The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-02 00:00:00

WEDNESDAY EVENI NGrI JULY 2, Mt*

unfortunate sufferer retained his senses when relieved.
a ,c 1 for the short time al,er that ho lived, nor did he
ever c of pain. This may be .accounted for b)
his head t.%ite4 rntirvly escaped injury, whil,l the
s, verity of his oruises had prostrated all nerv,us
sensinuity. A stretcher beii,g procured, he wai con-
veyed to his tAther'd tv.u,e, cud the medical I,lB.ißtrltlet•
of the, town was to prompt attendance. From the first
h,wever, it ea, seen that his injuries were fatal, and h,.
expired about three hours after the accident. Tha Int-
tortunate wan being alone at the time when the accident
occurred, not the slightest blame can be attached to any
one.—Border Advertiser.

GLASGOW AND SOUTH-WESTERN RlawAY.--Traffie for
the Week ending June 28, 1851:
Passengers (21,598), Goods, &c.,
?aid Horses and Carriages ... £3,778 17 11
Corresponding week in last ear
for Glasgow and Ayr and Glas-
gow, Dumfries, and, Carlisle
Railways ... £2,769 13 4
Glasgow, June 30, 1851.

()vent laws whatever. He then proceeded to etato that
elide several of the witnesses examined before the
eelecL Ceannittee core certaiely feveurable to the exis-
tence of pa'ent lews, ()the: s, of great acientitie and
gal eseeeence—netriel, Mr. Cubist. the civil en-
eioser ; Mr. B:uncl, Mr. Reca.rd M.P,, C .lonel Rsed
(author of the "Law of 6 orms "), the 5414,3 con,ul,
sed the present Maser of the Rolls, were adverse to
'teen, the latter especially, on the ground that these
tAwS were bael is principle, and nut Advantageous either
to the inventor or to the pablie. He (Earl Granville)
agreed himself with the views of these witnesses.
Although he proposed the Bill he considered patent laws
as unadvisable for the public, disadvantageous to the
inventor, and wrong in principle. He believed that, in
the present state of the world, such a stimulus to inven-
tion as that afforded by protection was not required.
The mania now-a-days was for scheming and improve
went. There were no patent laws needed for great dis-
coveries. Gunpowder, printing, painting in oil, were
not produced by protection. And as regarded discoverers,
he believed that in general they were quite willing to
communicate their discoveries to the public irrespective
of pecuniary advantage to themselves. Again, with re-
gard to inventions: if it was conceived that only 1 in
50 were useful, it followed that 49 persons in that 50
were employed iu a manner not advantageous to the
public. He believed, also, that, generally speaking, the
pecuniary gains of inventions were derived not by the
inventors, but by the capitalists with whoa° assi!tance
they worked, or alternately by the last improver of the
invention. Considering, therefore, the large expenses
incurred by patentees, not the fees bat the costs of
patent and agents and litigation, he was of opinion it
would be found that the great body of inventors lost
more than they gained by the system of patent laws.
As regarded the poor inventors he was afraid it was
impossible to prevent workmen from giving the advan-
tage of their inventions to capitalists; but even in that
respect ha (Earl Granville) considered protectiOn a dis-
advantage, by causing the inventor to shut himself up
without communication with his fellow-workmen, in the
hope of making a large fortune. According to Mr.
Lloyd, a barrister engaged in patent practice, this prat
tice had the effect of stereotyping a single idea iu the
mind of the workman. The Noble Earl then entered on
a statement of the evidence of Mr. Mercer before the
Select Committee, which was to the effect that patents
should be made both cheap and numerous. With regard
to the public, he did not consider they derived any ad-
vantage from the patent laws; because the price of the
commodity produced by the invention was enhanced
through the monopoly conferred by their agency. He
was aware he would be met by the suggestion of copy-
right on books; but although he believed even that
principle was carried too far, he could not admit that
there was any analogy in the two cases, based as they
were upon two different conditions. With respect to the
advantage of patents, the result of the experience of the
Judges was to shake their opinion very much as to their
value. As, however, the general opinion entertained on
the subject was in favour of patents, the Government
di I not think they would be acting iu accordance with
their duty if they did not endeavour to introduce what
were obvious amendments in the state of the law
of patents so as to place it on a more satisfactory
footing.
