The Sun.
London, England, 1838-05-03 00:00:00

THE CHURCH.

Our esteemed correspondent, " A Churchman." has ad-
dressed another letter to Mr. Thomas Buncombe on the tick-
lish subject of the motives by which so many distinguished
dignitaries of the Church could have been induced to consent
to 1., spoliation.
It is quite clear 'hit the interest of the Church, apart
from that of incumbents, was not consulted in the various acts
by which so many large estates were transferred for ever from
the establishment to individuals. But without we can obtain
access to the records, as indicated by our correspondent, we
can only guess at the motives of the reverend guardians in
these questionable transactions. Perhaps, however, we may
be assisted in our guesses by a fact stated yesterday by the
Examiner, that—
" It appears by probate at Doctor's Commons, that since
1818 the personal property of twenty-four English Bishops
who have died within the last twenty years amounts to the
enormous sum of one million six hundred and forty-nihe
thousand pounds, or an average of nearly seventy thousand
pounds for each Bishop. This, however, is merely the per-
sonal property as sworn to (and sworn to, in all probability,
rather under than over the mark), and the value of the real
property remains to be conjectured, and also the amount of
dowers to daughters, and gifts during the lifetime of the holy
men to sons, nephews, &c. The value of the real property
which does not a?pear may safely be inferred to exceed by far
that of the personal, for the Bishops would naturally rather
avoid the public display of their vast accumulations in the
shape of personal property coming under public view in the
probates at Doctors' Commons. But in many cases we are
not left to conjecture, for it is known that the real property
was very considerable of Barrington, Cornwallis, Sparkes,
and Tomline—the last very great."
The Bishops, however, are only one class of the Church
robbers. If we could have a similar account from Doctors'
Commons of the personal property of the other dignitaries
who have lent themselves to the sacrilegious alienations we
might be still better able to understand this very ticklish
question.
In the early periods of Christianity it was understood that
a Bishop ought not to lay up to his own use any of the pro-
perty of the Church which passed through his hands ; and
though the practice of Bishops, during the last century at
least, has not been exactly in accordance with the notions of
primitive Christianity, yet the period is not remote since they
shrunk from the open justification of possessing great wealth.
Dr. King, in his Memoirs, names several Bishops, and
among others Sherlock, of London, as bringing disgrace
on their order, by " being shamefully rich ; and Law,
Bishop of Elphin, the brother of the late Lord Ellen-
borough, is reported at a dinner of the Episcopal Bench to
have alluded, in the presence of Bishop Porter, to a calumny
in circulation against him, that he was worth a couple of hun-
dred thousand pounds, and expressed ironically a disbelief of
it as no Christian Bishop could possibly defile himself with the
accumulation of such a treasure. But Dr. Law's reprobation
was limited to accumulations from legitimate sources. He
could not even contemplate the possibility of such instances
of episcopal sacrilege as those detailed by our correspondent.
When Dr. Chalmers next enlarges on the immense advan-
tages of an establishment, as supplying the ducts by which the
gospel is conveyed to the remotest villages throughout the
csuntry, it would not be amiss if lie were to inquire how
how in England the idea of religion has come to be so fre-
quently dissociated from that of an establishment. Perhaps he
will find that this has been in no small degree owing to the
ducts conveying the property so frequently to the pockets of
men clothed in purple and fine linen, who fare sumptuously
every day, while the Pagans of Wales and other remote dis-
tricts derived no benefit from the property. In Ireland
the clergy of the Established Church have (with the excep-
tion of Bishop Bedel and a few others) not even attempted
the conversion of the natives. In Wales the people were
equally neglected by the establishment, and we owe it entirely
to the efforts of the Dissenters (principally the Baptists, we
believe) that Christianity in any shape found its way to the
heetts of the people. Dr. Chalmers will find that it is be-
cause the object for which the sacred property was provided
has been lost sight of, that the idea he combats has gained
ground. No one disapproves of the object for which property
has been confided to the establishment; but the misapplication
of the funds has led many to doubt whether the object in
question can be best attained by means of an establishment.
Be this as it may, our correspondent, " A Churchman,"

