ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION (IRELAND).
RETURN to an Order of the Honourable The House of Commons,
dated 28 April 1868;—for, COPY " of Observations on Dr.
Maziere Brady's Letter to ' The Times/ of the 26th day of March 1866, by the Irish Ecclesiastical Commis¬ sioners, together with any Replies to the Observations addressed to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners by Dr.
Maziere Brady"
SCHEDULE.
PAGE.
No.
1.—Observations
of the Commissioneis on Dr.
Brady's Letter to " The Times" --1 No.
2.—Letter
from Dr.
Brady to the Commissioners, dated 21st December 1867 --3 No.
3.—Letter
from Dr.
Brady to the Commissioners, dated 8th January 1868 ---9
— No.
1.—
Observations on Dr.
Brady's Letter to u The Times "
on the Revenues of the Anglo-Irish Church.
Dr.
Brady asserts that LordDufferin was in error in speaking of the revenues of the Irish Church as amounting to 420,000 I.
a year, and further asserts that they probably exceed 700,000 I.
He attributes Lord Dufferin's supposed error to the Return of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Ireland (generally known as Stackpoole's Return), which stated the net value, including bishoprics, at 448,943 I.,
and he denies that there are any reliable returns of the revenues of the Establishment in Ireland.
His proofs consist in this, that there are four items not included in the return in question :—1st.
The Value of Glebe Houses; 2nd.
Curates' Stipends; 3rd.
Pew Rents ; 4th.
The Income of the Ecclesias¬ tical Commissioners.
As to the 1st—Glebe Houses (as distinguished from glebe lands, the value of which is in all cases included in Stackpoole's Return).
The reason that their value was not returned by the Commissioners was simply because they know, and can know, nothing about it; and in making their return to the Lord Lieu¬ tenant they expressly limited it to their official knowledge.
The Church Tem¬ poralities Act (3 & 4 Will.
4, c.
37, s.
18) precludes them from including the value of see houses or glebe houses in the valuations directed to be, made by them by that statute, and they, therefore, have no power of inquiring into their value, and are, in fact, ignorant what their value is.
That glebe houses should in fairness be excluded appears from this, that in addition to the heavy liability that every clergyman is under to keep his glebe house in thorough repair, free from ecclesiastical dilapidation, nearly every clergyman on his appointment to a living has to pay out of his own pocket a large part of the original cost of building the glebe house (where there is one), and, therefore, ought rather to be considered as having purchased the use of the house during his incumbency, than as the actual owner in right of his bene¬ fice.
Even in the comparatively rare case of a glebe house without any build¬ ing charge on the living, it must be recollected that though the present incum¬ bent may not have had to pay, his predecessors had to do so; so that he has the same right to it that an heir has to a house built at the expense of his ancestors.
It was doubtless on such considerations as these that the Legislature in passing 3 & 4 Will.
4, c.
37, directed the value of glebe houses to be ex¬ cluded.
274.
A 2nd.
As-
