The Sun.
London, England, 1847-12-15 00:00:00

that troop; and it was alleged he had done that in virtue
of his power as Lord-Lieutenant. But this was not, on the
ono huud, an exercise of his power as Lord-Lieutenant;
nor, on the other, was it an interference with the elec-
tion.—(Hear, hear.) It might be that it was the exer-
cise of a very wanton and oppressive power as against
the Hon. Gentleman the captain of the troop; it might
have shown a feeling not at all honourable; but it was
not a matter into which the House could inquire, with a
view to take any proceedings. The next allegation was
that the Noble Lord had endeavoured to induce a candi-
date, who wished to be a Member of that House, to
withdraw his pretensions. Even if it were proved that
he had paid money fur that purpose, he (Lord J. Rus-
sell) did not know whether it would bear the character
of a corrupt proceeding, so as to bring it within the pro-
vince of any law relating to elections. A further alle-
gation and a grave one was, that Lord Fitzhardinge
"had caused to be paid a large sum of money for pur-
chasing and treating voters, and by an extensively or-
ganized system of personal violence, Bross immorality,
bribery, corruption, and intimidation, had endeavoured
to influence the election for West Gloticestearshiac.e But
that was an allegation which might he;ao been inquired
into in the mode which the House he,-. appointed by sta-
ute, had the petition been presalnted within fourteen
days after the meeting of Parlie.ment.
Mr. WARLEY was unch'..stooti to dissent.
Lord J. RUSSELL safe', if this allegation was inquired
into, it ought to be bd., ire a Committee appointed under
the Act passed two years ago, rather than by a general
Committee of the Tainuse. As it was, the matter would
come before the. Committee which had been regularly
appointed, by the Act of Parliament, for inquiring into
the return. It did not appear, therefore, in this parti-
cular cesae, that there was any reason for appointing a
Committee for the purpose. His Right Hon. Friend
behind him (Sir G. Grey) had just informed him that
the petition against the return was not on the ground of
bribery, but on the ground of want of qualification.—
(Hear, hear.) If so, that would make a difference as to
the means of inquiry before that Committee.—(Hear,
hear.) Certainly, if there were no means for inquiring
into this matter before an Election Committee, that might
be a ground—whether Lord Eitzhardinge was a Peer of
Parliament or not—for appointing a Select Committee.
—(hear.) He confessed he was not sufficiently aware
whether there were the means for so inquiring or not ;
and therefore he should suspend his opinion on the
question.
Mr. H. DRUMMOND said he believed the liberties
of the country were most endangered by the assumption
of extraordinary powers on the part of that House.
Sir F. THESIGER said he hardly understood what
course the Government meant to pursue, the Noble Lord
having stated, after receiving the correction of his Right
Hon. Friend, that ho should suspend his opinion en the
matter.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. and Learned Attor-
ney-General had objected to the inquiry on the ground
that it would bo utterly fruitless—that the House could
not reach the Noble Peer even if ho were pronounced
guilty ; and he had industriously collected precedents
in proof of this. But even if no result could be arrived
at such an inquiry ought not to be stifled.—(Heaqear.)
It would be perfectly idle in the House, having passed
this standing order only a fortnight ago, as soon as a
petition of this kind was presented, the allegations of
which were very strong, to admit that this order was
utterly powerless, and a waste of words. This petition
concerned riot only a Peer, but a Peer who held the re-
sponsible office of Lord-Lieutenant of the county.—
(Hear, hear.) The Attorney-General said he had not
acted as Lord-Lieutenant in coercing the yeomanry, but
only being Lord-Lieutenant—(llear)—consequently
the standing order could not be: enforced against him.
But most certainly, if the standing order had been vio-
lated, it ought to be enforced in this case. There was
one case decidedly in point. In 1701, the Bishop of
Worcester, who was almoner to the Queen, interfered
in the election for Worcestershire, not as the Queen's
almoner, but being the Queen's almoner.—(Hear, hear.)
A petition was presented, on which the House reported,
and addressed her Majesty for his dismissal, which was
granted, her Majesty declaring that she would put some
one else in his office.—(Hear.) Without entering into
the merits of the petition, he must contend that it would
be trifling with the standing orders not to inquire into
this case. It was said it might be left to the ordinary
course of law, by which acts of bribery might be pro--
secuted. This showed that the House had a power of
punishing the Noble Earl if he were guilty, by directing
the Attorney-General to pros:cute, as had been done in
many former cases.—(Hear, hear.) Should the peti-
tioners be able to prove what they alleged, it would be
the exalted and important duty of the House, on account
of the high station of the individual, to pursue the course
it had taken against humble individuals in other cases.
—(Hear, hear.) The House was clearly not so helpless
as the Learned Attorney- General had represented.
Sir G. GREY said he was not at all prepared to deny
that some inquiry ought to take place : but the House
should be cautious in adopting the motion that had been
presented to it. The petition did not subject the par-
ties to any recognisances by stating the petitioners to
be electors. The allegation as to bribery charged Lord
Eitzhardinge with paying and causing to be paid money
for purchasing and treating electors. By the Act 5
and 6 Vict., cap. 102, a tribunal was expressly provided
for investigating charges of this nature, when they
could not be heard before an Election Committee ; and
to this tribunal was referred all petitions presented after
the period for presenting election petitions—that tribu-
nal being the General Committee of Elections, who
were empowered to report upon such petitions. The
case before the House was thus expressly provided for.
