ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY'S Es TATE BILL.] On the order of the day, for the third reading of this bill,

Mr. Hume said, he had two objections to this bill; first, that it was contrary to the provisions of the 17th George 3rd, cap. 53, by which it was enacted, "that Parsonage-houses and other buildings belonging to the Church should be rebuilt by the Rector, by borrowing money at four per cent., and making provision for the gradual extinction of the debt in twentyfive years." This act applied to the archbishop of Canterbury as much as to any other minister of the church. Now, by this bill the debt was not to be wholly paid until the end of forty years; by which means the present archbishop would be enabled to lay out a sum of 60,000l. for his own advantage, instead of half that sum, and would pay only out of his income 1,500l. a-year instead of 3,0007.; which he could well afford. The second objection was to the fund from which this money was to be borrowed. It was intended, by this bill, that the commissioners of queen Anne's bounty should lend the money. Now that fund was expressly provided for the endowment of poor clergymen. This, therefore, would be an abuse of the fund. As the bill had gone through the previous stages, he would only move, as an amendment, that the term of repayment be shortened from forty years to twenty-five; and he would afterwards move the omission of the clause for borrowing the money from the fund of queen Anne's bounty.

Mr. Denison opposed the amendment, and said, he was sure that a more perfectly correct bill was never before the House. It had been closely investigated in the committee, through which it passed without a dissentient voice. This was not a question as to the repair or rebuilding of a parsonage-house, under the act of George 3rd, but whether the archbishop of Canterbury should have a residence suitable to his dignity? This bill, indeed, provided that the Palace at Addington,

in Surrey, should be repaired so as to be fit for the residence of the archbishop's family, by adding to it a chapel and library; which, no doubt were essential, to the country residence of an archbishop, As to the objection respecting the fund, it was altogether a mistake. There was a sum of upwards of 1,700,000Z. in the possession of the trustees, and it was a complete mistake of his hon. friend to suppose that this loan would injure the poor clergy, On the contrary, it would benefit them; for, at present, the trustees had the money in stock, and it yielded them only about 37. 11s. per cent, but the archbishop agreed to give four per cent; so that their income would be increased and not diminished, and they would be able to make larger grants to the poor clergy. He trusted his hon. friend would withdraw, his amendment.

Mr. Maberly thought his hon. friend. decidedly wrong in his view of this bill. Its object was, not only to repair, but to improve and extend the accommodation provided for the archbishop. The act of Geo. 3rd had no analogy to this bill. The archbishop had received from the executors of his predecessor the sum of 6,0001. for dilapidations, and this he subscribed towards the improvements; which he was not bound to do. The sum to be borrowed was 50,000l.; and with the approbation of the archbishop of York and the bishop' of London, 10,000l. more might be added. The fund of queen Anne's bounty would be considerably a gainer, and the allow ances to the poor clergy would be increased, by the greater interest received by the trustees.

Mr. D. W. Harvey supported the amendment. The principle of the act of 17th George 3rd applied, he said, to all cases of this kind; and queen Anne's bounty was exclusively intended for the poor clergy. The income of the archbishop of Canterbury might be calculated at 20,000l. a-year. The late archbishop had possessed the see for nearly twenty years. For whatever dilapidations there might be in the palaces, his executors should have fully indemnified the suc-. cessor. The bill described the palaces as falling into decay and ruin. much had the executor paid? The bill said 2,9671. only. The executor should be called on to show, that the property of the late archbishop was insufficient to pay for the dilapidations he had suffered to

How

take place. Queen Anne's bounty was a trust for the benefit of the poor clergy, of whom more than seven thousand had livings under 50l. a-year. Yet this fund was to be applied to assist a rich archbishop in maintaining his dignity. If it were so, let the archbishop subscribe 6,000l. a-year out of his income, instead of 3,9001. The bill said, that this was necessary for the State purposes of the Established Church. This was a new doctrine, and he intreated the House not to sanction it.

Mr. Tennyson said, that the observations of the hon. member for Colchester induced him to offer a few words to correct, if possible, the erroneous impressions which he and his hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen, appeared to entertain. He (Mr. Tennyson) knew as a fact, from information which could not be doubted, that, however the bill might state the matter, the executor of the late archbishop of Canterbury had paid a sum amounting, very nearly, to 6,000l. for dilapidations. The actual sum was 5,8481., and, including certain contingent expenses, 5,9961. This sum was to be laid out by the present archbishop in the improvements proposed, and it was the whole which he could be called upon to lay out, being the amount which, upon a strict survey and calculation, was sufficient for the repairs now wanting. The late archbishop had effected very considerable repairs and improvements at Lambeth. He had, with his accustomed generosity, been satisfied with the small sum of 7001. for the dilapidations of his predecessor, and as it was well known that he left Lambeth Palace in a much better condition than he found it, it was obvious that the sum recently paid was not for dilapidations incurred by him; yet his executor, with a liberality which well corresponded with his own, and without scruple or question, had paid the large sums which, upon a survey, had now been required of him. If he (Mr. Tennyson) rightly comprehended the reasoning of the hon. member for Colchester, he was compelled to dissent from the conclusion to which it pointed,-whether applied to the late or the present primate; namely, that the occupant of a see is bound not only to keep the buildings in repair, but to erect such new buildings, chapels, and other accommodations, as the dignity of that see, or the accommodation of his

