But the net income of seven years is stated to be 6,7721. after payment to the Commissioners, which would leave 1,2721. payable. It is probable, however, that in certain years of the average the payment of 3,500l. by the bishop was not made, which would explain the apparent inconsistency. Gross income Income Receipt WORCESTER. ... ... Intended income Surplus ... Intended payment ... ... SALISBURY. ... £8,166 1,866 And yet the Commissioners propose to pay 500s. a year to the Bishop after the next avoidance. There was, lastly, the case of the Bishop of Rochester, which was a 6,866 somewhat strong one. In the other cases 5,000 the rule had been laid down that the changes were only to come into operation on the next appointment to the see; the Commissioners laid down, in the first instance, the rule that the income was not to be increased till next vacancy. So lately as June, 1845, they had fixed the payment in this case at 3,700l. a year, to commence on the next vacancy. Only two months later, in August, the payment actually did. commence, no vacancy having occurred in These were the prospective payments; but the interim; and the Bishop was at this the actual payments commenced would ap-moment in the receipt of 3,750l. a year pear from the following calculations on the bishops' returns for seven years showing that in the cases of sees to which the Commissioners contribute the payments out of the Episcopal Fund, give the bishops a surplus above the incomes as settled for each of them by Parliament. Income Receipts... Payment by Commissioners ... 5,000 5,000 ...£1,028 £683 ... ... Gross. Net. £5,380 £5,217 650 650 4,780 4,567 £530 £367 And yet the Commissioners still propose to pay 150l. to the Bishop after the next avoidance. from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The result of this system was, that the payments made by the richer sees were less than ought to be paid under the provisions of the Act by no smaller a sum than 20,000l. a year; whilst the payments of the poorer sees were more than ought to be made by no less a sum than 6,000l. a year; so that at this moment the richest bishops were receiving over and above their due, under the provisions of the Act of Parliament which they were called upon to administer, a sum of no less than 27,6007. a year. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) had on a former occasion made a reference to the difference between the gross and net returns; and he confessed that the enormous discrepancy between these, in the tabular statement made of Durham St. Asaph Ely ... Lincoln Back in Norwich 1837...£14,000 ... 1837 ... ... 1837 2,300 1,800 2,300 3,000 400 700 400 2,200 300 the seven years' average income of bi-penses of these things, which were not inshops, was to him perfectly unintelligible. cluded in his official functions, were proper It amounted to a sum of no less than and legitimate charges to be deducted from 50,000l. a year. This could not proceed his gross income? He could account on from anything like fixed payments; at no other grounds for the difference beleast beyond a small part of that amount, tween the gross and net incomes that apsince these varied so much from year to peared on the face of the returns. Another year. The difference between gross and thing was remarkable in the management net income was in the case ofof the Ecclesiastical Commissioners-their immense variations. No bishop knew from one year to another what his income was to be. That, he believed, was felt as a very great hardship; and he could not conceive anything more inconvenient, vexatious, and insulting. Take the case of Durham; he was told that the income of that diocese being calculated at 19,000l. a year, the Bishop had the choice given him by the Commissioners, whether he would make to them a payment of 11,000l. a year, taking his chance of 8,000l., or whether they should make him an annual payment of 8,000l. and keep the remainder. As far as his information went, the Bishop prebut the difference between gross and net ferred the gambling transaction, and cerin 1843, 751l., or 300 per cent. It would tainly he appeared to have made a very be satisfactory if they knew exactly what good thing of it. His income was intendthe Commissioners admitted as legitimate ed to be 8,000l. a year, yet it averaged deductions from the gross income. Tak- 16,000l. a year, whilst the net income, ing the last case he had mentioned, for according to the returns, was more than example, what deductions could be men- 12,000l. The excuse, or plea, assigned tioned that would make a difference of by the Commissioners for this management 300 per cent between the gross and the of the income was, that by allowing the net income? He remembered an anecdote Bishop to make the payment, instead of which might perhaps illustrate this point. themselves giving it to him, he had a great A gentleman, who was known to have two interest in the improvement of his property. livings of the value of 1,500l. a year, re- He thought this a false principle; it was turned them as of the gross value of 1501.; refusing to give effect to the provisions of and on being examined by the Tithe Com- the