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

JULY 2, 1851.

patent laws whatever. He then proceeded to state that
while several of the witnesses examined before the
Select Committee were certainly favourable to the exis-
tence of patent laws, others, of great scientific and
legal eminence—namely, Mr. Cubitt, the civil en-
gineer ; Mr. Brunel, Mr. Ricardo, M.P., Colonel Reed
(author of the "Law of Storms "), the Swiss consul,
and the present Master of the Rolls, were adverse to
them, the latter especially, on the ground that these
laws were bad in principle, and not advantageous either
to the inventor or to the public. He (Earl Granville)
agreed himself with the views of these witnesses.
Although he proposed the Bill he considered patent laws
as unadvisablo 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 •
ment. 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 in 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 whose assistance
they worked, or alternately by the last improver of the
invention. Considering, therefore, the large expenses
incurred by patentees, not the fees but the costs of
patent and agents and litigation, ho 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 he (Earl Granville) considered protection a dis-
pel vantage, 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 prac
tice had the effect of stereotyping a single idea in 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, tho 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
did not think they would bo acting in 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 had 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 ho
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 HARRO WBY 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, if 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 Friend (Earl
Granville) as to the inexpediency of any patent 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 their machine, and the result was the sugar
planters of Jamaica and Guiana had to pay 1001. for the
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, the House resumed
and immediately afterwards adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. July 1.

COUNTY COURTS FURTHER EXTENSION BILL.

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved the following
clause:—And whereas by an Act passed in the tenth
year of the reign of her present Majesty, intituled,
it was enacted that no person should be entitled to ap-
pear for any other party to any proceeding in any of
the said courts, " unless he be an attorney of one of
her Majesty's superior courts of record, or a barrister-
at-law instructed by such attorney on behalf of the party,
or by leave of the judge, any other person allowed by
the judge to appear instead of such party; but that no
barrister, attorney, or other person, except by leave
of the judge, should be entitled to be heard
to argue any question as counsel for any
other person in any proceeding in any court
holden under that Act," be it enacted, that the
said provision shall not be deemed or construed to
apply to any case within the jurisdiction given to the
said courts by this present Act, or by any other Act,
other than the above partly recited Act, and that in all
cases in which jurisdiction is given to the said courts by
the present Act, or by any other Act other than the
above partly recited Act, barristers-at-law and attorneys
shall have and enjoy such rights and privileges as have
been hitherto used and exercised by them respectively
in the superior courts of common law at Westminster.

Mr. FITZROY said, that in its present state, he should
feel bound to oppose the clause.
After some discussion, in which Mr. P. Howard, Mr.
Mailings, and Mr. J. Evans took part,
Mr. WAKLEY moved that the debate on the amend-
ment be postponed, to give time for its further conside-
ration, since if adopted it wculd introduce an entirely
new feature in the practice of the county courts.
Sir G. PECHELL also recommended the postpone-
ment of the clause.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL professed his readi-
ness to mollify the clause to meet the objection which
had been raised against it.
The clause was then agreed to, on the understanding
that it was to be modified.

The Bill was then ordered to be printed, and reoom-
mitted on Tuesday next at 12 o'clock.

The Howie then resumed.
ECCLESIASTICAL PRO?ERTY VALUATION
(IRELAND) BILL. _ .

This Bill passedthrough Committee; and the House
adjourned until Five o'clock.

The House resumed at Fire o'clock.
PETITIONS.

Several petitions were presented in favour of the
Pharmaceutical Bill.

Mr. %V. WILLIAMS presented a petition from the
metropolis, praying for the abolition of the paper and
newspaper duty.
Mr. VILLIERS presented a petition from a place in
Staffordshire against the truck system.
Mr. lIERRIES presented a petition from Sunderland,
complaining of the repeal of tte navigation-laws.
Lord NAAS presented a petition from Mr. Archer,
the patentee of a machine for sluicing perforated postage..
stamps, complaining that the Government had only
offered him 2001. for his invention, and 300/. for the
machine, the machine itself htving cost him altogether ,
9001., and praying for an inqury into the circumstances
connected with his case.

Colonel FREEST UN presented a petition from the
physicians, surgeons, and medical practitioners of Wey-
mouth and Melcombe Regis, praying the House to pass
a Bill for regulating the qualifications of pharmaceutical
chemists in Great Britain; also petitions from the che-
mists of inhabitants of the same place of similar import.
ADULTERATION OF COFFEE.
Mr. G. BERKELEY gave notice that on an early day
ho would move a resolution for the repeal of all Acts
enabling the Government to prosecute persons for the
adulteration of articles of consumption, in order to put all
traders on the same footing.
DEATH BY SUFFOCATION.