Lord BROUGHAM said, that if their Lordships
would peruse the whole of the evidence taken before the
Committee, they would find that there was a great por-
tion of it in favour of a system of patent laws. Cer-
tainly his own opinion as to the necessity for and im-
portance of such laws had not been shaken. It was a
great mistake to suppose that he had abandoned his Bill
any more than the Noble Earl (Granville); the two Bills
had been referred to a Select Committee, and the result
of the inquiry had been the amalgamation of the two
Bills into one, which was reported on by the Committee
for the sanction of the House. It could not, therefore,
be objected to either to him or to his Noble Friend that
they nad abandoned their Bill. On the contrary, they
had redeemed their pledge to amend the law by producing
the measure now before their Lordships, and which he
hoped their Lordships were prepared to pass into law.
The Duke of ARGYLL had received petitions from
sugar refiners of the United Kingdom, complaining of
the colonial sugar refiners taking advantage of the pro-
cesses invented in this country, to their detriment, and
therefore praying a remedy by the extension of the
patent-laws to the colonies.
The Earl of HARROWBY advocated the same views.
Lord CAMPBELL entirely approved of the Bill. He
wished, however, to point out a difficulty in the law with
respect to the infringement of patents. When a patent
was infringed, the first proceeding at law for redress was
an application in a court of equity for an injunction;
then the equity judge directed the plaintiff to bring an
action in the courts of law to establish his previous
right. The action led to great delay and expense, and
when at length the plaintiff obtained his verdict he got
no security thereby, for in every fresh instance of in-
fringement of his patent the same course must be taken
by the plaintiff for his protection. Why should not,
then, the same tribunal which first took cognisance of
the infringement and granted the injunction, decide the
matter altogether?
Earl GREY was not prepared to deny but that the
portion of the Bill which exempted the colonies from its
operation was, to a certain extent, a hardship to the
sugar refiners of this country; but the question was,
whether, it that portion of the Bill were omitted, greater
injustice would not be committed, and, also, whether the
objection as to the non-extension of patents to the colo-
nies which the Noble Duke complained of did not go far-
ther, and support the views of his Noble Frieni (Earl
Granville) as to the inexpedieney of any pateuc laws at
all—views in which he (Earl Grey) concurred, but on
which in the present state of opinion in this country on
the subject he did not deem it expedient to act, but ra-
ther endeavour to improve the existing law as much as
they could. But would it not be a great disadvantage to
our colonial sugar manufacturers to be exposed to
unfair competition with the sugar manufacturers of
Brazil and Cuba, as they would be in case the law
of patents was extended to the colonies? An
instance in point occurred to him. A new inven-
tion was lately made of drying sugar by means
of centrifugal force. There was a dispute among
several parties as to the prior right of the patent of the
invention, and they settled the matter by selling their
interests in the matter to a company, which took out a
patent for
of Jamaicaort heir ma
and Guianachine,andt haherd to payesultw oL foralsothes theugar
machine which the grower of beet-root sugar in Bel-
, gium, and of cane sugar in Brazil and Cuba, obtained
for 601. That showed the inherent difficulty of the

subject; and considering those circumstances, whilst
they retained the patent laws at home he did not consi-
der it expedient to extend them to the colonies.
The House then went into Committee; and the se-
veral clauses having been agreed to, tho House resumed
and immediately afterwards adjourned.

evideuce adducel batore tl-e jury to duplicate uny per
5,n, or rcnUer hitu liable for the peualiy linpeied uuckr
the Act.

SPIRT MAL DE.;TITUTION.

The Marquis "f BLANDFOR D moved that an
humble Addresa b 3 pres .nted t.) her Mj-sty. pray-
ing that she will be grasiuudy pleased to take into
her consAeraeon the sta'e of spiritual desoieition
existing throughout Diela.ed and Wales; with a '
view, that her Majesty may be planned to direct the ;
adoption of such measures as she may deem expedient,
for affording more efficient relief to the spiritual wants
of the people, and for an extension of the parochial sys-
tem corresponding to the growth of a rapidly in-
creasing population, by the help which may be drawn
from the resources of the Established Church itself.
