CHURCH PROPERTY. (Hansard, 14 June 1832)

Lord King

, in presenting a Petition from Beominster (Wilts), against Tithes, declaring that Church property was the property of the public, of which Parliament might dispose in that way which it might consider most advantageous to the public interest, said, as there were several Prelates present, he would take that opportunity of noticing a declaration made on a former occasion by a right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London), who denied that the property of the Church was public property, or that the Legislature had a right to interfere with it. That right rev. Prelate had asked, if a man had charged his estate with a certain sum for the maintenance of a clergyman, would he 609 (Lord King) disturb that charge, or think that the Legislature should interfere with it? He (Lord King) would admit, that the Legislature had no right to touch it. But this case bore no analogy to the question of Church property as it now stood. But supposing that the major part of it had been the gift of pious individuals, even in that case the Legislature had a right to interfere, if the property had been diverted from the objects for which the pious donors had bestowed the property. The manner in which the property of the Church had been disposed of at the Reformation, and at the Revolution, showed that it was considered public property. But as the right rev. Prelate had put a question to him, he would put a question to the right reverend Prelate, in his turn. He would suppose a case—it was a case merely hypothetical, and which, of course, was in the highest degree improbable. Suppose that the Bishops of our Church were to become political characters, and were to take a very decided part against the general feeling of the country; so much so, as to become unpopular and odious to that degree, that they could scarcely show themselves in the public streets, or even appear in their own pulpits; and suppose that, in consequence of their political conduct, it was deemed expedient that they should be deprived of their temporal power, and further, that they should be deprived of their seats in that House; and suppose further, that it should be deemed expedient to change the whole discipline of the Church, and to abolish the hierarchy, and establish a presbytery in its stead, would it not follow that the present holders of Church dignities and Church property would be obliged to relinquish those dignities and that property, if they refused to conform to the new state of things? Undoubtedly it would; for, if the State had a right to make such changes (and who would question that right?), it would have a right also to arrange and dispose of the Church property in conformity with them. But could this be the case if the property of the Church were to be considered solely as private property? The property of the Church, he contended, was originally given for the general purpose of promoting Christianity itself. During the dominion of Popery in this country, no other form of Christianity was permitted to be publicly preached or taught; and for a long time after the Reformation, the Church of England kept up the same intolerant spirit; but now, all 610 civil distinctions being removed, and all men being equal in the eye of the law, without any reference to their religion, it might well become a question for consideration, whether the property originally given for the general promotion of Christianity, ought not to be divided amongst the various Christian sects in this country; and the more so, as it was well known that the great body of the inhabitants of this country did not belong to the established Church. With these remarks, he would now move that the petition be read.