Act of Parliament; and they all knew missioners, the account he gave was, that that when a man had an estate of 30,0007. his two parishes were at some distance a year to manage, that was of itself suffifrom each other, so that he was obliged to cient to occupy his whole time and energy. deduct the expense of the horses which The first diocese in which this rule was conveyed him between them; that his wife laid down was Durham. The property of was not in very good health, so that she that see was mineral. They stimulated was obliged to ride to church, which obliged the Bishop to work it out to the utmost; him to deduct the expenses of the carriage; and, accordingly, no less than 60,0007. that a man in his station could not but send over the sum fixed by Parliament had been his children to a fashionable school, so that received by the Bishop of Durham since when every necessary expense was deduct- his appointment to that see. The reed, the net income remained at 150l. a venue was constantly increasing; and it year. Suppose a bishop were very liti-was stated as quite notorious, that at this gious, and had, in consequence, many law-moment the income of the Bishop of Dursuits with his clergy; suppose that he was ham was greater than any ever enjoyed by rather eminent as a literary character, and a bishop of that see before. And this the composed a great many pamphlets, which Bishop had been receiving in spite of the were distributed through his diocese, or Act of Parliament fixing that income. He that he wrote long letters in the Times, now came to a case in which the Commisaddressed to the Prime Minister-would sioners had taken upon themselves to postthe Commissioners admit that all the ex-pone the operation of that Act-that of Salisbury. The Act received the Royal | God; and when there were no less than Assent on the 13th August, 1836; it was 2,000 beneficed clergymen of the Church to take effect retrospectively from the 4th of England with incomes lower than 1007. March, a day fixed upon because the Bishop a year, many of them running down to 50l., of Durham was gazetted upon that day, 407., 207., 10l., and 57., and even to 31. a and Parliament was so determined to bring year. This was the state of the Church the Act immediately into operation, that at the time these things were going on; though the Act was not passed till the and let the House think of the hardships month of August, it took effect from the and privations endured by the inferior 4th March in order to catch the Bishop of clergy thus miserably paid. Why, the Durham, who was not yet in possession of sufferings of the poor clergymen were his see. The Bishop of Salisbury was not something never before heard of in a rich gazetted till the 14th March, 1837, more and civilised country. He could commuthan a year after the Bishop of Durham; nicate instances of poverty, privation, and his future income was expressly fixed at suffering, on the part of these men, of 5,000l. a year; and yet that provision had which they had no conception. It had been entirely disregarded. The average been made a reproach to us that we knew income of that Prelate was nearly 3,000l. little of the condition of our working popua year over that fixed by Parliament; in lation. He believed we knew much less 1843, the last year for which they had re- of the condition of the poorer portion of turns, he was receiving a net income, by the working clergy. Think of the sufferhis own statement, of 12,1421.; and in ings known to have been endured by these 1841, he actually received 17,000l. That poor men during the severe season of the was a case on which he thought it unneces- last winter, the largest portion of it withsary to make any comment. He could not out food for their families, without clothes, help noticing, that whilst there was this obliged even to casual charity for the cloak superabundance of bishops and opulence of in which to go out and die by the wayside. their revenues, every episcopal charge de- It was sympathy with these men, and with livered dwelt on the spiritual destitution of the flocks under their care, which had inthe country. The laity were appealed to duced him to bring forward this statement. for their subscriptions; and nobly and ge- It was not that he wished to assail the Ecnerously had they responded to that ap- clesiastical Commissioners. He had been peal. In one single diocese, they were honoured by the friendship of some of those told by the Bishop of Ripon in his last distinguished men, and valued it too much charge, that during the last ten years to risk it lightly; he wished to give the no less a sum than 28,000l. had been honour due to the Ecclesiastical Commisannually subscribed for churches alone. sioners and the dignitaries of the Church; Churches had been built in every direction but he must say his most earnest feelings, by the exertions of generous and munificent his warmest sympathies, were with the persons, upon the express engagement of congregations of that Church, and the methe Commissioners themselves that they ritorious pastors to whom they looked as would endow them after being built. Those their esteemed and venerated guides. He