The Noble Marquis, after expressing his sense of the
importance of the question, and his own incapacity to
treat it as it merited, observed, that much of the difficulty
by which any proposition for extending the influence of
the Church, arose from the jealousy with which some
parties regarded the Church itself, and the party feeling
which was excited by ecclesiastical questions. In the
proposal he was about to make, it was not hie intention
to submit to the House any great scheme of Church re-
form, or extension. All he asked was to do justice to,
and make a wise use of, the powers of a Church estab-
lished by the blood of our ancestors, and endowed with
their collective wisdom. What he aimed at was to rea-
lise the sentiments expressed by the late Sir H. Peel,
when he brought in his measure of Church extension,
in 1843. That eminent statesman then said, that if he
wished to place the Church in its proper light before the
people of this country, it must be done by extending its
usefulness, by applying her present property to the
strengthening 01 her position, and the increasing of
influence, and especially by widening the basis
on which she rests by an extension of our
parochial constitution, which had been framed
in ether times, and adapted to a different state
of society.—(Hear, hear.) That was the position from
which he (the Marquis ot Blandford) started, the object
at which he aimed. The extension and reform of our
parochial institutions was the great and pressing event
of the age; and it could only be effected by two mea-
sures; one was the sub-division of parishes, and the other
the equalization of episcopal revenues. Such were the
opinions contained in an ttedreis to the Throne, which he
hoped the House would support by an expression of its
opinion. That address was signed by 107 persons. It
would have been easy to have procured the signatures of
thousands, but it was thought desira'sle to confine the
signatures to those of Peers spiritual and temporal, and
to Members of Parliament. Among them were persons
of all parties who felt that this was the great want of
the age, and that the time had now arrived when they
ought to carry their views to the foot of the Throne. In
explaining his views he would as briefly as possible
endeavour to show that an extension of our parochial
institutions was a great and pressing want; secondly, that
we had the means ot supplying that want; and, thirdly,
that the people in general were willing to support any-
thing that might be done by the' Legislature for that ob-
ject.—(Hear.) Since 1843, when Sir H. Peel intro-
duced his measure of Church extension, he admitted
much had been done.—(Hear.) The report of the
Church Commission at that time stated that 600 new
churches at least were required, and he believed they
had since been built. Undoubtedly, much had been
done, but that, so far from weakening, rather strengthened
his case, as he was prepared to show that much more re-
mained to be done. Since that period, the Incorporated
Society for Building and Itepairiug Churches and Chapels
had expended 1,246,308/ By the Curates' Aid Society,
it appeared that within the last decade they had ex-
pended 179,6521.; while another great society—the
Church Pastoral Aid Society—had within the same
period spent 2,235,2454; ants yet according to returns
from the various parishes iu the metropolis, as well as
Birmingham, Ma,.chester, Newcastle, Durham, and in-
deed all our large towns, there was still a large defi-
ciency of church accommodation. In the parish of St.
