The Earl of Cadoganthen rose to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice respecting the new church erected in the parish of Chelsea. The noble Earl was understood to say that he had never attempted to address their Lordships under circumstances of more painful embarrassment. The difficulties which he felt were of no common character; in the first place, because he deeply felt his own inadequacy to address their Lordships on any subject; and, in the next place, because the question he had to bring before them was of a nature so complicated as to require greater powers of reasoning than he possessed to bring it fully and fairly before their Lordships' view. He regretted also that he should be obliged to appear in opposition to a right rev. Prelate, whose powers of mind and whose general character stood so deservedly high in the House. He had hoped that the right rev. Prelate would have entertained this Motion favourably; but he could not 848 help mentioning to the House the observation with which he was met by that right rev. Prelate, when he mentioned to him, as he was in duly bound to do, his intention to bring this subject before their Lordships. The observation of the right rev. Prelate was, that this was a Government question.
The Earl of Cadoganbegged the right rev. Prelate's pardon. His right rev. Friend might not remember the words, but assuredly his words were, when he (Lord Cadogan) intimated his intention to bring forward this question, "You know this is a Government question."
The Bishop of Londonagain repeated that he had not used those words. What he did say was, when the Government chose to bring forward this subject he would meet it.
The Earl of Cadoganwas very sorry if he had misunderstood the right rev. Prelate. The question which he was about to bring under their Lordships' notice was one which had been reported in other places out of the House to be a question of no importance—that it was a question affecting only a private individual, and not of interest to the public in any way whatever. But, in his opinion, the question which he was about to submit did involve a very considerable public principle—it involved no less a principle than the administration of a public fund by a public Board. It also involved a question of what he conceived to be an encroachment on the rights of one party by concession on the part of another; and, from the peculiar situation in which he was placed, he now felt it to be his duty to stand forward to protect their rights. The grounds on which his complaint was founded were, that the Commissioners for building new churches did, under the Acts 58 and 59 Geo. III., and 3 and 4 Vict. with consent of the Bishop of the diocese, assign over to the rector of the parish of Chelsea the surplus of the pew rents of a new church built there, which ought, in his opinion, by Act of Parliament, to have gone to build a house for the rector. [Having read in full the clauses in the Acts to which he had alluded, the noble Earl proceeded]:—When he had formerly brought forward this matter the 849 right rev. Prelate made a statement which he supposed contained the whole of his case; and though he did not feel himself entitled to reply to that at the time, yet he would now take the opportunity of making a few remarks on it. The right rev. Prelate stated to the House that this was simply a question of accounting for the surplus pew rents. That if the Commissioners under the Act of Parliament 58 and 59 Geo. III., which provided that all the surplus pew rents should be appropriated to the building of rectory houses, when they found, as the Commissioners did, that that surplus was not sufficient, then they had come to Parliament for fresh powers; and accordingly, the Act of Victoria authorized them to give the whole of the surplus pew rents to the rector of the parish for his own use and benefit. The right rev. Prelate also stated that it was this which had excited his (Lord Cadogan's) displeasure. Displeasure was not the word; but he would show the right rev. Prelate the grounds on which he objected to it. With regard to the assertion that the funds were not sufficient for building a rectory house, he found that the surplus pew rents amounted to 135l. a year. Now he thought the best course to take in ascertaining whether that sum would be sufficient for the purpose, was to have the present residence of the rector valued; and he found that it was worth from 1,400l. to 1,500l. But there was a site for a rectory which he could point out, much more convenient in every way, and much nearer the church, the cost of erecting a rectory on which would be at the outside 1,100l. or 1,200l, Now he had made a calculation on the subject, and he found that instead of requiring twenty years before the sum would accumulate sufficiently to build the rectory, which it must be admitted was a hopeless case, it would not be seven years before they would be ready to build. He appealed to their Lordships whether or not that would be the case; and even if there were a deficiency, the Commissioners might have come forward in aid in this case, as he knew they had done on former occasions. [The Bishop of London: Not in any one case.] Not, perhaps, in building houses, because he did not believe that any had been built, but in building churches. With regard to this parish, he would ask the right rev. Prelate to bear testimony whether the parishioners had not 850 always shown readiness to come forward in support of any object for the spiritual benefit of the parish. Here the fees had been so assigned to the rector, who had been for seven years in the parish, a subscription had been entered into for building a rectory, which amounted to between 300l. and 400l. Now what was the reason assigned for this conduct? Was the population of the parish increased? Because by the Act of George III., the stipend was to be apportioned according to the numbers and the population of the parish. But he did not see that this reason could be assigned, because, in point of fact, the population attached to the mother church had decreased in consequence of the two new churches having been built in the parish, which considerably diminished the duties of the clergyman. Now, he would ask if it was consistent that they should increase this rev. gentleman's salary while the population of the parish was decreasing? He thought it was a great hardship, and he also believed that it was illegal, as it was in direct contravention of the Act 58th of George III., with which the Acts of 3rd and 4th Victoria were in perfect harmony; and