SUPPLY—ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS. (Hansard, 1 August 1850)

§ SIR B. HALL
said, that whatever sup-port he might have, he should certainly 646 take the sense of the House on this vote. It was useless for him to go into the question of the composition of the Commission, which had been repeatedly discussed; but he contended that the Commissioners did not deserve any grant whatever from that House. Through their negligent appointment of a person as collector who was a connexion of one of the episcopal body, and a man who was not worthy the confidence of the Commissioners—which was a complete body—they had been robbed of 6,000l.; and now the House was called on to grant them upwards of 3,000l. more. When this matter was under discussion before, he had asked about some returns which were ordered on the 2nd or 3rd of May, from the episcopal body, as to the several pieces of preferment which the members of that body held. Two or three days after circulars had been sent from the Home Office to the different bishops; and though three months had elapsed, and the returns might have been made in a fortnight, they had not yet been presented.

§ SIR G. GREY
said, the returns were yet imperfect, but he proposed to lay before Parliament those which had been received from different quarters, with a statement of the reason why they had not come from other quarters. Several of the bishops stated that they had not the means of compelling returns from the different members of the chapters; and he feared it would be necessary to make an order for the returns on those individual members. As far as those returns had come in, they should be presented before the Session closed; but he begged to say it was not the Ecclesiastical Commission that had to make them.

§ MR. HUME
contended that the expenses of the Commission ought to be paid out of the church property. By voting them out of the public funds, they were paying so much more towards the maintenance of the Church.

§ LORD J. RUSSELL
said, the hon. Gentleman was mistaken on that point. The Church had not objected to continue to manage its property as it had formerly done; but the State had stepped in, and wished a different distribution of church property to be made—that the incomes of the deans and chapters of cathedrals and of various prebends should be differently distributed for the good of the public at large. When the Prime Minister of the time proposed the change, the chief Pre- 647 lates of the Church very naturally said—"If the church property is to be distributed more generally for the benefit of the public, let the expense of making that change be at the charge of the State; otherwise you will take from the Church that which it now possesses, and will apply to the purpose of this change funds which are devoted to the support of those who are connected with the religious instruction of the country." That was a very fair argument; and had the House been satisfied that the church property should be distributed as it had formerly been, they would have heard nothing of that vote. As the State wished for a different distribution of the property, it was necessary to have a Commission and officers for conducting the business. The hon. Baronet the Member for Marylcbone said the Commissioners had appointed a secretary who was unworthy of their confidence; but that was not the act of the present Ecclesiastical Commissioners; the appointment was made in 1834 or 1835, and the present Commission was in no way blameabie for it.

§ SIR B. HALL
dissented from the doctrine of the noble Lord, that if they, the members of the Church, desired a better distribution of the Church's revenues, Parliament was to pay for it. He contended that the property of the Church belonged to them as members of the community; and it was unjust that the public should be taxed for obtaining a better distribution of that property, and for correcting the great abuses which had existed under the dignitaries of the Church. They desired that, by this commission, abuses should be remedied, and that the property should be made available for the benefit of the community at large who were members of the Church, as well as the bishops themselves; and Parliament ought not to vote any sum towards this expense. He looked upon the bishops merely as members of the same community, as trustees of the national property, in which they had only a life interest. He protested against this vote, whether it was to be an annual one, or only occasional; and he would certainly divide the House against it.