In reply to Mr. BASS,
Sir G. GREY said, the case reported into to-day's
papers with regard to the suffocation of a boy in a
flue, had not, nor was likely to come before him
in his official capacity ; but so far as ap-
peared to him, it did not seem that there was sufficient

evidence adduced beFore tlie jury to implicate any per
son, or render him liable for the penalty imposed under
the Act.

SPIRITUAL DESTITUTION.

The Marquis of BLANDFORD moved that an
humble Address be presented to her Majesty, pray-
ing that she will be graciously pleased to take into
her consideration the state of spiritual destitution
existing throughout England and Wales; with a
view, that her Majesty may be plowed 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 his intention
to submit to the House any groat 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 R. 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 of 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 other times, and adapted to a different state
of society.—(Hear, hear.) That eves the position from
which he (the Marquis of 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 aedre,s 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 desirable 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 of supplying that want; and, thirdly,
that the people in general wen) williug to support any-
thing that might be done by the Legislature for that ob-
ject.—(Hear.) Since 1843, when Sir R. 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 RepairingCburches and Chapels
had expended 1,246,308/. By the Curates' Aid Society,
it appeared that within the last decade they had ex-
pended 179,652/.; while another great society—the
Church Pastoral Aid Society—had within the same
period spent 2,235,2451.; and yet according to returns
from the various parishes in the metropolis, as well as
Birmingham, Manchester, 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, Limehouse, for 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 persons as an aver-
age to each church, ho 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 of 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 2",
and Newcastle 23, as compared with the population; in
fact, taking the population of all our largo 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, and that, as Sir Robert Peel had
said, existing parochial instruction having been framed
for other times, and a very different state of society,
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.—(Bear, hear.) He believed there was
seemly any subject on which there was greater miscon-
ception than this. He 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 be 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
aroso 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 tho 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 ad, quately meet. The report
of the Church Commission in 1835 contained full parti-
culars of the state of the 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. spent in education, there
had been not far from 600,0001. expended in the diocese
of Ripon in church accommodation and extension. Ho
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 now bishops would much more effectually pro-
mote the great objects of the Church, and of their ec-
clesiastical and spiritual jurisdiction.—(Hear, hear.)
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 new churches should be
beilt, and the money for doing so to be procured in this
way:—there wore 770 livings in the gift of the Crown,
330 of which were under 200/. 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. lie 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
fonds for the erec-
tion of churches. The Incorporated Society for Pro-
moting the Building et' Churches expended in seven
years 1,647,000/., and of that no less than 985,000/. was
contributed by private contributions. He (the Marquis
of Blandford) did not come to the House for grants of
public money, but 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?—(Ucar, 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
Ithat 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 uilike manner?
brolaied aws"th teloltanadnx they
for any party policy,
The Noble Lord concluded by moving the'
Cu t on
A lived
ddr
ess.
Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR said that the House
must have heard with great satisfaction the speech just
jl3ade 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. He 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
.hat where new churches were built, education increased
in proportion, and the best results followed. Ho was
glad to state the Government had not been neglectful of
this subject; at the same time he hoped they would for-