Ann, Liwehouse, fur instance, the population was
25,000, the church accommodation only 1-12th. South-
wark had a population of 50,000, and church accommo-
dation for only 1-11th. In Durham there was only
accommodation for 1-16th of the population. Taking
as a basis the population returns of 1841, and allowing
450,000 in addition to the increase of the population
since that time, there would be found an enormous defi-
ciency of church accommodation. Taking the number
of churches, and allowing 3,000 persona as an aver-
age to each church, he found there was the
enormous multitude of 1,893,852 for whom no
provision whatever was made, and who had never
the opportunity of entering the house of God,
—(Hear.) When they tested the spirital destitution
of the people by the number ot clergymen to the people
the results were the same. In the twelve cr thirteen
great parishes of London there were 762,358 inhabitants,
and there were 171 clergymen to supply their spiritual
wants; but if they took '2,000 as the average number for
each clergyman, there would be a deficiency of 237 cler-
gymen, and 487,000 souls totally uncared for. Similar
results were elicited by the same test applied to Man-
chester, where there was a deficiency of 52 clergymen,
Liverpool 23, Leeds 29, Sheffield 21, Birmingham 22,
and Newcastle 23, as compared with the population; in
fact, taking the population of all our large towns, and
comparing them with the number of clergymen, it would
' be found that in every one of them there was a lamenta-

ble and decided deficiency. When they remembered all
that had been done in this direction since the com-
mencement of the century, it would be seen that the
wants of our increasing population had far outstripped
all these exertions, anti that, us Sir Robert Peel had
said, existing parochial instruction having been framed
for other times, and a very different state of seeiety,
must need attention at the present time. But with an
addition to the number of parishes would come the ne-
cessity for an addition to the number of bishops, in con-
sequence of the greater number of clergymen they would
have to oversee.—(Hear, hear.) He believed there was
scarely any subject on which there was greater miscon-
ception than this. Ho would not enter upon
a defence of episcopacy, but, if we were to have an epis-
copate at all, it was time that it should he adapted to
the state of the country now. Since the time of the
Reformation there had, he believed, been no addition to
the number of bishops, except, one. Much difficulty
arose from the unequal division of the dioceses.
Perhaps 500 clergymen might be taken as the average
number in each see, but in some there were 1,000. The
bishop was bound to receive letters from all those cler-
gymen and answer them, besides which the secularities
of his position were enough to obliterate from his mind
the spiritual functions of his office.—(Hear, hear.) He
was obliged to come to London to attend his Parlia-
mentary duties, surrounded by persons seeking for his
patronage and support, and perpetually harassed by de-
mands on his time and attention which it was impossible
that any one man could adequately meet. The report
of the Church Commission in 1835 contained full parti-
culars of the state of tho existing dioceses, the relative
amount of the population to the number of benefices,
clergymen, and average in each, and the result clearly
showed that additional episcopal superintendence was
necessary, that diocesan as well as parochial subdivision
was imperatively required. We had already examples to
show that an increase of bishops was attended with an
increase of efficacy ; the increase of episcopacy in our
colonies had been followed by an increase of clergymen
from 290 to 605. Since the separation of the diocese of
Ripon from that of York the same result had taken
place, as a return which he had received from the Bishop
of Ripon fully demonstrated. The Noble Lord referred
to these returns in detail, from which it appeared that
since 1836, including 100,0001. spout in education, there
had been not far from 600,0001. expended in the diocese
of Ripon in church accommodation and extension. He
believed that similar results would follow everywhere
the subdivision of sees. But then it was said, the
Church ought to be represented by the bishops. He
believed it ought to be so, but not by all the bishops. On
the contrary, he thought by constant residence in these
sees the new bishops would much more effectually pro-
mote the great objects of the Church, and of their ec-
clesiastical and spiritual jurisdiction.—(Hear, bear.)
He thought deans' incomes might be made available for
such a purpose by making the deans bishops, and, in-
deed, looking at the extent and importance of West-
minster, he thought the appointment of a bishop de-
sirable. The Commissioners who inquired into this sub-
ject recommended that 600 now churches should be
built, and the money for doing so to be procured in this
way :—there were 770 livings in the gift of the Crown,
330 of which were under 2001. a year. Now, they
recommended that these 300 should be sold, in
order to purchase larger benefices, the other
447 would then be sufficient, when sold, to produce a
million of money, which, with private subscription, would
be sufficient to erect the 600 churches. He denied that
taking away so large a patronage from the Crown would
weaken its influence, or the connexion of the Church
with the State. He believed that poor people were in a
state of heathen ignorance, and that to allow it to go on
was a scandal to them as a Christian nation. Then the
proposition he made was not a new proposition. In 1843,
when the late Sir Robert Peel borrowed 600,000/. from
the bounty fund for this purpose, the Noble Lord now at
the head of the Government did not object to it, but, on
the contrary, suggested that some of these very livings
should be sold, in order to provide funds for the erec-
tion of churches. The Incorporated Society for Pro-
moting the Building of Churches expended in seven
years 1,647,000/., and of that no less than 985,0004 was
contributed by private contributions. lie (the Marquis
of Blandford) did not come to the house for grants of
public money, bat was the Church of England to lan-
guish for want of funds, the more particularly when
' they considered the large amount of property left
by their ancestors?—(Hear, hear.) The Church of
England was especially a church for the poor, and he
did not hesitate to affirm that they all felt interested in
that subject, inasmuch as they were all anxious to pro-
mote public order. If the food of the people was to be
cheapened, why. should not spiritual consolation be
afforded to them in like manner? He was not anxious
for any party policy, but one as broad as the land they
lived in. The Nuble Lord concluded by moving the
Address.
Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR said that the House
must have heard with great satisfaction the speech just
math, by his Noble Friend, and in seconding his
motion, it was unnecessary for him to make many ob-
servations. There was one feature in the character of
his Noble Friend's proposition, and that was, that it
proposed nothing new, and nothing that was not emi-
nently practicable. The evil existing was certainly
very great; thousands and hundreds of thousands of
the poor had no spiritual instruction whatever, as might
be seen from the "London City Mission Magazine," and
by the reports of the chaplains of their prisons. Ho be-
lieved that nothing was better calculated to remove the
evil than what was termed the parochial system, as put
into practice by some clergymen. He had received seve-
ral letters from various parts of the country, showing
that where new churches were built, education increased
in proportion, and the beat results followed. He was
glad to state the Government had not been neglectful of
this subject; at the same time he hoped they would for-

ward this me.esure. and aid in epplying the resource cf
the Church to the beet advantage. He shetele cad att'llf
toteien to the eisdit huedred livings in the p itreesga c
the Lord Chancellor, which he thought eugkt to he eel''
It was wed known the opinion of the law Sir kiaber
Peel aas in favour of the eale. The nomination to these
limes by the Lord Chancellor otigieeted in times wheu
the office was held by ecc'esiasties; but these times 135°
passed cwsy, sad the Lord Chancellor had sufficient la/
patronage to satisfy any reasonable man. If that piaa
.
was adopted, they would have better security that thee'
livings would be well filled. He would not accept the,
voluntary system as a substitute for the parochial; so!
though they entertained different opinions upon W°
matters, much might be done to mitigate them.
would do the most in his power to promote the parochia,
system, as the best calculated to promote the spiritual
welfare of the people.
Mr. HUME then rose to move, as an amendree°l
upon, or as an addition to, the Marquis of Blandlord6
motion, after the word " That," " there be laid befell
this House an account of all lands, houses, mines, tithelf
and all property of every sort or kind whatsoever, be;
longing to the Church of England, or to any bishoprico,t
.
any capitular or ecclesiastical body or corporation, so
or aggregate, setting forth the nature and extent of the,.
property, and where situated; in whose possession, or iv
whom leased, and the date of such lease, and by wbo°l
held; the period for which the lease was granted; the fide'
if any, taken at the time of granting the lease; the newt/
of the parties by whom that fine was received, and tLej
amount paid to each party; also, the rent reserved, at
the annual value at which such property is now rated l°
the relief of the poor; anal if tithes, the amount of the
same; or, if commuted, the annual rent charge ; the la'
turn for each bishopric and ecclesiastical and eapitular
body to be given separately." He proposed the amend;
meat, not in opposition to the Noble Lord,for he egret'
in a great deal that had fallen from that Noble
Lord. The Noble Lord, however, made a nits'
take in his estimate of the extent of the aft
ritual destitution, because he had calculated e'
if the whole population were members of tbef
Established Church, and made no account
the church accommodation enjoyed by Dissenters. De
objected that the property of the Church had not beep
well applied, and further, that bishops were of little utter
and that the Church would be better without them'
The ground he had taken in 1827 was that which the
Noble Lord hal now proposed; but when he brotiab'
forward a motion in 1836 to abolish pluralities, Gentle:
men professing to be friends of the Church voted agailte'
his motion. What was now proposed to be done O
no more than he had formerly advocated, and for which
he was considered an enemy to the Church, when he
only sought to apply its revenues to useful purposes. o'B
was free to confeis that great advantages had arisen fill
Lord Harrowby's Acts. It appeared that the duty °
half the preachers in the Church were performed at 11
cost of 425,0001. The curate's not receiving more the"
751.; while the bishops had largely increased their it
comes, no addition had been made w those of their cu'
rates. He had suggested that the Ecclesiastical COO
mission should be placed under the direction of layoael
instead of bishops, in consequence of the rejection °
which the Church had been robbed. In 1824 he pro,
' posed that all livings in Ireland, having over 50 inhabi'i
tants, should have 3001. a year, and all livings in Englisil
not less than 3001. a year. He hoped that both he OA
the Noble Lord had the same object in view. He truste",
that the House would, in the first instance, agree to t,l`,
motion of the Noble Lord opposite, and that they would
adopt the amendment of which he had given notice, all
which he concluded by submitting for the consideraties
of the [louse.