Let the petitioners allege themselves electors, and
enter into recognisances, and then their petition
might be entertained.—(Hear.) He had only just
looked into the case ;' and if there was any doubt he
thought it would be better to adjourn the question
for a day or two. The petition, in reciting the order
of the House, referred to the Noble Lord acting as Lord-
Lieutenant ; but there could be no doubt this order re-
ferred to acts done by Noble Lords by virtue of their
office as Lords-Lieutenant. He would move that the de-
bate be now adjourned.—(Uear.)
Sir R. PEEL said it was the practice of the House, in
such cases, to institute immediate inquiry ; but this
ought not to be done without consideration. A tribunal
for examining thes charges had beets expressly provided,
recognisances being required from the complainants ;
and if these preliminaries were dispensed with, it would
go far to break down the existing provision. Such was
the importance of the subject that there would be a great
tendency to present similar petitions if it could be done
without recognisances. The House would act most
wisely to take 24 hours, at all events, to consider what
ought to be done. He, therefore, most heartily seconded
the proposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman.
Mr. WA.KLEY expressed his readiness to consent to
a short adjournment.
The debate was accordingly adjourned till Friday.
THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.
Mr. HORSMAN said he need offer no apology for
bringing under the notice of the House the proceedings
of the Ecclesiastical Commission, at a moment when
both clergy and laity were roused to great activity, and
when all eyes were directed to the proceedings of the
board by whom the ecclesiastical revenues were ad-
ministered. The board was invested with very high
authority, its powers were most extensive, and it would
its
proceedings. sure to command the sympathy of the House in
proceedings. Every generous mind must give them
credit for discharging their duties with scrupulous
fidelity. Nevertheless, he brought forward this motion,
not only without reluctance, but without fear. The
whole case lay in a very small compass, and, in order to
make it clear to the House, he had embodied it in the
resolutions. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners had to
carry into effect the provisions of the Act of 1836; they
were to carry certain reductions in the episcopal incomes
into effect upon the avoidance of the sees. Last year an
important provision of the Act of 1836 was repealed,
and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners stated, in the
other House, that they thought the Act of 1836 went
too far. He thought the privoso that the changes
enacted in 1836 were only to come into operation
on the avoidance of the sees was very objectionable;
for how would those suggestions come before the public?
The Archbishop of Canterbury said that he thought the
revenues of his see much too large, and they ought to be
reduced to 15,0001. a year; and the Bishop of London
thought 10,0001. a year enough for his see; but they
both persisted in retaining their present revenues during
their lives—they would not allow their incomes to be
diminished, although they admitted that they were too
great, and_ought to be curtailed. When the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners proceeded to the discharge of their
duties they were guided by a return of the episcopal in-
comes for three years, ending in 1831, and by the pro-
bable incomes in future years made by the several bishops.
Some of these returns were so extraordinary, that it
looked like a desire to keep tho public in the dark on
the subject. The Archbishop of Canterbury returned his
income at 22,216/. gross, and 19,182/. net; but Dr. Lush-
ington the year before, in 1830, said that the average in-
come of thearchiepiscopal see was 32,0004 Taking, how-
ever, the average of three years,
'ending with 1831, it
seemed,according to the Archbishops return, to have fallen
to 22,0001.; but the Most Rev. Prelate said his futurr income
would be diminished to 17,0001., and the Commissioners
so took it. When he (Mr. Horsman) looked, however,
to the next return of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners,
showing the average of seven years, ending with 1843,
the net income of the Archbishop of Canterbury had
risen to 21,0001., and the gross income to 28,0001. Next
came the return of the Archbishop of York, who made
his income to be 13,0001. gross, and 12,000/. net, and
added that a decrease of at least 201. per cent. must be
expected. Accordingly his future income was set down
at 10,600/. ; but the return made by himself in 1843
showed that his income had risen to 14,550/., an increase
of 40 per cent. over the calculation which he bad made.
Ho now came to the case of the Bishop of London, who
returned his income at 13,900/., and stated that there
must be a decrease, in accordance with which his future
income was estimated at 12,204/. It had risen, however,
by the return of 184.3, to 14,5521. The Right Rev.'
Prelate said in 1831 that the whole prospect of his see
was one of diminution. Now many Hon. Members
must be aware of the Bishop of London's Pad-
dington estate, flanked by the Edgware-road on
the one side and the Uxbridge-road on the other,
upon which an immense number of buildings had
risen up. Was it possible to believe that in
the year 1831, when a return waft deliberately made that
all the prospects of the see of London wore decrease of
income, an idea of all these buildings rising up did not
fit across the mind of the Right Rev. Prelate ?—{Hear.)
Five years before there had been an Act of Parliament
obtained for the express purpose of promoting them.—
(Hear, hear.) The report of the Ecclesiastical Com-
missioners on the 17th of March, 1845, after they had
been erected, reiterated the statement that a diminution
was to be expected, although a great many of the houses
in Hyde-park-terrace and the neighbourhood were in-
habited at the time, and others were in the course of
being built.—(Hear, hear.) Terraces were springing up
in every direction, and a mind of wealth was thus
secured to the Bishop of London which he was almost
afraid to oalculate ; it bad, howayer, been estimated

•
those whom society and even Christianity bad regarded
as outcasts, and of whom it was said:—
" llis the hard duty to reclaim
The reckless son of sin and shames-.