ward this measure, and aid in applying the resources of
the Church to the best advantage. He should call atten-
tention to the eight hundred livings in the patronage of
the Lord Chancellor, which he thought ought to be sold.
It was well known the opinion of the late Sir Robert
Peel was in favour of the sale. The nomination to those
livings by the Lord Chancellor originated in times when
the office was held by ecclesiastics; but these times had
passed sway, and the Lord Chancellor had sufficient lay
patronage to satisfy any reasonable man. If that plan
was adopted, they would have better security that these
livings a ould be well filled. He would not accept the
voluntary system as a substitute for the parochial; and
though they entertained different opinions upon those
matters, much might be done to mitigate them. He
would do the most in his power to promote the parochial
system, as the best calculated to promote the spiritual
welfare of the people.
Mr. FIUME then rose to move, as an amendment
upon, or as en addition to, the Marquis of Blandtord's
motion, after the word " That," "there be laid before
this House an account of all lands, houses, mines, tithes,
and all property of every sort or kind whatsoever, be-
longing to the Church of England, or to any bishopric or
any capitnlar or ecclesiastical body or corporation, solo
or aggregate, setting forth the nature and extent of the
property, and where situated; in whose possession, or to
whom leased, and the date of such lease, and by whom
held; the period for which the lease was granted; the fine,
if any, taken at the time of granting the lease; the names
of the parties by whom that fine was received, and the
amount paid to each party; also, the rent reserved, and
the annual value at which such property is now rated to
the relief of the poor; and if tithes, the amount of the
same; or, if commuted, the annual rent charge ; the re-
turn for each bishopric and ecclesiastical and capitular
body to be given separately." He proposed the amend-
ment, not in opposition to the Noble Lord, for he agreed
in a great deal that had fallen from that Noble
Lord. The Noble Lord, however, made a mis-
take in his estimate of the extent of the spi-
ritual destitution, because he had calculated as
if the whole population were members of the
Established Church, and made no account of
the church accommodation enjoyed by Dissenters. He
objected that the property of the Church had not been
well applied, and further, that bishops were of little use,
and that the Church would be better without them.
The ground he had taken in 1827 was that which the
Noble Lord had now proposed; but when he brought
forward a motion in 1836 to abolish pluralities, Gentle-
men professing to be friends of the Church voted against
his motion. What was now proposed to be done was
no more than he had formerly advocated, and for which
ho was considered an enemy to the Church, when he
only sought to apply its revenues to useful purposes. He
was free to confess that great advantages had arisen from
Lord Harrowby's Acts. It appeared that the duty of
half the preachers in the Church were performed at a
cost of 425,0001. The curates not receiving more than
751.; while the bishops had largely increased their in-
comes, no addition had been made to those of their cu-
rates. He had suggested that the Ecclesiastical Com-
mission should be placed under the direction of laymen
instead of bishops, in consequence of the rejection of
which the Church had been robbed. In 1824 he pro-
posed that all livings in Ireland, having over 50 inhabi-
tants, should have 3001, a year, and all livings in England
not less than 300/. a year. He hoped that both he and
the Noble Lord had the same object in view. He trusted
that the House would, in the first instance, agree to the
motion of the Noble Lord opposite, and that they would
adopt the amendment of which he had given notice, and
which he concluded by submitting for the consideration
of the House.
Sir B. HALL was anxious to offer his thanks to the'
Noble Lord opposite for having brought forward this
motion, as he thought it was the only practical way of
carrying out the objects which they had in view. He
had taken rather an active part in reference to Church
affairs, for the purpose of making known many of the
abuses that existed, in the hope of having them removed.
He thought that this motion must have the effect, if pro-
perly carried out, of removing those abuses. He also
agreed in the addition proposed by the lion. Member for
blontroe. He was certain that the funds at the disposal
of the Church for useful purposes, if properly managed,
were almost incalculable. The Noble Lord referred to
a paper, No. 241, in respect to the subject of Church ex-
tension, which had been laid before the House that ses-
sion. There was an intimation from the archbishops and
bishops, and 98 laymen referred to, that a million should
be granted for Church extension. Now ho (Sir B. Hall)
would oppose any Parliamentary grant whatever being
made for such object. He presumed that his Noble
Friend had no such object in view when he referred to
the report made by the Royal Commissioners. The
first proposition they made was, that there should be a
sale of the Lord Chancellor's livings. He entirely ob-
jected to such a course being taken, as ho saw no reason
at all at present for it. W hen these archbishops and
bishops presented this address they might have thought
it necesssary to have called attention to the number of
livings of which they themselves had the patronage. If
they were sincere in their declaration, be thought that
their own livfngs might be disposed of with very great
advantage for the object they had in view. He was not
aware that the Lord Chancellor's patronage was be-
stowed in a worse way than that of the archbishops
and bishops. There were about 700 livings in the gift
of the Lord Chancellor. He held in his hand an account
