Lords Sitting of 28 April 1830

MINUTES.
The Four-per-Cents Bill, and the Haymarket Removal Bill were read a third time and passed.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of HARDWICKE, from Wisbeach, praying that the Punishment of Death for Forgery might be abolished. By the Duke of BEAUFORT, from the Manufacturers engaged in the Woollen Trade in the County of Gloucester, against paying Wages in Goods. By the same noble Duke, from Bristol, against the Renewal of the East India Company's Charter:—By Earl GOWKR, a similar Petition from Stoke, in the Staffordshire Potteries. By the same noble Earl, from several Places in the Staffordshire Potteries, praying that Climbing Boys might be disused.

REVENUE OF THE SEE OF LONDON.
On the Motion for the second reading of the Bishop of London's Estate Bill,
The Bishop of Londonsaid, that he wished to take that opportunity of saying a few words with respect to some observations which had been made last night in another place concerning the Revenue of his own and of other Sees, which were so inaccurate that he thought he owed it to himself and the church of which he was a member, to lose no time in giving them a public refutation. At the same time he was sure that the hon. Gentleman who had made the statement had not willingly been guilty of misrepresentation; but he had spoken from imperfect data, which made it more necessary to refute the assertion. He would in a few words correct the statements which he had seen in the only source they possessed of such information of what was said to have been asserted in another place. The assertion was this:—"The Bishop of Rochester's income was not more than that of many of the parochial clergy, whilst other Sees possessed an immense amount of income. Some of the episcopal Revenues would amount in a short time to 100,000 l. a year." The hon. Gentleman who was said to have made this statement had mentioned Canterbury and Durham, and gave an account of their

123
Revenues, but he had not pointed out specifically the See which had the very large income. He had reason however to believe, that the observation was meant to apply to the See of London, for he had seen the same assertion made in a public paper a few weeks before. He was unwilling to trespass on their Lordships' time with any remarks that might be thought to relate formally to himself; but knowing the mischief which might ensue, were such an assertion to be uncontradicted, he could not allow it to go forth unrefuted. The See of London never had, and was never likely to have, a revenue to that amount; and if it were he should be puzzled, with all his respect for the inviolability of ecclesiastical property, to defend such an income. The Revenues of the See of London had been stated at eight times more than what they actually amounted to. He would assert, without fear of contradiction, that the fixed Revenues of the See did not amount to one-fourteenth of the sum stated, and that, including all the casualties and contingencies which might arise, it never had, in his time, amounted to more than one-seventh. Part of the fixed income was derived from an estate, of which the Bishop of London, in conjunction with certain trustees, was empowered to grant leases for building on, which was what he supposed was meant when it was stated that the Bishop's Revenue would hereafter be so large; but the Bishops of London had granted leases of that property for upwards of forty years, and the actual amount of the income at present derived from it was 2,700 l. a year. The land did not now let as well as formerly: there was no probability, he believed, of its letting better; and there was no probability that in the next thirty years it would yield 1,000 l. additional. The other sources of the Bishop's income were not increasing, but diminishing. It consisted of impropriate rectorships; and as their Lordships well knew, the value of these was not likely to increase. By these remarks he had only done an act of justice to himself and the church. He had stated the full annual value of the property; he saw no prospect of any considerable increase, and there were many incumbrances. As to the claims on the Bishop of London, their Lordships knew very well what they were, and when they were satisfied, there would not remain more than a suitable competency to enable the Bishop to pro-
124
vide for his family. He would only add, that the hon. Gentleman who had made the statement no doubt believed it, but it was his duty to say that it was greatly exaggerated, and he knew that similar exaggerations had gone abroad relative to the Revenues of other Sees.
Bill read a second time.