engagements had been in many instances looked on them as labourers not less worbroken. They had heard the announce- thy of their hire, because, not living in ment made by the Commissioners in 1844, palaces, the sphere of their labours was stating their inability to give any further often among those whom both society and assistance because the Commission was Christianity had regarded as outcasts— bankrupt; and yet at the very time that "His the hard duty to reclaim it was bankrupt the Commissioners were dividing among themselves, according to their own showing, no less a sum than 26,000l. a year, but he believed it to be much nearer 40,000l. a year, out of those ecclesiastical revenues which they had been appointed as trustees to administer for ecclesiastical purposes. And at what a time was this occurring? When their own statement assured us that there were 2,000,000 of our population who, from want of teachers, never heard the word of Those reckless sons of sin and shame. Like them, by worldliness forgot, Their wants, their woes to him are known- There were, he believed, many of these were the persons whom he should employ an Act of Parliament, the second and and cherish. Be it remarked that every third were those with which the House shilling of superfluity you gave to the would have more immediately to deal, and wealthy was so much abstracted from the he might assume that they were all to working clergy, so much of their suste- be discussed together. He concurred nance, and so much of religious instruction fully with what had fallen from the denied to the poor. It was for the poor Mover and Seconder of these resolutions, that our Established Church existed. The that the ecclesiastical property of the revenues of that Church were the heritage kingdom ought properly to be applied to of the poor; they in that House were their meet the spiritual destitution which existguardians and protectors; and they were ed. He questioned, however, whether the bound to see those revenues were justly hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion and righteously administered. It was for had read the resolutions with attention; that purpose he called upon the House to for even if the House thought proper vindicate its own Act of 1836, and so pave to agree to a vote of censure on the the way for placing the administration of Ecclesiastical Commissioners, that would those revenues, he would not say in more not effect the object which the Mover faithful, but certainly in more competent had in view. His hon. Friend who had and careful hands. The hon. Gentleman introduced the Motion, devoted a good deal concluded by moving his resolutions. of his speech to matter that was not enMR. PLUMPTRE seconded the Mo-tirely relevant. He had alluded to transaction. It was a subject of considerable tions which took place before the formation difficulty and delicacy in his estimation; of the Commission; and he confounded but those who shut their eyes to the errors and abuses found in the working of our system, were in his opinion its worst enemies. Feeling that the subject was one of great importance, he was prepared to go with the hon. Member for Cockermouth, because he believed the hon. Member wished to touch it with a friendly hand. He thought from the statements made by the hon. Gentleman, that the working of the Commission could not be satisfactory to those who considered the subject in all its bearings. He believed that it was not the intention of the hon. Member to make any personal reflections on the right rev. prelates he had adverted to; it was the system the hon. Member objected to, and which had led to his able and diligent examination of its results. If the Act 6 and terwards embodied in the Act of Parlia7 William IV. had not been properly fra- ment to which his hon. Friend referred as med, or if there had been any diversion or fixing the amount each bishop was to reperversion of the fund intended to be ap-ceive. But in point of fact that Act did plied to the purposes of the Act, this ought to be amended. He believed those who honestly and faithfully endeavoured to root out error where it appeared, and set their faces against abuses, were the true and real friends of the religious Establishment of this country, whose limits he wished to see extended, and its utility increased on every side. He believed he should be supporting its best interests by voting for the Motion before the House, and should therefore give it his hearty support. SIR G. GREY said, although the first only of this series of resolutions had been read from the Chair, which merely recited two separate Commissions. He assumed that the Commissioners had acted on returns of the value of episcopal incomes made in the year 1831. What was the history of the appointment of the Ecclesiastical Commission? The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel), in the beginning of the year 1835, had appointed a Commission of Inquiry into the ecclesiastical revenues, with the view of promoting the object which he believed his hon. Friend had in his present Motion; that Commission had made its report in March, 1836, and had come to certain resolutions, in