Contermi'd—repulsed—from door to door,
His heavenly message pressed the more
At last prevailed : in him they see
A aympathising poverty.
Like them, by worldlieess iergof,
Neglect and
;overt), his lot,
Tl_Sstr woes, their ways, to him are known,
Alas I for they're his own.
He feels their woes—owns their cares
And all, except their crimes, he shares."
(Cheers.) These were the men whom they ought to
multiply and strengthen—who served as links between
the poor man and the Church.—(Hear, hear.) They
should recollect that every shilling given to the hierarchy
was taken away from the poor clergy, and that it was
their duty, for the sake of these men, and for the sake
of the Church, to see that the revenues of the Church
were justly administered. The lion. Gentleman con-
cluded by moving—
" 1. That the Act 6 and 7 Will. IV., c. 77, contained,
among others, the following enactments: • That in order
to provide for the augmentation of the incomes of the
smaller bishoprics, such fixed annual sums be paid to the
Commissioners out of the revenues of the larger secs
respectively as shall, upon due inquiry and considration,
be determined on, so as to leave as an average annual
income to the Archbishop of Canterbury, 15,0001. ; to
the Archbishop of York, 10,000/. ; to the Bishop of
London, 10,0001.; to the Bishop of Durham, 8,000/. ; to
the Bishop of Winchester, 7,0001. ; to the Bishop of
Ely, 5,5001. ; to the Bishop of St. Asaph and Bangor,
5,200/. ; and to the Bishops of Worcester and Bath am:
Went respectively, 5,0004 And that out of the fund
thus accruing, fixed annual payments be made by the
Commissioners in such instances, and to such amount, as
shall be in like manner determined on, so that the
average annual incomes of the other bishops respec-
tively be not less than 4,000/. nor more than 5,0001.
And that, at the expiration of every seven years,
reckoning from the Ist day of January, 1837, a
new return of the revenues of all the bishoprics
be made to the Commissioners; and that thereupon the
scale of episcopal payments and receipts be revised, so
as to preserve, as nearly as may be, to each bishop an
amount of income equivalent to that which shall have
been determined in the first instance to be suitable to the
circumstances of his bishopric; and that such revised
scale take effect, as to each see respectively, upon the
then next avoidance thereof.' 2. That, on the Ist day
of January, 1845, a new return of the revenues of all
the bishoprics, as ordered, from the Ist day of January,
1837, to the 31st day of December, 1843, was presented
to Parliament; and subsequently, on the 6th day of
February, 1846, and the 16th day of June, 1846, re-
spectively, were presented the first and second general
reports of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, showing how
the provisions of the above-named Act had been carried
out. 3. That, from these reports, furnished by the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners themselves, it appears to
this House, that the provisions of the Act 6 and 7
William IV., c. 77, so far as relates to episcopal incomes,
have not been carried out according to the intentions of
Parliament."
Mr. PLUMPTRE seconded the motion. He did not
believe that the Honourable Gentleman was actuated by
any personal hostility to those whom he was obliged to
name in the course of his speech, but that ho wished
sincerely to promote the advantage of the Church,
whose worst enemies were those who would allow a bad
system to proceed without any amendment.—(Hear,
hear.) After the statement of the Hon. Gentleman the
working of the Ecclesiastical Commission could not be
considered satisfactory, and therefore he would support
his motion.
Sir G. GREY agreed with the Hon. Gentleman who
introduced this subject as to the spiritual destitution
which existed in the populous parts of the country, and
that the revenues of the Church ought to be made as
available as possible to meet that destitution, but he
would ask his Hon. Friend who seconded the motion
whether he thought, that if they passed a censure on the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners in the terms of the third
resolution, it would advance that object? He came down
to meet the case of the Hon. Gentleman, but ho alluded
to the returns of the report of 1831, and it was entirely
a gratuitous assumption on his part to assume that the
Commissioners acted on this report, and that the fixed
payments they imposed on the vacancies of the sees to
which he referred were founded on the returns of the
[ report of 1831. On the contrary, the returns of 1831
riled, in no one instance, formed the basis on which they
framed the annual payments of the larger sees, or the
payments to be added to the smaller ones. In 1835
the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) appointed an
Ecclesiastical Commission, with the view of promot-
ing the very objects which his Honourable Friend
opposite so much desired. They made their report in
March, 1836, and that report contained various recom -
mendations in the shape of resolutions, having for their
object the equalisation of episcopal duties and revenues,
or rather a tendency to such an equalisation, for an ab-
solute and complete equalisation was not possible. They
advised that fixed annual sums should be paid to the ;
poorer sees out of the revenues of the larger, so as to
leave certain sums applicable as income in certain cases ,
and they further recommended that, once in every seven
years, returns of income should be made so that averages
might be struck on which there might be fresh appoint-
ments. Now he (Sir G. Grey) was not contending that
that arrangement was not capable of great amendment,
nor was he contending that great reduction in bishops'
incomes might not be made ; but what he did contend
for was, that the evil, if there was any, did not arise from
the fault of the Commissioners, but from the fault of the
Act of Parliament.
Mr. HORSMAN---Not at all.