Sir B. HALL was anxious to offer his thanks tole
Noble Lord opposite for having brought forward tbli
motion, as he thought it was the only practical waY,
carrying out the objects which they had in view. 1,
had taken rather an active part in reference to ChUrt°6
affairs, for the purpose of making known many of t".,,
abuses that existed, in ihe hope of having them remove'
He thought that this motion must have the effect, if PO;
osrried out, of removing those abuses. He al°,
agreed in the addition proposed by the lion. Member PI
Montrose. He was certain that the funds at the dispose
of the Church for useful purposes, if properly managed'
were almost incalculable. The Noble Lord referred t'
a paper, No. 241, in respect to the subject of Church el.
tension, which had been laid before the House that 0,1
sion. There was an intimation from the archbishops slid
bishops, and 98 laymen referred to, that a million wheel,
be granted for Church extension. Now he (Sir B. Hell)
would oppose any Parliamentary grant whatever belt!B
made for such object. He presumed that his Noble
Friend had no such object in view when he referred L°
the report made by the Royal Commissioners.
first proposition they made was, that there should be
sale of the Lord Chancellor's livings. Ho entirely °V
jected to such a course being taken, as he saw no reas°,l
at all at present for it. When these archbishops o°,l
bishops presented this address they might have cheer/
it necesssary to have called attention to the number If
livings of which they themselves had the patronage. ;
they were sincere in their declaration, he thought tlisi
their own livings might be disposed of with very greil„;
advantage for the object they had in view. He wade "
aware that the Lord Chancellor's patronage visa bf,
stowed in a worse way than that of the archbisher
and bishops. There were about 700 livings in the WI
of the Lord Chancellor. He held in his hand an accotte
of the number held by four bishops. By this it I;
peered that the
_Archbishop of Canterbury held 1'
living; the Bishop of Durham, 61; the Bishop of 1,6;
don, 127; the Bishop of Winchester, 86. These Lour
prelates bad, then, 448 livings, not one of which
;it
were desirous of disposing of. The livings in the $
of the Archbishop of Canterbury amounted to all°1)
80,0001. annually, the sale of which would ltelduc,
nearly the millioc which they asked as a grunt for Chuteh-
extension. He (Sir B. Hell) saw no reason whatever O.
