The Sun.
London, England, 1836-07-15 00:00:00

STAMP-DUTIES BILL.

On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
CHEQUER, the Committee on the Stamp-duties Bill was
postponed until Monday next.
ESTABLISHED CHURCH BILL.

The Report on this Bill having been brought up,
Mr. ESTCOURT gave notice that, on the third read-
ing, he should move the insertion in the preamble of the
name of the late Bishop of Durham, the Right Rev. William
Van Mildert.

Lord J. RUSSELL thought there were technical ob-
jections to such a motion ; but would reserve his observa-
tions until the Bill arrived at the stage mentioned.
Mr. CAYLEY objected to the manner in which this
and other measures relating to the Established Church had
been hurried through the House. He thought that in

these days it was a monstrous thing to grant the revenues
of the see of Durham to the support of the College, with-
out opening it to all classes of the King's subjeets.
Mr. LENNARD concurred in the observations just
made by his Hon. Friend ; and added, that his were also
the opinions of the inferior clergy of the diocese of Durham.
Mr. POULTER must object to a measure founded on
principles contrary to those which were indispensable to the
final and satisfactory settlement of the great question at
issue. If the House called before them the necessary evi-
dence, they would find that there might be derived from
the income of the dignitaries of the Church a large surplus
that might be more advantageously employed. He was
convinced that no less a sum than 25,0001. might be de-
rived from that source, with which forty or fifty benefices
might be created in populous districts in which they were
needed. Why not, also, release Archbishops, and Bishops in-
dividually from all temporal matters, such as granting leases,
&c., and allow them to devote themselves exclusively to
spiritual concerns, by vesting the estates of the Church in a
Board of Archbishops and Bishops ? Let his Majesty's
Ministers, who were no doubt honourably ambitious of
fame for their political conduct, add to it the fame which
would attend measures in which the real interests of the
Church were consulted. As the Church of England now
stood, it was evidently declining. There was another point
that demanded attention. If they wished to conciliate the
Dissenters, and to draw to the Church of England those
who were at present in communion with it, let them look a
little to the Liturgy and Articles of that Church. Let
them consider whether they might not advantageously ex-
punge the Anathanasian Creed, and some of the Articles ;
for instance, that which spoke of works as splendid sins.
Mr. PLUMPTRE did not say that the Church was
faultless, but he did say that the assertion of the Hon.
Member for Shaftesbury, that it was on the decline, was
unfounded.
Mr. C. BULLER complained of the manner in which
so important a measure was hurried through Parliament.
Mr. ROBINSON was a great friend to the Establish-
ment of the Church of England, but did not think that
this Bill was at all calculated to conduce to its real and
permanent benefit. He was decidedly opposed to the
translation of bishops, to the small stipends of some of the
working clergy, to pluralities, and to non-residence ; and
although he did not agree with the Hon. Member for
Shaftesbury in all respects, he admitted the justice of his
observation, that we ought to take such steps as might
conciliate and attract those who were not of our com-
munion. For the attainment of all the objects to which
he had alluded, the Bill fell short of providing adequate
means. He wished the archbishops and bishops to be duly
provided for ; but lie never could believe that their present
splendid revenues could conduce to the benefit of the
Church itself. So far from it, in his opinion they did that
Church great harm. He regretted, also, that the motion
which had recently been made in that House for the aboli-
tion of the translation of bishops had been rejected. He
should like to see the measure postponed to another
session.
Mr. HUME would put this single proposition to the
Noble Lord who had the charge of this Bill. That' Noble
Lord had postponed the Church-rates Bill to next session,
on the ground that there was no time for it ; and yet that
referred only to the appropriation of about 250,0001. Now
if there was not time for that minor measure, he put it to
the Noble Lyrd how there could be time for the present
larger and more important measure ? How could the
Noble Lord think of passing, in so hurried a manner, a
Bill which allowed the Church Commissioners to do what
they pleased ? He had, not half an hour ago, received a
resolution, signed by the united Committee of Dissenters,
and which embodied all the opinions that he (Mr. Hume)
had expressed on the subject. (The Hon. Gentleman here
read the resolution.) He could see no reason why an
Archbishop of Canterbury should have 15,0001. a year ; or
why the bishops should have more than 3,0001. or 4,000/.
a year, as the judges had, except as a matter of whim.
He would move as an amendment, that the report be read
a second time that day six months.
Sir ROBERT PEEL was of opinion that his Majesty's
Government, having duly considered what were the best
means of securing a measure of practical Church reform,
had had actually brought forward a measure of great prac-
tical reform. If the House rejected the Bill, they would
reject a great benefit. If, for instance, the House rejected
the Bill, they would enable his Majesty's Government, in
the event of a vacancy occurring in the diocese of London,
to appoint a bishop who would retain all the emoluments
that at present belonged to that see. If the House agreed
to press that Bill they would 'establish the principle that
the maximum revenue of the Bishop of London should not
exceed 10,000/. a-year. He (Sir R. Peel) cordially ap-
proved of the course to be taken by the King's Govern-
ment on the present occasion. He apprehended that the
Bill proceeded upon the principle that the bishops were to
continue to sit in the House of Lords.—(Hear, hear.) If
that were the fact, he thought that the House, when it
came to consider the expenses to which the bishops were
subjected from the necessity of residing a portion of the
year in London, independent of the claims upon their cha-
rity and benevolence, would see that the amount of emo-
lument proposed by this Bill to be left to the office of
bishop was by no means extravagant.—(Hear, hear.) An
Hon. Gentleman opposite had asked why the income of
each should not be limited to 4,500/. a year. When
that question was put he thought sufficient consideration