successor, may require. Who, if such a principle could be maintained, was to be judge of what was to be done in each case? and where would the liability of bishops and their executors end? But all a bishop was bound, or could in reason and justice be expected, to do was, to maintain the edifices upon the scale and footing on which he might find them.With respect to the bill before the House, it appeared to him to be characterized by a most liberal spirit on the part of the present archbishop of Canterbury. He was already far advanced in life; yet, after expending the 6,000l. received for dilapidations, he consented to sacrifice a large portion of his annual income, in order to accomplish such additions and im provements as appeared necessary to adapt the palaces of Lambeth and Addington to the dignity of the see. By the arrangements in the bill, in order to pay four per cent upon the whole principal money, and annually two and a half per per cent towards the liquidation in forty years of the principal money of 60,000l. to be borrowed, his grace will have to disburse out of his income, in the first instance, nearly 4,000l. per annum. If the sum to be borrowed were to be paid off in twenty years upon the analogy which his hon. friend (Mr. Hume) had attempted to establish between this case and that of an ordinary parsonage and if accordingly the period of repayment were limited to twenty years, as under Gilbert's act, or to twenty-five years as proposed by his hon. friend-the archbishop would not and could not consent to so large an outlay as 60,000l. He would then probably suggest a diminution of the sum to 30,000l. As far as his grace was concerned, this would be a material benefit to him, for he would only have 2,7001. a year to pay instead of 3,9001-but the see, in which the pub lic interest was concerned, would not derive half the benefit now proposed. If, therefore, the larger alterations devised were desirable, he thought it better they should be done at once, and that the princely proposal of the archbishop should be adopted. Any outlay beyond the 6,000l. received was strictly voluntary; and, moreover, the archbishop was willing to expose himself to all the inconvenience and delay which the projected changes would create. Besides, the annual pay ments would decrease with the diminution of the principal, so that he would have to

bear the heaviest annual charge. There could not in his (Mr.Tennyson's) opinion be any fair analogy-as had been contended -between this case and that of an ordinary parsonage. The repairs of a rectory house were of a very slight and ephemeral kind, in comparison with the improvement which these palaces demanded. He admitted it would be unjust to onerate a succeeding rector with payments of principal and interest, for sums laid out more than twenty years before, and after the repairs effected were worn out; but here, where the repairs and additions would be of a substantial, durable, and magnificent character, suitable to the see of Canterbury, and from which the archbishops, for a century to come, would derive benefit, it was just that the successors for a more extended period, should contribute, and nothing could be more unfair than to expect the present prelate to do more than he now most liberally proposed. If any change were to be made, it might be but he thought it most inexpedient-by borrowing a smaller sum; but he could not listen to a suggestion that the present occupant of the see should contribute more largely. His hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen, had complained, that the money was to be borrowed from the governors of queen Anne's bounty; and he argued as if that fund, which was dedicated to the increase of small livings, was now to be invaded to improve an archbishopric. The answer was this, that it was the interest of their capital which was applied by the governors for the increase of small livings, and whatever increased that interest, promoted the object of the fund. Now, by this bill, they would receive four per cent by a loan to the see, upon a portion of their money at present invested in the public funds, which, as his hon. friend (Mr. Denison) had shewn, did not yield to them nearly so much so that their means of benefitting the poor clergy would be increased and not diminished. Besides, the governors were not bound by the terms of the bill, so to lend the 60,000l., but were merely authorized to do so, if they should think fit. Recurring to what had fallen from the hon, member for Colchester, with regard to the dilapidations, he hoped he should be corrected by the Speaker, who, he believed was the executor of the late archbishop of Canterbury, if he had stated any thing erroneously; trusting that there

1

was nothing in the forms of the House to preclude such correction as to any fact within the peculiar knowledge of the right hon. gentleman.

Sir T. Fremantle supported the bill, and replied to some of the preceding speakers, taking up pretty nearly the same ground as the other advocates of the bill. He hoped the House would not allow themselves to be carried away by the invective of the hon. member for Colches ter-invective directed more against the church in general, than against the particular individuals in question.

Mr. Baring said, he was amazed that the hon. member for Colchester should have adopted such ideas as he had put forth on the present occasion. The proposed expense did great honour to the munificent spirit of the present, and reflected in no degree upon the representatives of the late archbishop. It was very gratifying to see the income of a prelate expended in maintaining that sober state and becoming dignity, which all men desired to see preserved by the higher functionaries of the church.

Sir E. Carrington also maintained the necessity of supporting the head of the church in splendor and dignity.

Mr. Hume seeing the opinion of the House so decidedly against him, would not press the matter further. He admitted the force of the argument, foundedupon the fact, that the archbishop was to pay interest for the loan.

The amendment was negatived, and the bill read a third time, and passed.

SILK TRADE.] Sir M. S. Stuart presented a petition from Morris Pollock, of Gowan, near Glasgow, praying that the protection to the British throwster might be raised to the same degree as that extended to the British growers of grain, or that the protection accorded to the latter might be lowered to that extended to the British throwsters and manufacturers of silk. The hon. member assured the House of the great respectability, enterprise, and intelligence of the petitioner.

Sir G. Philips said, it could not be disputed, that the Silk Trade was greater now than it had been some years ago, and yet the persons engaged in the trade were infinitely worse off. The hon. member contrasted the accounts of the importation of raw silk in the years 1822 and 1823, with that of 1828, and contended, that the Silk Trade was improving.