Sir G. GREY—The Hon. Member said not at all; but
the question was, had the Ecclesiastical Commissioners
carried out the provisions of that Act ? What had they
done ? The Hon. Member said the returns made in com-
pliance with the Act were grossly incorrect. lie (Sir
G. Grey) had not looked into those returns; ho had not
had time to do so, and, therefore, all he should say was,
that the bishops, if the representations of the Hon. Mem-
ber were correct, must in 1831 have taken a somewhat
desponding view of their affairs.—(Hear, hear, and
laughter.) But the lion. Member had made a great
mistake in taking the return of 1831 at all. That was
not the return on which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners
calculations were founded. They bad calculated on a
return made in 1837, a return which showed the incomes
of the sees to be very much larger than they were taken
to be on the averages of 1831. Look at Canterbury for
example. The Hon. Member said that it was returned
at 17,3001. in 1831, but in 1837 it was returned at 22,3001.,
and e.as upon this calculation that the Commissioners
orderedsf,3oo/. to be paid as surplus by the Archbishop.
At what had the lion. Member put down
eLMr,r. he ilar°)rbu-19,0001.)
nanel T the 9)
Vel l,
Commissioners
—(A,rr Hon. Member—Take Durham.) Well, he would
takehc Vtiatmamrh
cDo ur r
—?(TI
r
.the calculation charged 11,200/. upon the see of Dur-
ham, being the full amount of the difference between the
thhaadt
upon was
annual income and the amount fixed by Act of Parlia-
ment.
HORSMAN—But the income of Durham has
been nearly 12,0001. a year.
Sir G. GREY—That he knew nothing about.—(Loud
cries of "Hear, s hear."i
If it was so, it was a fault of
the Ecclesiastical Commissioners,—(Renewed ironical
cheering.) The see
of Durham became vacant; the
bishop was not permitted to take possession of it until
the charge was imposed: this arrangement, as the Hon.
Member himself said, was expressly made retrospective
in order to meet this case. Well, the average of the
seven years previous gave the see of Durham 19,2001. a
year, and upon that the calculations of the Commis-
sioners were made, The Commissioners could do no-
thing else. Their hands were tied by the Act of Parlia-
ment, and they had no right to call upon the Bishop of
Durham or any one else to violate that Act.—(Cheers,
and ironical laughter.) Now, it was not his (Sir G.
Grey's) wish to lessen the force of the appeal the
Hon. Member had made be the Bishops concerning spi-
ritual destitution. The Bishop of Durham, the Arch-
bishop of Canterbur
3', and the Bishop of London, had
all contributed very greatly towards its removal in their
respective dioceses, but the non-removal of that desti-
tution
E assnot the fault of those prelates or of
the Ecclesiastical
therefore, b® wrong to Commission, and it would,
blame which attached-visit upon them the
to others. The Hon. Member
had referred to tho case of Salisbury. Now the re-
turns in existence when the Ecclesiastical Commission
arranged their scheme, in 1837, gave the Bishop ct
Salisbury an income not exceeding 5,5001. a year. T'
had been arranged that when a bishop's income was r
less than 4,500/., and not more than 6,000/,, no char,
should take place, and therefore the Bishop
of Salishurs
on coming into his see was exempted from making an:.
payment. But the Bishop had not been altogether ex-
empted from the operation of the Act, for he had since
been called upon to make a return of the incom hi
see, and the Cornmissiotefupon the return, had dirertec:
that after the next avoidanceo a. earn of
1,8504 should be
paid to their fund out
Bishopl* the revenues of the see.
were
The rights of the present . protected by the
Act of Parliament—(lronical cries of " Hear, hear ")
and therefore the alteration could not take place in his
lifetime. This, however, was not the fault of the Eccle-
siastical Commissioners, but of the'Act of Parliament.
The House must recollect that the Ecclesiastical Com-
mission was only formed in 1836, and that Parliament
in placing powers in their hands, had
coupled it with
groat restrictions. Changes in tioteir present system
were, in certain particulars, nc,
doubt, desirable.
But the Commissioners bad the law to administer, and
if the law was imperfect, the law should be altered,
but the Commissioners should not be blamed. With
the Honourable Gentlemen's two first respect to
meet them with the
reso-
lutions, he should m previous question;
if he pressed the third, he must meet it with a direct
negative.
Mr. HUME said that the Hon. Member for Cocker-
mouth wanted to show what was the intention of Par-
liament with regard to episcopal allowances, and the
Home Secretary said that it was the fault of the Act of
Parliament that those intentions had not been carried
out. Well, then, if they had not been carried out the
Home Secretary was to blame for not seeing to it.—
(Hear, bear.) Ile (Mr. Hume) well recollected that
l 3
Parliament had arranged that 9,0004 a year should be
apportione • d for episcopal incomes, and all beyond that
e a •
received as bishops' revenues was to b applied to the
augmentation of small livings. The question was, if
that ha d been done or not? By a table in the Hon.
Member for Cockerrnouth's possession he (Ur. Hume)
saw that instead of 139,000/. being the amount received
by thebishops
n 1843, their actual gross income was
197,0001., and their net income above 150,000/. That
the intention was not compliance with of Parliament,
and the remedy for such misapplication was undoubtedly
a new Bill, lie hoped the Government promise
would
to introduce such a measure, and thereby prevent the
agitation of a question upon
which,
if they persisted in
defending the Commission, they were certain to be
speedily freaten. His own opinion was that they ought

that it must eventually amount to 100,0001. a year.—
(Hear, hear.) After all the increase which one would
naturally suppose must have taken place in his income,
it was singular enough that in the neat return made by
the Right Rev. Prelate the sec appeared to be none the
sicker. On the contrary, in the year 1843, after all those
splendid buildings had been erected, the return mathby
the Bishop of London, was actually less than it was
in 1831. At tha,t period he made his net income to be
13,90.01., but in 1843 it was reduced to 12,400/., notwith-
standseg buildings covering 400 acres of gntlnd had been
erected, and although the Right Pev. Palate had signed
upwards of 2,000 leases.—(Hear, hear.) Now he should
like to have some explanation of this.—(Hear, hear.)
