18 MARCH 1837, Page 11

THE CHURCH-RATE QUESTION. TO THE EDITOR OF THE SPECTATOR.

lterorm Tlearsday Evenlne.

Breit Sin—May I ask a portion of next Sperfator, for the statement of some facts, having, in my opinion, an itnportnnt bearing on the question which we divided upon in the Ifouse of Commons this morning, but which I did not fird ao orportunity of stating in my place. Read as your excellent paper is by so nene. Members of both Houses of Parliament, toy calculations, if incorrect, still Iseasily disproved.

The i!elatte upon this question has, with one splendid exception on the part of Iss 1 lonst Resseani been exactly that which Bishops could hsve desired : those Is lin have atteMpted to raise, from personal and political motives, the electiemmering cry of" Church in danger," and who have been endeavouring to delude the people with an ntibishoplike profession of regard for the rights of the people—rather opposed, by the by, to the Episcopal assertion, "that the people lave tithing to do with the laws but to obey them "—have escaped for a short time under cover of the dust they have raised ; and had it not been that dating the recess ecclesiastical eleetioneering will be in full vigour, I would not have troubled you with this letter.

The strongest, the best, if not the only tensile position taken by the Tories, was thit—', If the ntoney could he properly obtained, it was wanted for the spi- ritual instrrction of the people." I doubt not the sincerity of some of those who have used this argument ; and just in proportion to their sincerity will be their pleasure in finding, beyond the possibility of doubt, that such a fund is not required for the spiritual Instruction of the people—if we are prepaid to deal honestly with the Church—to treat it as the Church of the People and not the Church of Bishop makers, Bishops, and their wealthy or needy relatives. In truth, this question is really a Bishop's question, although, wise in their generation, they have shouted for the rights of the poor.

Of all the Tory speakers, Sir Romer PEEL was the only one who appealed to figures ; and the principal olrject of this letter is to prove the inaccuracy of his conclusions. He stated, "that the stun of 235,000/. per annum was re- quired to raise benefices having a population above 500 to the scale proposed by the Bishops; that the fund to meet this demand was only 100,000/. per annum ; that the deficiency was therefore 105.000/. per annum ; and that if the Government plan for raising the umnev could he realized, it ousht to he

applied to meet this deficiency. Now, In-ill clearly show, that instead of a defieiency of 105,000/., as stated by Sir Ronenr PEEL, there is in reality a unpins of 27,000/.

In the Second Report of the Bishops—for the fact, always suspected, is

now nnterious, that it is the .Rbiape Report—I find that the number of benefices in private patronage is 1,348 ; and the sum required to augment their livings according to the Bishops' Beale, is 131,446/. As I apprehend no num in his r.crises would propose to increase private advowsons at the public expense, this stint must be deducted from the 235,0001. ; which would leave 10:3.454/. ; to meet whit-h, there is 130,000/., or a surplus of 27,000/., instead of a deficiency of 105,000/., as Sir Roomer PEEL makes it.

There is only one honest mode of increasing benefices in private patronage— to purchase them, augment them, and then sell them—giving the original owners the liberty of preemption. The most honest mode of increasing item-flees in public patronage, is to apply the principle recommended by the Bishops for the future distribution of Besti and Chapter property: as thus—if a Bishop, under the present Cysts. possesses two livings, one of pest value and little dory, the other oThamtiong duty and trifling income, he gives the latter to a poor curate with ten children, the former to his son or relative—this is what he calls " doing what he will with his own i" by my proposal, the linger living would he Tolliver, to the Bishops' scale, and the surplus paid to the pottier 1?isluips object to this, because it interferes with their patronage : if, however. it were adopted, there would not be one shilling required to ailment the smaller livings to the Bishops' scale„ and the whole sum of 100,000/ per annnm weuld be applicable to the religious instrnetion of the people. '1'lle Bishops' scale proposes that a benefice with 5,000 souls and upwards, shonld hverive 400/. per annum : reekoning 5.000 souls only. this sum ieould supply spiritual iestruetion to 1,625,000 souls. Rut it would interfeie with the 1st- nonage of the Bishops, and is therefore scouted by them. Let us, however, test the bishons' sinemity a little closer.

The Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench receives ze8,000 per annum. The Archbishop of Canterbury signs a Bishops' fm-punt

gisiog himself an income of 15.090

According to the Bishops' scale, 7000/. per annum would sill-ply spiritual instruction to 85,00 souls: but this 70001. more than the Chlef Justice re- ceivcs is neeemmsary, so says the Archbishop of Canterbury, for the Archbishop of Canterbury. Nero fiddled while Rothe was homilies

The Bishop of London signs a Bishops' Report giving

himself £19,000 per annum. The Bishop tel London signs the same Bishops' Report giving to a Minister having the charge of 5000 souls

and upwards the sum of 400

S0 tliat the Bishop of London's services are to the Minister's as 10,000 is to 400, or 25 to I. According to the Bishops' proposed scale, 10,000/. would afford

spiritual instruction for 125,000 souls. The account would therefore stand thus-1 Bishop spiritual instruction to 125,000 souls. I here the " holier Galt thou" men in the House will look to this.

If the shin for relievingthe Bishops of their duties in the Honse of Lords were carried, and each compelled to live it) his own diocese with 2,000/. per annum and their house-rent hoe, lass money which they take from thc Church of Eng- land would, according to the Bishops' selle, afford spiritual instruction to 2,500,000 souls. So that we hare thts further test of value—

Necessity of Bishops sitting in the Spiritual instt (teflon to 2,500,000

House of Lords to vote sgeiost st souls, and a personal superb-

Reform. toalence of their duties. Hurrah fur the rights of the poor ! I am, dear Sir, your very olealisot st!I riot.

R IC Ire WA SON.