attacking the benefices in the gift or under:the patronage
of the Crown. The next proposition of these Coll
naissioners was the adoption of a better system °
management of Church property, by which tbelij
calculated upon a saving of no less WI
500,000/. per annum ; and the address even;
on to say, "It rests with the Government to o.°;
0
the scheme in motion—it will remain for the people ;‘;
press it forward." Now he did not think that they welt,
get the people to press it forward unless they put tP
Establishment on a better and more satisfactory footiag'
When he spoke of the Church he wished it to be tit
derstood that he did not speak of the clergy. He kae,‘
that when an attack was made upon the emolumenn'ts
of the Church, many persons were disposed to say, "'a
you are an enemy to the Church." He disclaimed belted
an enemy to the Church; he could not be an elleLol
to the community to which he belonged. All he der
'iced was to make the clergy, who were the servants %
the Church— the laity being the Church gee
and efficient ministers for the performance c'n,
their sacerdotal duties. He had a document lyiee
before him, the contents of which would astoniebe
them. He had endeavoured to obtain from tba
Ecclesiastical Commissioners that return which be I'l',
asked for month after month, until be was wearied bi
the frequency of his applications long before Oil
That return was ordered on the 2d of May in the last
year, buti
it was not presented until the 22d of June t/
the pis sent par. By this return it appetite°a
that the Church property was of immees
value, end yet the full value of it was not given. That
abominable system of taking fines upon leases was stl.`„
esatinued. What was important in this return was 1"
regaid to the real value of the property. He hoped the
House would bear with him while he stated what arch'
bishops and bishops of the Established Church had re'
ceived within the last seven years. He found that the
gross income of the see of Canterbury for the last sell
}ears amounted to 210,1541.; that of York, 100,4681.; 0'
London, 125,9251.; of Durham, 207,5621.; of Winchertet'
101,1301., and so forth. The result of the whole wO5
this. The gross income of the sees for the last see°
years amounted to the enormous sum of 1,535,976/. The
net income was 1,344,170 Z The average income of the
seven years, giving a net income to these bishops, vve°
no less than 192,024/. Would it bo believed that the
fines received for leases granted for lives and for termo
of years amounted to 636,387 Z? Now, when theY
took fines upon such leases they robbed Of
Church to a certain extent. He would take oe'
case as shown in this return. The Bishop of Wia'
chester it appeared had received 20,000/. in fihe.,
within the last year. This was tolerably good f°',
one bishop. The House would recollect that previousif
to the lapse of any see a septennial return should be
made, and the bishop should have an income ranging
from 4,2001. up to 15,000/. a year; and if he received
more from that see than the sum allotted to him he we.,
bound by law to pay the difference over to the Eccletn'
astical Commissioners; and if a less sum, then he was t°
receive the difference from the same Commissioners'
They had been led to believe that the income was to be
confined as nearly as possible to the sum set down for the
see. Many of the laity protested against even giving,
any option to the bishops; they said that they should
not be permitted to gamble in the property, but thet
they should have a positive income, and that they should
look to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the par
ment of their quarterly incomes. The episcopal bodft
however, said that they would not give up the properti,
—that if they could make more than the amount 01
their incomes, they would not pay to the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners one farthing more than they felt their'
selves bound to pay. From this return the whole
would be made manifest as to the working of this
scheme. He would show what occurred in six see.;
The Bishop of Chichester was to have a fixed anneal
income of 4,200/. But in the seven years ending in
December last he received 30,625/, or about 1,225/. more
than he was entitled to receive.. The Bishop of St'
David's was to have a fixed annual income of 4,50014
but he received 39,1234, making about 7,623/. more
wthiacnifa was
annual he entitledaansllixed i
to receive.
wasive. The Bishop of Not.
4,500/.; but he re;
ceived 39,571/ ; being 7,071/. more than he was entitle°,
to receive. The Bishops of Oxford, Rochester, and
Salisbury were in similar proportions. The result WO,
for seven years these bishops received 170,400/. in the
whole, or 28 267/ more than were allotted to the sect;
and the amount fixed as their annual incomes. Now, if
any other persons were to act in this way he should be
disposed to call it a robbery of a fund. If a man assents
to a certain fixed income being paid him for his services,
and then he takes more than the sum assigned to him'
he takes what he knows does not belong to him, But let
him see the other side of the case. There were bishop'
who had to psy certain rums of money to the Ecclesias-
tical Fund. They bad speculated upon their sees and
had not made u good bargain of it. They have refused
to pay the amount they were ordered to discharge. These,
were figures taken Lem the returns for which he hael
moved, iu consequence of the i eport of the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners. The Archbishop of Yolk owes to these
Commissioners 2,3171; this Bishop of St. Asaph, 1,661/.1
notwithstanding certain deductions made in it; the
Bishop of Bath and Wells, 3,945/. ; but this sum, he hit"
just heard, had been lately paid; the Bishop of BAY'
9,242/.—all these making a total now due by three
bishops alone of 14,2254 Lie declared that if any Per