They could not possibly doubt the correctness of an
episcopal return--(A laugh)—but what must they think
of episcopal management?—(l.lear, hear.) The Bishop
of Durham returned hie gross income at 21,000/. and the
net income at 19,0001. His future income he put down
at 17,8901. Instead of this, however, the net income
rose to 22,000/. and the gross income to 26.0001. The
Bishop of St. Asaph estimated his income at 6,3001.,
and said a gradual decline was to be expected; it was
accordingly written down by the Ecclesiastical Com-
missioners at 5,2001., but it had risen to 6,5481. The
Bishop of Bangor's net income was returned in 1831 at
at 4,4641.; and he having also said there must be great
reductions, it was put down at 3,2401., but went up to 5,643/.
by the year 1843. The Hon. Gentleman gave similar de-
tails with reference to the following sees, stating in
every case that the bishops had calculated on a decrease:—
Chester, estimated in 1831 at 4,2291. net, put down at
3,8001., and increased to 5,200/. in 1843; Hereford, put
doe n by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in 1831 at
2,510/., but risen to 3,1941.; Lincoln, estimated at 3,8001,
but increased to 5,2231.; Norwich, income returned in
1831 at 5,3001., put down at 4,700/., and risen in 1843 to
5,728/ ; Oxford, returned in 1831, at 2,648/., future in-
come estimated at 1,628/., income in 1843, 2,659/.; Salis-
bury in 1831 returned at 4,0001. gross, future income
estimated at 5,000/., returned in 1843 at 7,200/.; Wor-
cester in 1831, 6,5091. net, future income estimated at
6,500/., returned in 1843 at 7,122/. net, and 8,166/. gross.
The Bishop of Llandaff returned the income of his see
in 1831 as 924/., and he was the only prelate who said
there would probably be an increase in the future
income; but, like all the rust, he was mistaken, for
it turned out that by the year 1843 it had decreased
to 915/.—(Laughter.) Nevertheless, it was upon these
statements that the Commissioners proceeded to make
their future calculations,—(Hear, hear, and cheers.)
How it happened that the returns had been so erroneous,
it was not fur him to say—he would leave it to the
House to form its own opinion on the matter. The
Commissioners had to arrange the payment to be made
to the rich sees and to the poor sees, and it was simply
a case of figures to show that they had taken too little
from the rich and gave too much to the poor ones. The
figures were taken from the report of the Commissioners
themselves. The gross income of the Archbishop of
Canterbury was 28,000/. a year; the payments to be
made were 9,0001., which reduced his income to
19,000/. a year. The income which he would receive
under the Act of Parliament was 15,0001., so that if a
vacancy occurred the next Achbishop would receive
4,0001. more than he ought. The net income of the Arch-
bishop of York was fixed by Act of Parliament at 10,0002
a year, but, after the payments were deducted, he would
have an income of 12,100/. The intended income of the
Bishop of Durham was 8,000/. a year, but the future
Bishop of Durham, if a vacancy was to occur,would receive
11,792/., consequently the present bishop was receiving
3,792/ more than he ought under the Act of Parliament.
Theincome of the Bishop of Bath and Wells was 7,254/.,
the receipts 6,554/., the intended income 5,000/., conse-
quently the surplus in this case was 1,5541. In the case
of a vacancy in the see of Salisbury the new bishop
would receive 693/. more than he would be entitled to
under the Act of Parliament. These are prospective
payments. Now, with respect to actual payments which
had commenced, the Bishop of Chichester had 3671. over
and above the sum fixed by Act of Parliament; or,
taking the payments of the Commissioners, he had a sur-
plus income of 1,017/. more than was fixed by the Act.
The Bishop of Hereford had a considerable surplus.
The Bishop of Oxford received altogether 5,8591.; the
intended income was 5,0004 consequently he
received 8591. more than he ought under the
Act of Parliament. The Bishop of Lincoln was in
receipt of a surplus of 223/. With respect to the
see of Rochester, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners
themselves laid it down as a rule that the income of
the bishop of that see should not be increased till the
next vacancy ; and accordingly, as late as August, 1845,
they fixed the payments at 3,700/. a year, which was to
commence at the next vacancy. But, although no
vacancy had occurred, he found that he bad received
the 3,700/. from the Commissioners. The result of these
statements was this—that the payments by the rich sees
were less than ought to have been paid according to the
provisions of the Act, by 20,0001., and that to the poorer
sees more had been paid than ought to have been paid
by 6,0001. He confessed that the enormous discrepancy
between the gross and net receipts was to him wholly
unintelligible. It amounted to no less than 200,0001.,
or 50,0002 a year. This difference could not proceed
from the fixed payments, because they were extremely
variable from year to year. For instance, in the see
of Durham the difference was no less than 14,0001., in
1E37 ; in 1840, it was 20,000/. ; in 1841, it was 16,0081.
