gentleman spoke against the propriety of hold-
ing out an object of ambition to the Bishops. Now, this
involved a question of great importance, which ought not to he
hastily decided, namely, whether the bishops ought or ought
not to be wholly excluded from all voice and participation in
political m itt-Ts, and all share i ithe management of the
civil affairs of the country. For his own part he was free
to declare that he believed, that on the whole it was of
great advantage to the country that the bishops were per-
mitted, under certain restrictions, to take part and hold an
interest in the general affairs of the community. He be-
lieved, that if the country were to have a class of ecclesias-
tics who were to be totally disconnected from all concern
in civil affairs, and altogether removed from politics, it would
also have an infinitely less enlightened, and an infinitely
less liberal body of men, in every respect, with less capacity
for the religious duties of their station, than it had at pre-
sent. The Hon. Gentleman further complained that
the Government in power, for the time being, always se-
lected their own friends for promotion to a vacant see.
Now, that appeared to him (Sir R. Peel) to be a very na-
tural consequence, from parties in power having the choice
at all in such matters.—( Hear, hear! from the back Minis-
terial benches.) Yes, he maintained that it was a very
natural, and he did not think a very blameable, course of
proceeding. With respect to the Bill now before the

Douse, it was undoubtedly a great measure of reform, and
one the more likely to be of permanent utility, because it
had to a great extent been brought about through the
cheerful co-operation of the ecclesiastical body themselves,
and because it had been framed with a friendly regard to
the safety of the whole Church Establishment. He believed
there was no desire on the part of the Bishops to maintain
the system of pluralities ; at the same time, the necessity,
which every one must be aware of, of providing for 'the
duties of certain smaller livings, must render it impracti-
cable entirely to abolish that practice. He believed that
the point to which the present Bill went in that particular,
was the very utmost extent which, with safety to the
Church Establishment, could be attempted.
Mr. T. B. LENNARD complained that the Bill only
provided one course of proceeding against a clergyman for
non-residence ; namely, at the hands of the bishop, or at
least through his permission ; he hoped that in Committee
the Bill would be altered in this particular.
Sir R. H. INGLIS said that by reference to the list of
promotions for late years at least, it would be seen that a
majority of them had been generally in favour of what bad
just been termed the democratic portion of the clergy.
With respect to translations also, it should be recollected
that the expenses attendant upon them were very great,
often sufficient to swallow up the whole first year's income.
Mr. A. TREVOR should certainly vote against the
motion of the Hon. Member for Ashburton. The Hon.
Member then defended the practice of translations, as a
great advantage to the zealous performance of the duties of
the Church—provided they were not so frequent as to
render the Bishop indifferent to the charge in his hands.
After a few words from Lord EBRINGTON, which
were not heard,

Mr. F. BUXTON complained that the present measure
did not go far enough ; much more would be required be-
fore they could hope to obtain for this country any thing
like a substantial Church Reform. He maintained that
before they consented by the present Bill to give the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury 15,0001. a year, and the Bishop of
London 10,0001. a year, the house should take care that
after so doing they would leave enough to provide a decent
and adequate maintenance for the lower orders of the clergy.