the rector was well able to afford its loss; he was a person otherwise of good income, and for five years after he had been inducted to the parish he never received it, and never complained of wanting it; but so soon as the Act of Victoria was believed to give the Commissioners the power, he went before them and said, could they allow this irregularity to go on any longer? There was one other point connected with this question which he wished merely to state to the right rev. Prelate. He had already alluded to what passed between him and the right rev. Prelate; and he had also strong reasons for thinking that a correspondence must have passed between the right rev. Prelate and the rector; and he wished to know whether there would be any objection to laying the correspondence upon their Lordships' Table? He had now pretty nearly stated all he had to say on the present subject; and he felt grateful to their Lordships for the attention they had given him while he had so inadequately brought the case before them; but he had done the best he could. He might state further, that when he had an interview with the rev. gentleman on this subject, he thought that the rev. gentleman might have treat- 851 ed him with more courtesy. He was told by the rev. gentleman that this fund was his own private income; he would not even allow the sum to be called public. He asked, why would you take 135l. from me to build a rector's house for my successor? He had then appealed to the right rev. Prelate; and though he had certainly been treated with every courtesy, yet he had been unable to obtain satisfaction. Under these circumstances, he had no alternative but to bring the case before their Lordships; and he begged now to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the assignment of surplus pew rents by the Commissioners, and whether or not it was expedient that those funds should be invested in the hands of trustees for the purpose of building a rectory house, pursuant to Act 59 George III.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, he would not occupy much of their Lordships' time with this subject, for if he were fully to enter into the subject it would occupy much time. Before he proceeded, however, he wished to answer the question which the noble Earl had put to him, whether or not there had been any private correspondence between the rector of Chelsea and himself, and whether be would have any objection to produce it. Now, that was a question which he was certainly not bound to answer; but he had no hesitation in answering it, for the sake of removing any misapprehension that might exist in the noble Earl's mind. He had no objection to produce any correspondence that might have passed between the Commissioners and Mr. Burgess; but letters might have passed between Mr. Burgess and himself which were of a strictly private nature, and which could not be produced. Of course he could not state all that might have passed between a clergyman and his bishop during the last seven years. The noble Earl was incorrect in saying that he had no alternative but to take the course he had adopted. The Commissioners had acted under the express authority of the Act of Parliament; and there was, therefore, the alternative of submitting to the necessities of the case, and taking no further notice of the matter, which, in his (the Bishop of London's) opinion, would have been decidedly the most prudent course. The noble Earl had told their Lordships that he did not 852 intend to trouble them on matters relating to his private concerns; but really, if the noble Earl had acted in the spirit of that declaration, he (Lord Cadogan) would not have introduced the subject at all; for the matter concerned the noble Earl's private interests far more than the welfare of the public or the Church. He (the Bishop of London) did not think the Commissioners had acted illegally. If they had done so, there lay an appeal to the Court presided over by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. But the truth was, that they had not; and whether they had acted indiscreetly or not, was quite another question, that affected, not the public at large, but merely the private interests of the noble Earl. The whole question was, whether the incumbent of a living in the noble Earl's gift was to have 600l. a year without a house; whether out of that income the incumbent should be obliged to find a house, or whether he should have 700l. or 730l. yearly, the surplus above 600l. being allowed him to provide himself with a residence. Now, the alternative between the clergyman getting only 600l. and his getting 730l., did certainly, to some degree, affect the noble Earl's prospective interests; for if the surplus above 600l., instead of being given to the present incumbent, were laid by for the purpose of accumulating into a fund for the building or purchase of a residence, this would no doubt improve the value of the advowson. The choice between the two curacies was left by law to the discretion of the Commissioners and the Bishop. They exercised their discretion accordingly; and it would hardly be denied that they were likely to be better judges, generally speaking, of the true interests of the Church than a lay patron, whose interference for objects of private interest might often be productive of great inconvenience and mischief. As the case stood in the parish of Chelsea, Mr. Burgess, with the surplus above the 600l. a year, hired a house at a rental of 140l.; and he (the Bishop of London) would maintain, without fear of contradiction, that the house in question was by no means too ample or convenient for a gentleman of Mr. Burgess's position and character, and for the incumbent of such a parish. It would be fifteen or twenty years before the 130l. surplus from pew rents, &c., would accumulate into a fund large enough to erect a house of such 853 a class; and the Commissioners thought, under all the circumstances, that it was much better to give the clergyman the present means of having a house, than to let the fund accumulate for the contingent benefit of a successor, who might, possibly, be as worthy as the gentleman who was now the incumbent of the parish. The arrangement they had adopted gave some part of the benefit of his zeal, talent, and exertion, to the clergyman who, by these qualities, had raised the income from pew rents; whereas if the fund had been allowed to accumulate, the benefit would be given to, perhaps, a less worthy successor, or to a patron who may have an intention of hereafter selling the speculation to greater advantage.