With respect to the see of St. Asaph the difference, in
1837, was 1,300/. ; in 1843, it was 2,5001. In the see
of Lincoln the difference, in 1837, was 400/. ; in 1838,
700/. With respect to the see of Norwich the difference,
in 1837, was 300/. ; in 1843, it was 1,200/. The gross
income of the see of Exeter was 1,092/. Last year the
net income was returned at 3431., or 300 per cent. below
the gross income. The Bishop's net income from his
diocese was only 300/. a year. It would be very satisfac-
tory if the House knew from the Ecclesiastical Com-
missioners what caused this difference between the gross
and net income. What deductions could they imagine
would reduce an income more than 300 per cent.?
Supposing that a bishop was litigious; that ho was en-
gaged in constant lawsuits; that he was eminent in lie
terature--was a writer of pamphlets or long letters to
the Times; were they to consider expenses incurred in
this we) as proper and legitimate?—(Hear, hear.) An-
other subject of importance related to the variations of
the Commissioners in their management of eccelsias-
tical revenus. At present no prelate could know what
his income was to be. Now, nothing coda be more in-
convenient, vexatious, or unsettling to a prelate than not
to know whether his income was to be 6,000/. or 2,000/.
Let them look to the effect of this system of manage-
ment on the dioceses themselves. The income of the
see of Durham was calculated at 19,000/. a year. The
Bishop was allowed a choice by the Commissioners
whether he would make over to them 11,0001., and take
chance for what the see made over 8,0001., or whether
they would make him an annual payment of 8,0001., and
keep the remainder. The Bishop, he understood, .
preferred the gambling transaction, and
athe
ap-
peareditfer tthhaet hiheeemmeadehe
received
averyg
was, according!,
c
to the returns, 12,000/. a year. The plea which the
thing
rdinog of
Commissioners alleged was, that, by allowing the bishops
to make the payments to them, they would have a greater
interest in the improvement of the property. In
i the
first place, this seemed to be a false principle ; for, f a
man's time was to be . taken up in trying to squeeze a
few more thousands more out of the property, how
much time could he devote to his spiritual duties ? How
did it operate in the case of the see of Durham ? The
property there was a mineral property, and what they
did was to stimulate the Bishop to work it out to the
utmost, and, accordingly, he had received 60,000/, over
the sum fixed by the Act of Parliament since his conse-
cration to that see.—(Hear.) That sum was lost en-
tirely to the Church—that loss was constantly increas-
ing, for it was generally believed that at the present mo-
ment the income of the Bishop of Durham was greater
which the Ecclesiastical
case of a different character, in
than that of any former bishop. He would now go to a
Commissioners took on themselves to postpone the ope-
ration of the Act of Parliament—be alluded to the case of
the see of Salisbury. The Act was passed on August 13,
1836, but it had a retrospective effect from the 4th of
March in the same year, in order that the see of Durham
the Bishop of which diocese was gazetted on
.that day,
might be brought under its operation. The Bishop of
Salisbury was gazetted on the 14th of March, 1847, more
than one year after the Bishop of Durham, and his
future income was expressly fixed at 5,000/. a year.
Yet that provision had been disregarded, and the
average income was considerably over what was fixed
by the Act.—(Hear, hear.) That was a case on which
it was not necessary to make any comment. Ho wished
that Right Rev. Prolate every enjoyment of his large
income, and he was sure he would make a right use of
it; but he believed that many of the poor curates of that
diocese could not think of it unaccompanied by those
reflections to which it must naturally give rise.—(Hear,
hear.) Compare this enormous episcopal superabundance
with the condition of the poor working clergy. The
laity always generously responded to the appeals made
to them. The Bishop of Ripon lately declared that for
the last ten years more than 25,000/. a year had been
nobly subscribed by them. Churches had been built in
every direction by their contributions, which the Eccle-
siastical
announcement
ae
which
hn init
e made
manyaAd.aes h sotiaEnneoe eepl see
operation,
iabatrsiotoiknae,anl C ot
Commissioners engaged to,endow; but those en-
gagements.o the Ho-
heard
m ssnaehr as yn
oitnwh
effect that they were unable to give any further assist-
ance because the commission was bankrupt. Yet at that
moment they were dividing no less than 26,0002—he
believed it was nearer to 40,0001.—0ut of the ecclesias-
tical revenues which had been placed under their admi-
nistration. And these things took place at a time when
2,000 clergymen of the Church of England bad incomes
under 100/. a year, and he knew some who had only 50/.
and 20/., and some as low as 5/. and 31.—(lIear, hear.)
Such iwas the state of a portion of the Church when
this enormous extravagance was taking place. He be-
lieved that a portion of the clergy were suffering priva-
tions such as had never been heard of in a rich and
civilized community. He could give statements of which
they had no conception of the poverty and wants of
these men. It had been said that it was a reproach to
them to know so little as they did of the condition of
the working classes. He believed they knew less of the
condition of the poorest portion of the working clergy.
(Hear, hear.) He knew instances during the last
winter in which many of them were without food or
clothing fur themselves and their families, and that some
of them were obliged to ask charity and to borrow a
coat in order to be able to perform their duties.—(Hear.)