which they recommended, amongst other things, an equalisation of the episcopal duties and revenues in the different sees. The resolutions were af not absolutely fix the amount of incomes. The Commissioners of Inquiry recommended 64 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 sees respectively as shall, on due inquiry and consideration, be determined on so as to leave as an annual average ineome to the Archbishop of Canterbury, 15,000Z.; the Archbishop of York, 10,000l.; the Bishop of London, 10,000l.; the Bishop of Durham, 8,000l.; the Bishop of Winchester, 7,000l.; the Bishop of Ely, 5,500l.; the Bishop of St. Asaph and Bangor, 5,2001.; and the Bishops of Worcester, Bath, and Wells, respectively, 5,000l." They also recommended that out of the funds thus accruing fixed annual payments | not lately looked at those returns, and he should 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 income of the other bishops, respectively, be not less than 4,000l., nor more than 5,000l." The next recommendation was, that at the circumstances of his bishopric." could not decide whether or not they were grossly incorrect. If they were, he could only say that the bishops at that time had taken rather a desponding view of the value of the property they possessed, and must have supposed that their incomes had a tendency rather to diminish than to increase. But his hon. Friend had said that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had fixed the incomes of the bishops on these incorrect returns. But when his hon. Friend made that statement, he must have forgotten that the Commissioners had fixed in the year 1837 the annual payments of the bishops, not on the returns of the year 1831, but on the subsequent and more cor And he begged particularly to call the at-rect returns, which showed the incomes to tention of his hon. Friend to the following words of the recommendation, because these very words were employed in the Act of Parliament "that such revised scale take effect as to each see respectively, upon the then next avoidance thereof." Now, the Act of Parliament embodied and gave the force of the law to these several recommendations; and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners being constituted by Parliament the body to carry the Act into effect, had no power to depart from its provisions. The Act prescribed the precise mode by which the object of an equalisation of episcopal incomes was to be aimed at. He was not contending that the whole of this arrangement was not open to objection, or that it was not capable of amendment; but he contended that the proceedings of the Commissioners, which the hon. Gentleman had censured, were in conformity with the Act of Parliament which they were bound to adhere to, and the Commissioners had merely carried out the law. It was, therefore, impossible to say that the Commissioners had failed in the discharge of their duty: if any failure had occurred, it was in the Act of Parliament, which the Commissioners were bound to enforce. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners had only acted in strict conformity with the provisions of the Act. [Mr. HORSMAN: Not at all.] His hon. Friend said, "Not at all." But he believed that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had strictly carried out the provisions of the Act of Parliament. His hon. Friend had stated that the returns of incomes made by the bishops in the year 1831 were grossly incorrect. Now he had The Act of Parliament provided that the be much greater than the returns of 1831. Ecclesiastical Commissioners should ascertain the average incomes of the possessors of the wealthier sees during a certain period, and should charge those incomes with the payment of certain fixed sums, being the difference between the average income and the intended future annual income. Had the Commissioners done that? His hon. Friend said that they had not; but he said that they had. He held in his hand the first report of the Commissioners, which the hon. Gentleman seemed to have entirely overlooked; and in that report he found it stated that after having obtained the best information as to the revenues of the bishops, they had proceeded to carry out the Act by which payments were to be made out of the larger bishoprics in aid of the smaller sees. The information in question had not, he repeated, been derived from the returns of 1831, but from subsequent and more correct returns. He would take the case of the see of Canterbury in illustration of the error into which his hon. Friend had fallen. His hon. Friend had said that the Commissioners had written down Canterbury from the return of 1831 at 17,300l. a year. But the fact was that they had written down the income of the see of Canterbury at 22,000l. a year, charging the future possessor of that see with the payment of the sum of 7,000l., thus reducing the income of the see, according to that calculation, to 15,000l. a year. He would next pass to the case of the see of Durham. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners had ascertained the average income of that see for the seven years preceding the appointment of |