RECTORY OF BISHOP WEARMOUTH. (Hansard, 26 February 1849)

§ MR. HORSMAN

said, he believed since the noble Lord at the head of the Government answered a question put by him (Mr. Horsman) some days ago, he had received a communication from the Bishop of Durham, requesting him to correct some inaccuracies into which, in that answer, the noble Lord fell. As the matter related to a subject in respect to which he had given notice of a Motion, he should not refer to it on this occasion; but he considered it not only just to give the noble Lord the opportunity of correcting the inaccuracies to which he alluded, but that his attention should be directed, before the discussion on the Motion came on, to certain other particulars in which the answer which had been given, was, as he had since been informed, neither satisfactory nor correct. The subject to which he referred was the rearrangement in the distribution of the revenues of the rectory of Bishop Wear-mouth; and the facts of the case were these. During the last autumn this rich rectory became vacant by the demise of Dr. Wellesley, the late incumbent, and that event becoming known, it was supposed that such a redistribution of the temporal revenues of the living would be made as should seem adequate provision for the spiritual wants of the district. He had, therefore, inquired of the noble Lord 1212 whether he could inform the House if such redistribution of the temporalities of the rectory had been carried into effect, and, if so, what was the nature of it. The noble Lord gave an answer—not his own certainly—but speaking on the information he obtained from the brief he held in his hand at the moment, namely, a communication from the Bishop of Durham; and if, as he believed was the case, the information contained in that brief was incorrect, the noble Lord had as much reason to complain as he (Mr. Horsman) had. That answer involved four points: first, it referred to the gross income of the rectory; secondly, to the future income of the incumbent; thirdly, to the application of the surplus revenue; and, fourthly, the feeling of the inhabitants of the parish in regard to such redistribution, and the manner in which it would affect their spiritual interests. In each of these four points the answer he had received from the noble Lord was, he was sorry to say, not of that accurate character which might have been expected. He was quite aware that the errors were not intentional. He was aware that human infirmity was always liable to errors; and in no case would it he more so, he imagined, than on subjects of ecclesiastical revenue, elucidated by episcopal returns. With regard to the first point, the noble Lord stated that the gross income of the benefice was 3,800l. a year. He (Mr. Horsman) was informed that that was much under the mark. The items of income which had been given to him in detail, and which, though he could not go into them now, he would explain when the Motion of which he had given notice came on for discussion, showed that the actual income of the living was much over that sum. That was according to the information he had received. On the other three points, however, he could speak with more confidence. As to the second—the setting apart a certain portion of the future income of the rector to the payment of curates, limiting the income of the incumbent to 1,200l. a year—he believed he was perfectly correct in saying, that no such arrangement had or could have been made, and that it was notorious that the minimum income which had been secured to the future incumbent was more than 2,000l. a year. With such an income, and in a parish of more than 30,000 souls, it would appear almost a matter of course that the incumbent should keep curates, and, of course, also, that he should pay them. Yet 1213 no stipulation had been made binding on him; and no stipulation binding on his successors could be made to pay 800l. a year out of the 2,000l. for that purpose. Then, again, it was said, that the surplus of 1,600l. a year was to be divided amongst the four poor incumbents of the adjoining chapelries. Upon this point he believed the noble Lord had, since he gave the answer, received more correct information; and so surprised was he (Mr. Horsman) at the time, that, at the risk of being called to order by the Speaker, he rose three times and repeated the question, doubting whether he had heard the noble Lord correctly; yet on each occasion the noble Lord repeated the same statement; and after referring to the paper he held in his hand, saying that there was no doubt of the fact being as he had stated it, and that such redistribution—that was the setting apart the coal rents and way leave rents for the benefit of these four chapelries—would commence from the 13th of May. The astonishment which that answer occasioned was, as might be expected, considerable; and several Gentlemen came to him to join in congratulations on the noble conduct of the Bishop of Durham; and how anxiously the four poor incumbents were looking forward to the 13th of May, when their incomes were—according to the statement of the Prime Minister—to be so materially increased, might be more easily conceived than described. Others, again, shook their heads, and, knowing something of the matter themselves, complained that the noble Lord had, in a speech of only three or four minutes' duration, been made the medium of communicating more misconception than had ever before been put forward within the same short space of time. But the fourth point of the noble Lord's reply was the most strange and extraordinary of all. And the statement, in this respect, was so peculiarly rich, as showing what a large pediment of fiction might be built upon the smallest base of truth, that he could not forbear calling attention to it. The parishioners, they were told, were satisfied, and grateful to the Bishop for the change which had been made; and the ancient vestry of Bishop Wearmouth was brought into court to make the House believe it. They were told that a deputation from this vestry had been received by the Bishop, and had made the suggestions on which this new arrangement was founded; and that afterwards the head of that 1214 deputation had expressed their thanks to the right rev. Prelate in a letter for having so readily complied with their request. The letter which had thus been addressed to the Bishop of Durham, had been, he understood, transmitted by the right rev. Prelate to the noble Lord, and was read by him to the House; and if it was meant to infer anything, it was that the deputation had represented a more numerous body of the vestry, who represented the wishes of the inhabitants of the parish generally in the matter. On this point, however, he must take leave to undeceive the noble Lord, and show him not only that he had been misled, but that the whole story of the vestry, and the deputation, and the letter of thanks, should be regarded rather as a hoax than anything else. The facts were, that the ancient select vestry was so select, that it was self-elected. Its business was usually transacted by three or four individuals, and he was told that on the occasion alluded to, these gentlemen met and constituted themselves a vestry. Then they resolved themselves into a deputation from the vestry to the Bishop, and in that character proceeded to the Bishop of Durham, and made certain suggestions to him as to the rectory of Bishop Wearmouth, which had become vacant. They received their answer, and, returning, reported to the vestry they were deputed by, namely, themselves; and, having so reported to themselves the answer received by themselves, they lay aside the character of a deputation and again become a vestry representing the inhabitants of the parish; and on behalf of the inhabitants from whom the whole of the proceedings had been kept secret, they write a letter to the Bishop, thanking him for his attention to the wishes of the parishioners, the said parishioners hearing nothing of the proposed arrangement until the whole affair was concluded. Such, as he was informed, were the real circumstances of the case, and he had felt himself bound to bring them under the notice of the noble Lord. He wished now to ask the noble Lord, whether in any of the points referred to in his former answer as to the gross income of the rectory—the future income of the incumbent—the application of the surplus revenue, or the feeling of the parishioners as represented by the ancient vestry—the statements contained in the noble Lord's previous answer were in any respect inaccurate and requiring correction?