It was on the part of these men and their flocks that he
had come forward to make a statement on this occasion,
and not from a wish to assail the Ecclesiastical Com-
missioners, some of whom he had the honour of having
as friends, and whose friendship ho would not risk on
slight grounds. But his warmer sympathies were with
the parish congregations and their poor laborious guides
end pastors. It was on behalf of them that their sympa-
thies ought to be interested.—(Hear, hear.) The poor la-
bourer was not the less worthy of his hire, though he
did not live in palaces or enjoy legislative functions. It
was on behalf of those men he pleaded who looked after

THE hUN, LONDON WEDNESDAY VE NiNG, DVCEMBE

to have a Commission directly responsible to Parliament,
and that the bishops ought to have no concern it.
After a sentence from an Hors. MEMBER (said to be
Mrs Deedes), who paid a tribute to the Bishop of the
diococe zn vql;.sil ho lived,
Fisk' R. H. INGLIS said he was not surprised at the
Course taken by the Hon. Member for Montrose, who
had always been consistent in his opposition to bishops.
The principle of that Hon. Member was that the Church
was very corrupt, and that her corruption arose from
her wealth. If corruption did arise from wealth, the
Hon. Member ought to be very corrupt, for report said
he was extremely rich.—(" Oh," and laughter.) But
though not surprised at the lion. Member, he (Sir R. 11.
Inglis) was surprised at the addresses of other speakers.
They had proceeded on the assumption that the Church
had no right to her property. Now he (Sir R. H. Inglis)
had always maintained that the property of the Church
was as much her own as the property of any other cor-
poration. In many instances the property of the Church
had been exceedingly well applied, and it ought to have
been stated in the course of the debate that the Bishop
of London had set the example, which might be advan-
tageously followed by all, of raising all his vicarages to
the value of 2001. per annum. He had heard with great
regret and pain some of the allusions of the lion. Mover,
,specially his reference to what he was pleased to style a
gambling transaction." He warned the lion. Seconder
that he must not consider he was a friend to the church
if he seconded recommendations so supported. He was
thankful that the Church Establishment did not depend
on an annual vote of that House, but stood on its foun-
dation, and there was no period in which the hierarchy
(iid not maintain its position as the first body in the
-tate. The Church was called on to contribute to the
diritual destitution, and they did so by this Bill; they
sere donors and willing donors, and not pensioners. Ile
slaimed the respect of that House for the Church, as a
,sreat proprietary, dealing with their property as fairly
as any lay proprietor in the kingdom. It was said that
the bishops in all their calculations had been mistaken
in one way. Could any one assign any possible motive
for this? They were not to consider them as pauper
pensioners, or stipendiaries who asked for an annual
•lole; but they held their estates as their own. If an
Act of Parliament required them to give up a
portion of their revenues they would do so;
but he maintained that though by such au Act
you might deal with the property of the Bishop
of Durham, there was no more right to do so than
there was to deal with the property of the corporation
of Durham. Neither of them had received their pro-
perty from the State, and until that was so the State
could not deal with it. The question at issue was, whe-
ther by the operation of the Act, the bishops were to be
considered as proprietors or stipendiaries. If they were
proprietors, and were to make over a certain sum, and
did not do so, a case was made out; but as he believed
that was not so, he was glad the previous question had
been moved.
Mr. W. P. WOOD said that the incomes of the bishops
now exceeded the averages which were taken in 1837,
but according to the provisions of the Act, the payments
were necessarily made under those averages, and so far
the Commissioners were not to blame. He thought that
the Church property should be available for Church pur-
poses. There was 26,000/, at the disposal of the Com-
mission, but whether it was to be applied to the creation
of new bishoprics, or to the increase of spiritual instruc-
tion, he could not say. To both of those uses it might
well be applied, for both were needed. There was by no
means a redundancy of bishops in this country, and there
might be an increase of those prelates, although not in
the House of Lords. There was a great want also of
working clergy. The House ought to be obliged to the
Hon. Member for Cockermouth for bringing forward the
question, so as to give them such an insight into it as
would lead to a revision of the Act of Parliament. He
could not support the resolutions.
Lord JOHN RUSSEEL had heard with pleasure the
speech of the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down,
and he heard it with the more pleasure because it
tended to lead the House to a decision. The Hon.
Gentleman said, and truly, that the mover of the reso-
lutions was not well founded in his supposition that the
Act of Parliament had not been complied with. Al-
though the Act was defective, that was no reason for
supposing why those who were entrusted with the car-
rying it into execution had not fairly applied themselves
to their task. That supposition was not well founded,
and the Hon. Gentleman declined to vote for the reso-
lutions. Any one who perused the Act could come to
no other decision. The other question as to the manner
in which the Act was framed, and the mode on which
the incomes of the bishops should be settled, was a
very difficult one ; and although he (Lord J. Russell)
could see defects in the present mode, still the others
which had been suggested were open to grave objections.