has rendered a most important service to religion by pointing
out, as he has done, the iniquitous eollusidns between the

heads of the Church and the aristocracy of the country, by
which the means of communicating religious instruction to the
• people have been so signally impaired. He has show that the
most dangerous enemies of religion are within the bosom of the
Church itself.—illorning Chronicle.
TO T. S. DUNCOMBE, ESQ., NI. P., &c. &c. &c.
Sits—l find there is much hesitation, on the part of many
of what may be called the timid members of our establish-
ment, and whose doubts arc encouraged and promoted by in-
terested and designing parties, to give credit to what are de-
signated calumnies on the Church in the petition of your con-
stituents, on the ground, as it is emphatically demanded, of
what motive could actuate the members so to desecr.:to the pro-
perty which they were bound by every tie, human and divine,
to cherish and protect. It may, therefore, not be unprofitable
at this moment to point at the reasons that may by possibility
have moved the reverend guardians of the estates mentioned
to assist in the alienation of the immense amount therein re-
ferred to.

I. Tottenhall.—Dr. Richard Brown, the prebend, had
granted a lease of this estate for three lives, and received " a
very large fine" for the lease, ache rent of 461. per annum,
which amount was all that he could then hope to receive
from the estate during the remainder of his life. The lessee
was the brother of the Prime Minister. The Bishop of Lon-
don was made by the Minister, and the Prebend by the
Bisieev; and 300/. per annum was certainly an equivalent to
Dr. Brown for his expectations. But what could actuate
the Bishop and tha Dean and Chapter to consent to, and con-
nive at, this sacrilege, can only bo explained by the South-
ampton records.
2. Finsbury.—Dr. Richard Wilson, on his appointment to
this prebend, found the estate leased to the Corporation of
London, at tlee rent of 391. 13s. 4d. per annum, and which
lease had then fourtszte years to run, till the end of which
period Dr. Wilson could' reap do further emolument; and, at
the end, the Corporation of London lost the whole of their
interest. The motives that actuated these parties to cancel
the existing lease and petition for an Act of Parliament,
whereby they divided five-sixths of this estate between them,
leaving only one sixth to the church, can easily be compre-
hended; font how a Bishop could be prevailed upon to censent
to, or a Dean arel Chapter to connive at, such a robbery, the
records of the City Chamber only can explain.
3. hake-Newington.—'file Rev. Thomas Briggs, then
prebend, had, in the year 181`?, granted a lease of this estate
for three lives, at the yearly rent of 281.: the fine received
for this is not. mentioned. to the year 1814 he obtained the
As:: of the tilth of Ge -rge 111., chap. 128, which authorised
Ore saerlee of two-thirds of the estate for ever, to
retoke'immediale possession of the remaining third, the value
of which third was 23,6:.'01
4. Cantrows. or Kentishtovv-n.—Dr, Hamilton, the prebend
in 1780, had leased this estate for tbree Nes, at the yearly
rent of 4.3101 In 1805 he obtained the Act of the 45th of
George 111., chap. 110, to which I would call the attention
of the Church, the State, and the public. it is really an
Act for the good of the Church and the successors, and is the
only one I have met with is my researches through
the reco:ds of Parliament ; and there was nothing
further required for the improvement of the estate.
The Reverend 'Themes Randolph appears to have
succeeded to this prebend in 1812, at vs hich time the
three lives of the lease of 1780 were in existence, and
the receipts from the estate conscqu"ntly only 431. lOs
per annum.. Prebendary Rendolph the 15th of April,
1813, obtained the Act of 511 George 111.. chap. 49, which
enabled him, by sacrificing two-thirds of this estate fiur ever,
to take immediate possession of the remaining third, li:e
value
of which was about 1,0001 per annum. Now, we tan guess
at the motive foe th:s, and as the reverend gentleman is still
in possession of this third, be will be able to explain to the
Committee of Inq&ry the advantage that has acerued to the
Church and his successors by the desecration of the other two-
thirde.