§ LORD J. RUSSELL

wished to make an explanation as to one point in the former answer he had given to the hon. Gentleman on this subject. The hon. Gentleman bad touched upon the four points to which that answer referred; in the first, as to the income received by the late Dr. Wellesley, which he (Lord J. Russell) stated, on the information of the Bishop of Durham, at 3,800l. a year; the hon. Gentleman said that that income was much larger: upon this point it was impossible for him to say whether the statement he had made was correct or not. The hon. Gentleman then stated that he believed the present incumbent would receive much more than 1,200l. a year. On that point also he had no further information to give than he had received, and which he had stated in answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. With regard to the third point, there was certainly an error—not as the hon. Gentleman supposed in the statements which had been sent to him by the Bishop of Durham, but in his reading of it. The Bishop of Durham stated, that the wayleaves and coal rents would be placed in the hands of trustees for the benefit of the chapelries. He found on looking at the receipts from these sources that they amounted to about 1,600l. a year; and when the hon. Gentleman asked if 1,600l. a year would be paid to the incumbents of the other chapelries, he concluded that that was the contemplated arrangement, and said so. But in that inference it since appeared that he had been mistaken, the actual state of the case being, as the Bishop of Durham informed him, that— After the 13th of May the funds arising from wayleaves and coals will be paid to trustees (the bishop and rector). They will pay to each chapelry at least the amount they at present receive, so long as the wayleaves remain. Any surplus will be put into the funds to accumulate for the spiritual benefit of the parish and its chapelries; but not to add one farthing to the income of the incumbent. Among other objects, greatly desired, is the building of a church at Hendon, in the parish of Bishopwearmouth, some two or three miles from the mother church, with, I am told, 6,000 inhabitants. I have little doubt but we shall improve the present payments to the chapels, in proportion to the population; but, so long as the question of the wayleaves remains unsettled, we do not think it prudent to hold out expectations which it may not be in our power to gratify. It appeared that there were some questions in dispute as to these wayleaves, and so long as those questions remained unsettled, the trustees would not think it prudent to increase the incomes of the chapelries. With regard to the last point, that he had 1216 said the inhabitants generally were satisfied with the arrangement; the statement he received was, that the memorialists were satisfied, and that he believed was the statement he had made to the hon. Gentleman. The ancient vestry sent a memorial to the bishop, with the prayer of which he generally complied. Whether the inhabitants generally, or how many of them, were satisfied with the arrangement, he could not state, as he had received no information on that point. The hon. Gentleman expressed a hope that when he brought forward his Motion on this subject, he (Lord J. Russell) would be prepared with more accurate information as to what the arrangements really were. In this respect he must repeat what he had before said—that having written to the Bishop of Durham, informing him that a question was about to be asked, but that it was at his option whether he desired to give any information or not; and having received from that right rev. Prelate a reply, stating that, though he did not think himself bound to make any statement of the precise nature of the arrangements made, yet that he was quite willing that what he had done should be explained to the House of Commons; and having explained that answer to the House, together with all the information which had been furnished, he should not think it right to go into any complicated questions as to any arrangements the Bishop of Durham might have made in respect to this rectory, nor should he think it necessary to inform himself further on the matter. Should the subject of such arrangements generally he brought before Parliament, he should be prepared to consider it; but he could not undertake to ascertain in any particular instance what particular arrangements might have been made.