The House should call to mind that there were 300 clergy
whose aggregate income did not amount to 15,000/. a year,
some of whom had barely 2s. Bd. a day to live upon. He
had recently read the report of a Society having the bene-
volent purpose of affording relief to the distressed clergy ;
and when he read it stated with what heartfelt thanks
trifling sums of 51. and 10/. had been received, it served to
convince him what real objects of commiseration there
must be amongst that class of persons. Another report
which he had read, and which he was almost ashamed
to allude to, called for contributions of cast-off clothes,.
which it appeared were gratefully received by these
meritorious and ill-paid individuals.—(Hear, hear.) There
was the greatest disproportion between the population
and stipends of the clergy in various districts throughout
the country. Much complaint had lately been made of
that clause in the Irish Church Bill by which the income
of the clergy of that Church was proportioned to the mem-
bers connected with it in each parish. Now he ventured
to say that if the principle of the clause were adopted with
respect to the English Church, the effect would be to
double the stipends of upwards of 2,000 individuals. The
large incomes of the Bishops should be cut down, in consi-
deration of the wants of the Church ; and the main princi-
ple of the Irish Church should be applied to the Church of
this country—namely, an apportionment of stipend in ac-
cordance with the duties which were to be performed by
the clergy.—(Hear, hear, hear.) It was commencing at
the wrong end to make a provision for the Bishops before
all other considerations. He felt the more strongly on this
part of the question because he had been told that there
were in a district in London with which he was acquainted
70,000 persons, for whom no religious instruction was pro-
vided. He had inquired into the truth of this statement,
and he ascertained that, making every conceivable allow-
ance, there were 60,000 persons who could by no possibility,
and upon no emergency of circumstances, receive any re-
ligious instruction. He thought, then, that the desirable
objects which he had pointed out might be fully accom-
plished by the reduction of the incomes of the bishops, and
by private and public subscriptions. He was willing to
give the members of the Commission credit for a conscien-
tious conviction that in the reforms which they proposed
they were consulting the best interests of the Church ; but
there was one recommendation made by them to which he
could not extend that expression of approval, and of which
he felt bound to complain. He alluded to the assignment
of salaries to the deans and canons. Now, the Dean of
Chester was to have 440/. a year, and the canon 187/. ;
whilst the Dean of Durham was to be allowed 4,594/. a
year, and each of the canons 2,0001. a year. In other
words, a Dean of Durham was made worth ten Deans of
Chester, and a Canon of Durham equal to a dozen Canons
of Chester.—(Hear, hear, hear.) It was, in his opinion,
very unjustifiable that such anomalies 'as those to which he
had referred should be suffered to exist. There was ano-
ther point to which he wished to address himself. He
considered it undoubtedly important that the salaries of
the bishops and clergy should be determined upon ; but he
looked upon it as a matter of still deeper concern to decide
who should be appointed to a bishopric or benefice. He
did not agree with the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel)
that politics ought not to be excluded when the choice of
a bishop was to be made. Neither did he think that pro-
motion in the Church ought to depend on connection with
some noble family, or on the political aid afforded in some
Parliamentary struggle, or on the circumstance of an indi-
vidual happening to be a tutor to some Member of a Ca-
binet ; for a man might make an admirable tutor, and yet
be a very poor clergyman or bishop. None of these con-
siderations should be made the sole test of a person's
qualification for such offices. He begged in what he had
stated not to be understood as alluding to any modern ap-
pointments. Though willing to believe that the Commis-
sioners desired to effect a reform in the Church, yet he
could not shut his eyes to such a fact as that to which he
had referred—that there was a bishopric with 15,0001. a
year, and that some of the clergy had less than 501. a
year.. He warned the Government and the House against
the effects of tardy legislation where a grievance existed
and called foe prompt redress. Such a system of legisla-
tion had lost them America. Should they unfortunately
determine to delay the real reform of the Church for a
much longer period, he greatly feared that the conse-
quences (which he for one did not at all desire) would
soon follow—that it would be reformed with a vengeance.
—(Hear.)
Mr. GOULBURN observed that the Hon. Member
had omitted to state that 150,0001. had been taken from
the higher livings and sinecures of the Church, in order
better to provide for the religious instruction of the people.
--(Hear, hear.) With regard to what had been said by
the Hon. Gentlemanan as to the circumstances which were
considered, in the Hon. Gentleman's opinion, essential to
advancement in the Church, he did not hesitate to say
that there were no bishops of any Church, no matter how
selected, who were more free from the imputation of having
attained to their station through political influence, or who
were more remarkable for their attachment to their reli-
gious duties. The proposition, however, which filled him
with most astonishment in the observations of the Hon.
Gentleman was his recommendation that the operation of
the present Bill should be limited to one year.—(Hear,
hear.) What object could there be in making the experi-
ment of altering all the incomes of those who belonged to
the Church, if, at the end of a year, they were again to re-
ceive their present incomes ? If he (Mr. Goulburn)
thought that there was another arrangement required for
promoting still further than the present Bill the instruction
of the destitute classes, he would still give his ready assent
to the present measure, which had been approved of by
the heads of the Church, and which exceeded the expecta-
tions of all those whose object was to reform and not de-
stroy the establishment ?—Hear, hear.)
Mr. F. BUXTON explained.
Mr. POULTER, though he would be the most ungrate-
ful of men if he did not entertain a sincere respect and ve-
neration for the Established Church, yet could not help
saying that the emoluments derived from the Church were
very unequally divided, and that some of the incomes were
more befitting temporal princes than spiritual pastors. The
great principle from which the friends of the Church should
never have departed, and to which they ought as speedily
as possible return, was this--to connect the Established
Church with the population of the country, and wherever
there were inhabitants let there be also a Church.
Mr. C. BULLER took the same view of the subject that
had been taken by the Hon. Member for Weymouth, and
maintained that the Bill was miserably deficient as a mea-
sure of Church Reform. There was throughout the coun-
try a strong, earnest, and sober desire for the Reform of
the Church ; and the people would never be satisfied till
such a Reform was effected. As to what the Hon. Gen-
t'emen on the other side of the House called the great
prizes of the Church, and lauded as such, they were, in his
his opinion, great sources of political jobbing. As to the
13.11, in his opinion, it would be much better to withdraw
it : and by the next Session, his Majesty's Ministers might,
perhaps, be able to prepare a Bill which would prove a real
and permanent measure of Reform of the Church of
England.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that undoubtedly the withdrawing of the Bill might lead to
this advantageous result, that it would give the Hon. Mem-
ber an opportunity of rendering himself acquainted with
the Report of the Commissioners, and the measure founded
upon it, which it was evident he had not yet done.---(A
Ilugh.) If the House were to be guided by the statement
of the Hon. Gentleman, they would believe that the only
object of the Report and the Bill was to place the lower
bishoprics on a level in point of emolument with the higher.
Now that was not a candid statement. It kept out of sight
the fact that the Bill restored a number of benefices which
were at present held in COMMendal7l to the working clergy.
It enacted also, that all that remained after duly providing
fir the cathedral services should be applied to the general
diffusion of religious instruction. He (the Chancelor of
the Exchequer) rejoiced that such a measure, enforcing such
a sysi.em, had been introduced into Parliament with the

