§ SIR BENJAMIN HALLgave the following notice for Friday next. The septennial period having arrived for the revision of episcopal incomes by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and it appearing by Parliamentary Paper, No. 400, that during the last fourteen years the Bishop of Durham has received 79,658l. more than the net income assigned to his see; and during the last seven years the Bishops of Chichester, St. David's, Norwich, Oxford, Rochester, and Salisbury, have received 207 28,267l. more than the net income assigned to their several sees: to ask Lord John Russell whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose any legislative measures for obviating the inconvenience and occasional hardship resulting from the present uncertainty of Episcopal Incomes, in accordance with the desire of the Committee on Episcopal Incomes (Parliamentary Paper, No. 400, p. 294, Sess. 1851)? Also, to ask whether the Bishops who have received larger incomes than were assigned to their sees have paid the surplus over to the Common Fund, or have retained it? It appearing also by the same Parliamentary Paper, No. 400, that the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of St. Asaph, and the Bishop of Ely, are indebted to the Common Fund to the amount of 14,225l., and that by another Parliamentary Paper, No. 153, of the present Session the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have failed by correspondence to obtain the payment of sums due from those bishops, to ask whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners intend taking legal proceedings for the recovery of the sums which, according to the last Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, appear to be due from certain bishops; and, if not, what course they propose to adopt that the Common Fund may not be deprived of that amount so long duo, as appears by Parliamentary Paper, No. 153, and so repeatedly demanded? Also, whether it is true that the Bishop of Salisbury has intimated to the Commissioners that he will receive from them, as a fixed income, the sum assigned to his see; and whether any other bishop has acted in like manner?
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLI may be allowed to appeal to the House for a few moments, because I think that the notice which the hon. Baronet has just given is somewhat unfair to the persons concerned in it. If the hon. Gentleman had asked me a question of which he had given me notice, I could have given some explanation to the House.
§ SIR BENJAMIN HALLI give notice of the questions for Friday next.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLThat is what I complain of. Because the evident presumption which would be drawn from the notice of the hon. Gentleman by this House and by the public is, that certain bishops were assigned certain sums as their net income, and that, having received further sums, they had not paid over what was due to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Now, I beg to state generally that 208 the arrangement made was this—when the Commissioners considered this subject, it was their opinion that it would not he advisable to fix a sum as the income of each bishop, as that, they thought, would make it too much resemble the salary of an office, and this was not thought a fit form of dealing with the income of bishops. That was the opinion of the Commissioners, and they therefore came to the determination that certain sums should be paid over by the bishops, it being their opinion that that would leave a fitting sum to each bishop. Whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were right or wrong in holding that opinion, he would not say; but that was their opinion, and while the Commissioners thought that the income of the Bishop of Durham should be 8,000l., and the Bishop of Salisbury 6,000l., the bishops were to take the risk of those sums exceeding or falling short of the sums proposed: and I remember that the agent of the Bishop of Durham said that it would be very disadvantageous to that bishop to have to pay over the fixed sum of 11,000l. a year. That is the arrangement; the result has been that some of the bishops have received more, and others less, than the sums that were agreed upon; but to these sums, according to the arrangement, they are entitled by law. Whether that was a good arrangement or not, I will not say—I confess that I think it was not—but it has been so settled, and last year Parliament determined that there was no more claim to take away from the bishops the surplus, than there could be to take away from any other person what he enjoyed by law.
§ SIR BENJAMIN HALLI beg to he allowed to state that I neither say, nor did I wish to say, that an income was assigned to each bishop. I say that a certain income was assigned to the see, and that the bishops have received a larger sum than was assigned to the see. The sums received beyond those assigned to the sees have not been paid to the Commissioners, and I wish to know whether legal proceedings will he taken to insist on their payment?
§ MR. HORSMANrose, amidst loud cries of "Order!"
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman, to make himself in order, must speak to the question before the House.
§ MR. HORSMANsaid, it was a question of fairness. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman (the Speaker) whether the noble Lord was in order when he made a state- 209 ment with respect to episcopal incomes. ["Question"] The hon. and learned Member for Newark might call "Question" as long as he liked, but it would have no effect on him. The point he wished to state was this, and this only, in reply to what was stated by the noble Lord—that they who moved for these returns complained that the arrangements under the Act of Parliament as to episcopal incomes were not carried out; and when they asked why, they were entitled to have an answer; and when they asked for returns, they were entitled to have them. On various occasions he had asked questions on this matter, to which he had received answers which were not correct. And on this he took his stand, and said, when they asked questions, they were not to be put down by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newark, and others who knew nothing of the question. All he had to say was, when they made inquiries either of the Government or of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners respecting episcopal returns, he hoped they would be met with that courtesy and that consideration to which they were entitled. Lately he asked a question respecting the estate of Horfield, and he received an answer from the Chief Commissioner which was incorrect. They had to ask these questions against the feeling of the House; they undertook what was a very ungracious and odious task, and having undertaken it, they were not to be put down. He, for one, would persist in these inquiries. He had received on two occasions, answers which he knew were incorrect; and had it not been that the right hon. Gentleman came forward subsequently and stated, that the answer he first gave with regard to one of them was incorrect, he should not have known what course to take to get that information which he knew existed.
MR. H. DRUMMONDrequested to be allowed to say one sentence as a near relation and intimate friend of one of the noble Prelates who he thought had been maligned. He did not complain that any notice had been given in that House, but he did complain of an assertion being made when there was no power in any person, according to the rules of the House, to deny it.
§ MR. GOULBURNsaid, he felt very deeply the inconvenience of permitting a discussion of this kind, and if he had followed his own feelings, he should not have answered the observations that had been made; but the hon. Gentleman had charged 210 him with giving a false answer. [Mr. HORSMAN: Incorrect.] The answer he had given was correct in substance. He stated that he had not any knowledge of the terms on which the lease of Horfield was given; and that was true. The hon. Gentleman did say in an undertone something about the Copyhold Commissioners, and he (Mr. Goulburn) having referred to a communication made by the Copyhold Commissioners to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, he had subsequently acquainted him with the whole of the circumstances, stating that there had been a communication received from the Copyhold Commissioners with reference to the Horfield estate, but that it did not mention the terms of the lease. The hon. Gentleman ought not to tax him with that which he would scorn to do—namely, to endeavour to mislead the House. He thought, therefore, the hon. Gentleman had no right to task him with having given an improper answer.
§ SIR ROBERT H. INGLISsupposed that the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. B. Osborne) did not intend by moving the adjournment of the House to postpone the further progress of a Bill (the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill) which had occupied so much of the time of the House. Although there might have been much literal accuracy in the notice given, yet there was not such literal accuracy as to justify them in receiving it, inasmuch as the question affirmed that there were six bishops who were indebted to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in the sum of 28,267l. Nothing could be more unfair than such a statement, and he thought it ought not to be placed on the books of the House.
§ SIR BENJAMIN HALLdid not state that the bishops owed this sum to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but only that six bishops named in his question had received 28,267l. more than the net income assigned to their sees.