was not given to what must necessarily be the difference in
the expenditure of the holders of different bishoprics-
-4,5001. a year might be an abundant income in one bishop-
ric, whilst in another it would hardly be more than suffi-
cient to provide for the ordinary claims upon the benevo-
lence of the diocesan. Under the provisions of the present
Bill the incomes of the present majority of the bishops
would vary from 4,0001. to 5,0001. a year. The utmost
difference between them would not exceed 7001. or 800/. a
year, yet some of the Hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to
think that they would be sufficient to influence their politi-
cal conduct. He confessed that he could not join in such
extravagant notions of the corruption of human nature.
The amount of fees, and the many other expenses conse-
quent upon the translation of a bishop, would leave so
small a pecuniary inducement to obtain a translation as to
render it extremely improbable that any would sacrifice a
political opinion for the sake of obtaining it. Upon the
whole, he still thought the Bill might be very beneficially,
adopted, and that no delay ought to be opposed to its
progress in the present session.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. POUL TER offered a few words in explanation.
Mr. M. PHILLIPS expressed his determination to sup-
port the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for
Middlesex.

Mr. A. TREVOR should certainly in this instance, if
the motion were pressed, feel himself bound to support the
proposition for delay.
Mr. F. BUXTON'S opposition to the Bill was that it
made no provision for increasing the means of the smaller
clergy, whilst it contained the payment of enormous salaries
to the great dignitaries of the Church.

Lord J. RUSSELL would not again go over the prin-
. eiples of the Bill, which had already been fully stated ; but
there were one or two points which had arisen in the
course of the discussion upon which he thought some little
explanation was required. First, with respect to the time
at which the measure was brought forward. Those Hon.
Gentlemen who had expressed a determination to support
the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Middle-
sex argued as if the House had been taken by surprise
upon the subject. But he begged the House to recollect
that during the administration of the Right Hon. Baronet
(Sir R. Peel) a report was presented to Parliament, and
circulated throughout the country, containing the outline
of the very plan now submitted in the present Bill,
stating generally that the incomes of the two arch-
bishops and of the bishops of Durham, Ely, and London
should be larger than the rest, and that the average income
of the rest should range from 4,0001. to 5,0001. a year.
That being the case, he really must say, that after the lapse
of fifteen months, in the course of which no opposition was
made either by the clergy or by the friends of the Church,
to the proposed plan, it was now rather too much to say
that there could be any surprise at a Bill being brought in
upon the subject.—(Hear.) In the same way with respect
to the alterations proposed in the case of deans and chap-
ters of cathedrals, the outline of the plan proposed to be
pursued with regard to them was agreed to in a report made
by the commissioners, and presented to the House on the
10th of March. That report was immediately circulated
amongst all the Members of the House, and published in
the different newspapers upon the termination of the month.
Upon that point, then, it was equally incorrect to say that
the House could in any way have been taken by surprise.
The Hon. Member for Middlesex had stated as a reason
for not proceeding with the present measure that the ques-
tion of church rates ought first to be settled ; but when the
Hon. Member advanced that as a reason for delay, he
thought he ought to remember that when the measure relating
to church rates was before the House, the argument of the con-
siderable minority who had voted against it was, that the
Legislature was not at that moment aware of the extent of
Church property, and that no Bill, with respect to church-
rates ought to be adopted until the extent of the whole of
the property had been ascertained. Now, however, Hon.
Gentlemen seemed disposed to turn round and to say,
" No ; we we will not consider this measure until the ques-
tion of church-rates has first been determined." There
certainly appeared to him (Lord John Russell) to be some
inconsistency in this.
Mr. HUME—Let, us take them both together?

Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought that the course pro-
posed by Government was by far the fairest and most con-
venient mode of dealing with the question. It was, he must
say, an extravagant hyperbole of the Hon. Member for
Middlesex, to say that this was a Bill to promote the trans-
lation of Bishops.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman,
at the very time he made such an assertion, must be very
well aware that, under the existing system, the incomes of