If it was said that the bishops were to buy over the
surplus beyond the 8,0004 or 5,0001. a year allotted for
their income, they were deprived of any inducement to
bestow care on their estates. If, on the other hand, there
was to be a common fund and the amount paid to them
out of it, it would be liable to the objection that
they would become stipendiaries, and a change would
be made in the character which the bishops had held as
having their estates at their own disposal, which was a
iar different tenure to that of salaries. There being
uch objections to that mode of distribution, he would
leny that there were objections to the mode which had
oeen adopted. It was impossible to say that it was the
intention of the Act that when the bishops had a certain
income allotted to them, they should receive a greater
one. On the other hand, there would be great difficulty
in saying that a bishop should pay a certain sum, and if
his income did not afford such a surplus, that he should
be forced to pay it by actions at law, in order that the
Act should be complied with. The Hon. Gentleman the
Member for Cockermouth stated that the Bishop of
Durham had been asked whether ho would receive the
income allotted to him from the Commissioners, or
whether he would pay to them the surplus required of
him. No such proposition was made to the Bishop of
Durham. He (Lord J. Russell) was in the Commission,
and he remembered that the Bishop of Durham left it
entirely to the Commission. They decided what should
be paid, and he agreed at once to pay it, and there never
was any other arrangement. lie recollected that a pro-
position was made by the late Bishop of Ely. He was to
receive 5,000/. a year, and to pay over 2,500/, and, after
two years' experience, he stated that his income would
not allow him to pay 2,500 L, and he asked the Commis-
sioners to take all his property into their hands and
to pay him 5,000/. a year, but the Commissioners were
precluded by the Act from accepting this proposition.
This was a proof that there were inconveniences on both
sides. If, sometimes, a bishop received more than the
income allotted to him, he sometimes found it difficult
to pay what was required of him. As it would be im-
possible for the Hon. Member for Cockermouth to in-
duce the House to agree to a resolution declaring that
the Act had not been carried out, ho (Lord J. Russell)
could only say that he was not ready to pledge himself
to bring in a Bill to change the present mode of distri-
bution. He might think it defective, but he did not see
clearly any other mode by which it could be done. He
agreed with the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Ox-
ford (who said that there was a surplus of 26,000/., but
the calculations of the Commissioners made it only
16,000/.)—he agreed with him that there were plenty of
ways in which sums, whether 26,0004 or 16,000/., could
be applied to the benefit of the Church. He (Lord J.
Russell) maintained, as he had said last year, that there
was not sufficient episcopal superintendence for the in-
creasing population of the country, as, with regard to
the working clergy, in relation to the great mass of the
people, there were by no means enough of them. There
was quite enough to occupy the surplus Church pro-
perty, and it would be a matter for Parliament to con-
sider how the present arrangement could be improved.
Lord R. GROSVENOR recommended the withdrawal
of the resolutions, and hoped that much of the object of
his Hon. Friend would be gained by the discussion which
had taken place.
Mr. AGLIONBY did not believe that the Commis-
sioners had carried out the intention of the Act, and he
was prepared to support the whole of the resolutions.
The House and the country owed a debt to his Hon.
Colleague for bringing forward this question. It was an
unduo assumption to suppose that this question was
brought forward in an unfriendly spirit to the Church.
The property now vested in the Church had been con-
ferred upon it by the State, and he contended that the
State had a right to meddle with it for the benefit of the
public. In fact this had been already done by the Ap-
propriation Act in Ireland, and the very statute under
which the Ecclesiastical Commission had,been constituted
in this portion of the realm. He objected to the consti-
tution of the Commission. Originally its members had
been few, and of them the laymen formed the majority,
and the ecclesiastics the minority ; but now the numbers.
had been increased to 48—an unworkable Commission,
and of these 26 were ecclesiastics and 22 only laymen.
Unless the Government would pledge itself to alter the
constitution of the Commission, as well as to amend the
statute now in force, he hoped the House would give its
full approbation to the motion of his lion. Colleague.

Mr. GOULBURN said the Right Hon. Baronet the
Home Secretary had dealt so fully and so properly with
the subject under discussion, that he (Mr. Goulburn)
did not mean to intrude himself upon the House at any
length. The present motion involved a direct censure
on the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, for not having ful-
filled what were the supposed intentions of an Act of
Parliament. That Act had been construed by as acute
lawyers as the Hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr.
Aglionby), who was prepared to vote this censure because
the Noble Lord at the head of the Government would
not give him satisfaction as to the introduction of a Bill
of the Hon. Member's own creation. He (Mr. Goul-
burn) was prepared to contend that the Commissioners
had thoroughly and literally fulfilled the Act of Parlia-
ment which they had been appointed to carry into effect.
This was not a question whether or not the constitution
and powers of the Commission ought ought to be altered
and amended, but it was a direct attaek on the charac-
ter of men who had acted assiduously without reward
or remuneration. As the Hon. Member who had
brought forward the motion had especially impugned
the characters of some of the Ecclesiastical Commis-
sioners, it was necessary for him (Mr. Goulburn), as a
lay member of the body, to say something with respect
to the Prelates to whom allusions had been made.
If ever there had been an unjust and unfounded
attack made upon any individual it was the at-
tack brought against the Archbishop of Canterbury for
his conduct in the original Commission of Inquiry. It
had been said that the Most Rev. Prelate had proposed
that a reduction should be mado in the emoluments of
the see of Canterbury, but that such reduction should be
prospective, and be made not in his timo but in that of
his successor. The Archbishop of Canterbury never
made any suggestion that tho measure should be pro •
spectivo and not immediate—the decision had been that
of the majority of the Commissioners, who held that it
would not be just to affect the immediate possessor of
the see. With respect to the charge against the Bishop
of Rochester, that he, being an Ecclesiastical Commis-
sioner, had augmented his own emoluments, how stood
the case? Why, that Rev. Prelate had held other pre-
ferment—that of Dean of Worcester and Rector of