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

to have* Commission directly responsible to Parliament,
and that the bishops ought to have ne concern it.
After a sentence from an Hof. INIF:MBER (said to be
Mr. Deedes), who paid a tribute to the Bishop of the
diocese in which he lived,
Sir 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, ter report said
he was extremely rich.—(" Oh," and laughter.) But
though not surprised at the lion. Member, he (Sir R. H.
Inglis) was surprised at the addresses of other speakers.
They bad proceeded on the assumption that the Church
had no right to her property. Now ho (Sir R. 11. 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 200 L per annum. He had heard with great
regret and pain some of the allusions of the Hon. Mover,
especially his reference to what he was pleased to style a
" gambling transaction." He warned the Hon. 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 those was no period in which the hierarchy
did not maintain its position as the first body in the
State. The Church was called on to contribute to the
spiritual destitution, and they did so by this Bill; they
were donors and willing donors, and not pensioners. He
claimed the respect of that House for the Church, as a
great 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 ono assign any possible motive
for this? They were not to consider them as pauper
pensioners, or stipendiaries who asked for an annual
dole; 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. lie thought that
the Church property should be available for Church pur-
poses. There was 4a,000/. at the disposal of the Com-
mission, but whether it was to be applied to the creation
of sew 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
lion. Member for Cockermouth for bringing forward the
question, so as to give them such an insight into it as
would lead to a recision 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 8,0001. 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
far different tenure to that of salaries. There being
such objections to that mode of distribution, he would
deny that there were objections to the mode which had
been 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 lion. Gentleman the
Member for Cockermouth stated that the Bishop of
Durham had been asked whether he 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 ho agreed at once to pay it, and there never
was any other arrangement. He recollected that a pro-
position was made by the late Bishop of Ely. lie 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 2,5001, and he asked the Commis-
sioners to take all his property into their hands and
to pay him 5,0001. 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
16,0000—he agreed with him that there were pleaty of
ways in which sums, whether 26,0001. or 16,0001, could
be applied to the benefit of the Clourch. lie (Lord J.
Russell) maintained, as he had said) sot 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-
sionera 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
undue assumption to suppose that this question was
brought forward in an unfriendly spirit to the Church.
The property new vested in the Church had been con-
ferred upon it by the State, and be 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 theca 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. Goulhurn)
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 bad 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 Hoe. 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 attack on the charac-
ter of wen who had acted assiduously without reward
or remuneration. As the lion. 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 made in the emoluments of
the see of Canterbury, but that such reduction should be
prospective, and be made not in his time but in that of
his sucoessor. Tho Archbishop of Canterbury never
made any suggestion that the measure shouldrbe pro•
spective and not immediate—the decision had een 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