of the number held by four bishops. By this it 013"
peered that the ..Archbishop of Canterbury held 174
living;; the Bishop of Durham, 61; the Bishop of Lon-
don, 127; the Bishop of Winchester, 86. These four ,
prelates had, then, 448 livings, not one of which they
were desirous of disposing of. The livings in the gift
of the Archbishop of Canterbury amounted' to about
80,0001. annually, the sale of which would produce
nearly the million which they asked as a grant for Church
extension. He (Sir B. Hall) saw no reason whatever for
attacking the benefices in the gift or under:the patronage
of the Crown. The next proposition of these Com-
missioners was the adoption of a better system of
management of Church property, by which they
calculated upon a saving of no less than
500,0001. per annum ; and the address went
on to say, "It rests with the Government to set
the scheme in motion—it will remain for the people to
press it forward." Now he did not think that they would
get the people to press it forward unless they put the
Establishment on a better and more satisfactory footing.
When he spoke of the Church he wished it to be un-
derstood that he did not speak of the clergy. He knew
that when an attack was made upon the emoluments
of the Church, many persons were disposed to say, "Oh
you are an enemy to the Church." He disclaimed being
an enemy to the Church; he could not be an enemy
to the community to which he belonged. All he de-
sired was to make the clergy, who were the servants of
the Church— the laity being the Church -- good
and efficient ministers for the performance of
their sacerdotal duties. Ho had a document lying
before him, the contents of which would astonish
them. He had endeavoured to obtain from the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners that return which he bad
asked for month after month, until he was wearied by
the frequency of his applications long before this.
That return was ordered on the 2d of May in the last
year, but it was not presented until the 22d of June in
the present year. By this return it appeared
that the Church property was of immense
value, and yet the full value of it was not given. That
abominable system of taking fines upon leases was still
continusd. What was important in this return was in
regard to tho real value of the property. Ho hoped the
House would bear with him while he stated what arch-
bishops and bishops of the Established Church had re-
ceived within the lastf Durham, 0
sevenye2ar7s62l.; of w
years. Ho found that the
gross income of the see of Canterbury for the lasttieh esretveern,
years amounted to 210,1.541.; that of York, 100,4681.; of
London, 125,925/.; of
101,130/, and so forth. The result of the whole was
this. The gross income of the secs for the last seven
years amounted to the enormous sum of 1,535,976/. The
net income was 1,344,170 e The average income of the
seven years, giving a net income to these bishops, was
no less than 192,024/. Would it be believed that the
ofifneyseraercseivaemdofuonrteled toases granted for lives and for terms
636,387/. ? Now, when they
ethooeskter it a fines upon such leases they robbed the
Chu
asrc 5h
Church toowan
ic n certain extent. He would take one
case
this return. The Bishop of Win-
ppeared had received 20,000/. in fines
ownietezhtoepe., last year. This was tolerably good for
The House would recollect that previously
to the lap'° of any see a septennial return should be
made. and the bishop should have an income ranging
from 4,200/. up to 1.5,0004 a year; and if he received
more from that see than the sum allotted to him he was
bound by law to pay the difference over to the Ecclesi-
astical Commissioners; and if a less sum, then he was to
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
nanoyt
boopptieornmtiottetdheto gamblebi.hops; in the property,theysaidthatt butheys thathould
tb y should have a positive income, and that they should
e
look to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners fur the pay-
Anent of' their quarterly incomes. The episcopal body,
however, said that they would not give up the property
—that if they could make more than the amount of
their incomes, they would not pay to the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners one farthing more than they felt them-
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 sees.
The Bishop of Chichester was to have a fixed annual
income of 4,2001. But in the seven years ending in
December last he received 30,625/,, or about 1,2251. more
than he was entitled to receive. The Bishop of St.
David's was to have a fixed annual income of 4,500/.,
but he received 39,1231., making about 7,6231. more
than ho was entitled to receive. The Bishop of Nor-
wich's annual fixed laconic was 4,5001.; bat he re-
ceived 39,5711 ; being 7,071/. more than he was entitled
to receive. The Bishops of Oxford, Rochester, and
Salisbury were in similar proportions. The result was,
for seven years these bishops received 170,400/. in the
whole, or 28,2671. snore than were allotted to the sees
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 fur d. 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 bishops
who had to pay certain sums of money to the Ecclesias-
ticalthoa (pi
anyofitt
hgmeu
raaedmse
taken,au to ot
hd
from
by.
oamwr getarhiene
orcr'efdt euirrt ends tTfoohdrei
Fund. They had speculated upon their sees and
ys
haa
rvegebe
.hr eTe f
huhseaes
had
de
were
moved, in consequence of the report of the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners. The Archbishop of York owes to these
Commissioners 2,317/.; the Bishop of St. Asaph, 1,6611.,
notwithstanding certain deductions made in it; the
Bishop of Bath and Wells, 3 945/.; but this sum, he had
just heard, had been lately ' paid; the Bishop of Ely,
9,242/.—all these making a total now duo by three
bishop alone of 14,2254 He declared that if any per-