consent of the high authorities of the Church.

Mr. LUSHINGTON should persevere in his amend-
rnent.

The House then divided—
For the amendment
Against it ,.... 124
Majority
Leave was then given to bring in the. Bill ; which was
brought in accordingly, and read a first time.
ESTABLISHED CHURCH BILL.
The motion, for the House to resolve itself into a Com-
mittee on this Bill, having been put,
Mr. TREVOR expressed his regret that he must op-
pose the Speaker's leaving the chair. It was notorious
that the Bill went to abstract a large annual revenue from
the see of Durham, and did not confer any local benefit in
return. Strongly opposed, therefOre, to what he conceived
to be an act of gross injustice towards his constituents, he
would move, as an amendment, that the Bill be committed
on that day six months.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL intimated his intention to di-
vide the House upon the point..
Mr. G. F. YOUNG could not support the Hon. Mem-
ber's proposition.

.
Mr. LAMBTON supported the motion.
Sir 11. WILLIAMSON supported the motion upon
similar grounds.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL, said the same argument
might be made available, if admitted now, to put off the
principle altogether, not only in reference to Durham but
to the whole country.
Mr. POTTER said he was favourable to delay, but for
very different reasons from those stated by the Hon. Mem-
ber for Durham. The Bill now before the House was very
advantageous to the Established Church, and would greatly
tend to and consolidate it. That was 'evident from
the support it had received from the Hon. Gentlemen, the
Members for the University of Oxford and Cambridge,