5. Mors.—Dr. W. 1-I,!rringham. then prebend, on the 3d
of May, 1816, granted a lease of this estate for forty yowl, at
the yearly rent of 101., receiving as a fine 9.6451. 93. On the
7th of July, 1817, he obtained the Act of 57 Geo. 111., chap.
33, which enabled him by the sacrifice of eighteen twenty-
fifths of this-estate for ever to take immediate possession of
the remaining seven, the value of which was about 8001. per
annum. Here again the motive is apparent.
6. Ilrownswood.—Preb.2ndary George Seeker, on the 61h
of March, 1821, granted a lease: of this estate for twenty.one
years, at the yearly rent of 11)/ , ree,•ising a very large fine.
Four months after, viz., on the 10th of July, Ig2l, he obtained
the Act of 1 and 2 Geo. IV., cap. 44, whereby he sacrificed
for ever fourteen twenty-fifths of this estate that he might re.
take immediate possession of the remaining eleven, valued at
about 6001. per annum. Can the motive be doubt.:;;
7. Wenlodes Barn.—Prebendary Het-bert Oakcley, on the
Ist of August, 1325, granted a h ase of this estate for twenty-
one years, at the yearly rent of 211 Gs. Bd. ; the fine re-
ceived is not m,ntiened. Ten months after, viz ,on the 26tli
of May, 1826, lie obtained tin: Act of the 7th of Gco. IV.,
ynap. 3S, which ;.uthorised him to receive ?raw the funds be.

longing to the estate then in Chancery the sum of t 9,400/., to
re-purchase the lease, and to xlispose of the whole of the estate
for ninety-nine years. It appears that shat now remains of
I.l!is vtate valued at 7751 per annum ; but as pi;e Reverend
Prehent.L7.7 is still in possession, he will be able to explain to
(:%e, arn°mt n i7t he adn
e (3'lvnalut!,:-Y' -
)(41)12i
R.motives for petitioning for
that will ,f-erve therefrom to the
Church arzl hie successors.
8. Paddington.—Dr. Beilby Porteus 1316% °I.
London 41 1792, and found this estate under a lease :O. r"
lives, at the yearly Tint of 431. fis. 81 In the same year he
obtained the Act of 35 Ceo. 111., cap. 83, which enabled
him, by the sacrifice of two-thirds of this estate for ever, to
take immediate possession of the other third.
3. Shadwell,—The Dean of St. Paul's, Dr. George Tom_
line, Bishop of Lincoln, on the 7th of A pi il, 1812, leased this
estate for forty years, The fine received itt not mentioned.

On the 22d of July, hi the same year, he obtained the Act of
52 Geo. 111., cap. 205, whereby he alienated sir-sevenths of
this estate from the Church for ever; and by tho I Geo. IV.,
cap. 41, the reservation of the remaining seventh is repealed.
The motives of these Right Reverends cannot be doubted. I
Thus do we find among the highest and those esteemed the •
most holy, the same reckless desecrntion of this sacred pro-
perty for ever, by the trustees in possession, for transient,
selfish motives, alike outrages to religion, morality, honour,
and honesty; and the like procoedings, so far as regards the
interests of the Church and religion, characterise the greater.
part of the dealings in all Church property. It is a race in
which the reverend dignitaries make good the adage—`• The
devil take the hindmost " Woe to the Church that perseveres
in such a system; and to the State that permits it !
The interests of tie Church, the lessees, the State, and the
public are all equally concerned in a full and searching investi—
g..-Ition into these aliases ; the opposers of such an inquiry are
the friends of neither, and wherever they appear let them be
noted as sudh. - This will lead to a proper understanding of
the case in all its bearings, and a plan may without difficulty
be arranged that will equally embrace the true interests, and
satisfy the expectations of all parties.—l am, Sir, &c.
A CHURCHMAN.

SEC O N

SC N OFFICE, Seven o' Cock

ELECTION COMMITTEES.
(THIS DAY.)

HULL:

The Committee mct at eleven o'clock, but strangers were not zd.
mitted till af,er twelve, when
The CIILIRNIAN said the Committee had decided the vote of Charles
Lesty was a had vote, a:A must be struck off:

The votes of William Wilkinson and John Allen were also struck off'.

