HC Deb 17 May 1850 vol 111 cc169-71
SIR B. HALL

begged to ask the noble Lord the First Lord of the Treasury certain questions of which he had given him notice. It appeared from a paper he hold in his hand, containing the cases determined by the Judges in the matter of appeals against the assessed taxes, that in 1842 the Bishop of Exeter left his palace, and in 1844 refused to pay the assessed taxes, in consequence of his absence from his episcopal residence. This fact in itself proved that the bishop had not resided at the palace from 1842. The questions he wished to ask were these:

  1. 1. It appearing by the second report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, page 11, that on the 5th August, 1845, and the 26th May, 1846, sums amounting to 3,000l. were paid for "altering and improving house at Exeter," whether any further sum had been advanced for a similar purpose; if so the date when advanced and the amount, and by what authority such sums were advanced; whether any account had been rendered to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of the manner in which those sums have been expended, and if so, the date of such account, and when it was rendered; whether, when the 170 Ecclesiastical Commissioners last revised the incomes of the archbishops and bishops, they received from them a detailed account of their incomes from lands, fines, rents, and all other sources, for the purpose of showing the gross income; and whether, in order to show the net income, the archbishops and bishops gave in under different heads the several items of expenditure; and, if not, upon what data the Ecclesiastical Commissioners fixed the sums that should be paid into the Episcopal Fund from the richer sees, and the sums that should be paid from that fund to the poorer sees; and whether the Commissioners will make a return of the data upon which such revision was founded?
  2. 2. Whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had, or have since, received full and particular accounts of the property belonging to the several sees, the mode in which such property is leased, the date of the several leases, the fines and rents received by the archbishop or bishop, and the names of the parties to whom leases have been granted?
  3. 3. As it appears by the return of incomes made in 1845, that the net income of the Bishop of London was reduced from 14,510l. 9s. 4d. in 1837, to 12,481l. 8s. in 1843, notwithstanding the Faddington Estate was built upon during that interval, and the Bishop of Exeter's net income fell from 2,136l. 0s. 9d in 1837, to 341l. 10s. 5d. in 1843, to ask whether any reasons were given for such diminutions, and if so, to what causes they are attributable?
  4. 4. when the Ecclesiastical Commissioners purpose making any report of their proceedings, no report having been made for three years?

LORD J. RUSSELL

said, in answer to the first question, he had to state that by Orders in Council of the 5th of August, 1845, and the 26th of May, 1846, a sum amounting to 2,500l. was ordered to be advanced "for altering and improving house at Exeter;" that that had been advanced out of a sum standing to the credit of the see of Exeter; and that the bishop could himself have drawn that sum during his incumbency.

SIR B. HALL

asked whether the noble Lord had any account of the rents from various sources which the dignitaries of the Church derived, or whether he knew upon what data the larger sees had been reduced, and money had been paid over to the poorer sees? He was anxious to ascertain what really was the property of the archbishops and bishops; and, perhaps, in answering the question, the noble Lord would state whether any late report had been issued by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners?

LORD J. RUSSELL

begged to state, in reply, that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had received in 1844 a return containing a revision of the incomes of the several bishops, and there was no objection that the data upon which that return and revision were founded should be given the hon. Baronet. He believed that no such particular account could be furnished as the hon. Baronet sought for; but in the next Session of Parliament a further report from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would be presented.

Subject dropped.