The Earl of Cadoganrose to appeal to the House whether the right rev. Prelate's insinuations were fair or justifiable. But the noble Earl was interrupted by cries of "Order," and resumed his seat.
The Bishop of Londonproceeded to say, that he meant no allusion to the noble Earl's individual intentions; and had only wished to show in general what might happen under such circumstances as those he had described, and to show how unfair it would be to deprive the present incumbent of the benefit of a surplus produced by his own exertions, for the sake of some future incumbent who might not possess the same claims to respect. The Legislature had granted to the Church Building Commissioners and the Bishop the power of appropriating the surplus; they had exercised that power, and, as he was fully satisfied, had exercised it discreetly. It was true that a contrary arrangement would be more beneficial to the private interests of the noble Earl; and if not the noble Earl, at least other patrons might, if they had the power of resisting the Commissioners, object, for the sake of increasing the future value of the advowson, to the steps now likely to confer spiritual advantage on a parish. The noble Earl was really somewhat ungrateful to the Commissioners. Greater church accommodation having been very much needed in Chelsea, the Church Building Commissioners offered the parish to build a church, or take measures for erecting a second parish, if a site for the church were offered. The site was purchased with money raised by subscription, to which the noble Earl contributed 100l. The Commissioners created 854 a living, with an income of 700l.; and now, after the Commissioners had placed the whole advowson in the hands of the noble Earl, instead of merely reserving his 100l., he (Lord Cadogan) complained of being hardly dealt with. Their Lordships would recollect that there were many peculiar circumstances in this case, arising from difficulties connected with the imposition of a church rate. The inhabitants of the old parish having refused to impose a rate for the maintenance of the new church, the churchwardens wished to apply the pew rents to the purpose of repairs, to the necessary expense of celebrating divine service, &c. The Commissioners, on being applied to, stated that, having consulted with their law advisers, they found they could not sanction such an arrangement, except in certain specified cases. The next best thing, then, was to give the money to the clergyman, to enable him to defray as much as he could of these expenses. Mr. Burgess had thus contributed much towards the maintenance of divine service, the expense of which ought to be defrayed by the parishioners; and this showed that the rev. gentleman in question was not actuated by the motives of personal interest that were ascribed to him by the noble Earl. The right rev. Prelate then proceeded to give the strongest eulogistic testimony of the piety, the zeal, the learning, and great activity of the rev. Mr. Burgess. That rev. Gentleman was held universally in the highest respect which his conduct and qualities deserved, and he (the Bishop of Loudon) could, if he wished, read to their Lordships a series of Resolutions passed by the parishioners assembled in vestry, expressing entire confidence in Mr. Burgess, and regretting that anything should have occurred to diminish the confidence entertained for him by the noble Earl at the time when he (Lord Cadogan) presented him to the living. A letter had been sent to the noble Earl, acquainting him with the purport of these Resolutions. He (the right rev. Prelate) would reiterate his own testimony to Mr. Burgess's high character and merits. He had always found that gentleman a zealous and useful auxiliary; and in attacking one whose character was so fenced and guarded by the established opinion of those who had the best opportunity of forming a judgment upon it, the noble Earl had manifested but little of that virtue which was 855 considered to be the better part of valour. He (the Bishop of London) hoped he had now said enough not only to vindicate the character of Mr. Burgess (which really needed no vindication), but the conduct of himself and the Commissioners, who had only exercised their discretion in direct conformity with the law. He, therefore, entertained the strongest hope that their Lordships would unanimously reject the Motion.
The Earl of Cadoganrose to reply, labouring evidently under very excited feelings. He said that he could hardly trust his own feelings with an answer after the manner in which the right rev. Prelate had thought proper to address the House. The right rev. Prelate had begun his speech with what he must call the most unfounded and unwarranted aspersion against his character that it was in the power of any man to utter against another. The right rev. Prelate had stated that his principal motives in bringing the question before the House were self-interested ones—motives which he thoroughly despised—and their Lordships might depend that the man who suggested such a motive was the person who would be the first to practise it. He again would appeal to their Lordships whether the right rev. Prelate had acted fairly or justly in putting the question on the footing that he had brought forward this subject, because the arrangement now existing injured the prospective value of the advowson held by him. The right rev. Prelate had not even stated with perfect accuracy the circumstances under which the church had been built; for when he advanced the 100l., the proposal was only for a chapel of ease. As to the letter written to him by the vestry, it was so worded as to be a direct insult, and he had treated it as it deserved. It was, in short, a very impertinent letter, adopted at a meeting of seventeen or eighteen persons, with the rector at their head. For his own part, he would rather not trouble their Lordships with any more observations on this unpleasant subject.
§ Question put, and resolved in the negative.