The petitioners now having placed themselves in a majority, Mr.
Theisiger, on the putt of the sitting Members, proposed to strike off' the
vote of William Barker, who had voted as a freeman, on the ground
that he had received parochial relief within the last twelve months.
Mr. AUSTIN objected to this, and contended theta had been no proper
1;:t furnished by the agent for the sitting Members, there having
Men an error in the heading of the List. •

Mr. TIIESSIGER was addressing the Committee in answer to this (b.
jectlon, when it was announced that the Speaker was at prayers.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT,

(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his scat on the Woolsack at Five
o'Clock.

Mr. BERN 1L and others, from the Commons, brought up a copy of the
Report of the Select Committee on the Small Tenements BiU ; also
several private Bills, which were severally read a first time.
The Duke of CLEVELAND presented a petition from Gateshead,
praying for the abolition of the present system of Negro apprenticeship.
The Marquis of SLIGO presented a petition from the High Sheriff'
and Grand Jury of Mayo, against the Irish Poor-law Bill, in the prayer
f which he concurred. He was willing to give to the poor out of his
superabundance, but he did not like the system of giving relief to the
able.bodied. Also petitions for the immediate abolition of Negro
apprenticeship, from Shepton, Whitehaven, Belfast, and many other
places—many of them were signed by women.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from the Roman Ca-
tholic Bishop and other inhabitants of Waterford, praying that in the
Irish Poor Law Bill the word important be substituted for destitute.
The Bishop of EXETER presented a petition from an indi-
vidual, complaining that the bodies of paupers who had been
dissected were not decently buried, but were thrown together promiscu.
ously. The petitioners had found eut a method for promoting the rapid
decomposition of bodies. He would move that it be laid on the table,
and then he would follow that up by moving that it be referred to the
Pcor-law Committee.

• Earl RADNOR could not see what connection the petition had with
the Poor-law Bill. It could only have been presented for the purpose of
casting obloquy upon that Bill.

The Bishop of EXETER was aware that it had not anything to do
with the Poor-law Bill, but as the Committee was sitting for the pur-
poses of enquiry, it would be better that enquiry should be made, and if
the allegations were not true, the petitioner ought to meet with merited
punishment.

The Duke of RICHMOND had read over the petition, and he did
not find one word respecting union workhouses in it.
The Bishop of EXETER—I can set the Noble—

The Duke of RICHMOND—One at a time, if the Rev. Prelate
pleases—it is more retilar in this House. It mentions the parish work-
house, but not union workhouses. He thought it would be better that
the Rev. Piela'e should move that the petition be referred to a Select
Committee, to he appointed for the purpose of specially inquiring into
the facts of the petition.

The Bishop of EXETER would certainly press his motion.
Lord MELBOURNE conceived that the Rev. Prelate ought to make
inquiry, and make out a case, before the House referred the petition to
a Committee, which he had not yet done. The Rev. Prelate anxiously
wished it to be understood that he was not in any way answerable for
the allegations in the petition, and it was not usual for either House of
Parliament to grant Committees upon such loose allegations made by
an unknown party.

The Earl of RADNOR and Lord WHARNCLIFFE deprecated th•
sent;ing of the petition to the Poor Law Committee—it was rather an
attack upon the Anatomy Bill of a former Session, and had nothing at
al! to do with the operation of the Poor Law Bill.
The Bishoo of Exeter said, as his motion met with so much opposi-
tion, he would w:thdraw it.
CHURCH COMMIS-4.0N.

The Bishop of EXETER wished to ask the Noble Viscount at the
he,d of her Majoßty's Government whether it was the intention of Mi-
n'cers to proceed with the Riffs for carrying into effect the rec ,namen-
dat ort of the Church Commissioners this Session ?

Viscount MELIV)UItNF. replied in the affirmative. The rlurali-
t ei Bill and the Bill for the regulation of Church leases under Deane and
Chapters would be introduced as speedily as the other business would
permit.