Whether Paddington has lost much by not having been overlooked by the archdeacon—“the bishop’s eye”—I cannot pretend to say; but we see that the rectory of Paddington, like that of many other places, overlooked by archdeacons, has been allowed to become a sinecure; and the curacy to exist without the means of cure; that the parson is a triune body; and that _the rights_ of the parochial church belong much more to the bishop, and his lay lessees, than to the excellent minister, to whom the “cure of souls,” with a stipend few gentlemen could live on, and none perform the necessary duties with, is so considerately bestowed. And, with such scandals as this daily staring us in the face, is it very surprising that the law, which heretofore reposed confidence in bishops, and assumed, “that they will not consent to anything that shall be to the prejudice of the church,” should have at length begun to discover, that its confidence has been somewhat misplaced, and that all bishops cannot be trusted? It certainly has been discovered that Parliamentary enquiries are necessary in our day; and it has been found out, even by ecclesiastics, that the appointment of ecclesiastical commissioners could no longer be delayed if the church was to be saved. But ecclesiastical commissioners are but men; the people, therefore, in every parish in England should themselves look into their own ecclesiastical affairs; and demand with one united voice the fulfilment of those religious duties to God and God’s poor, which devolve on those who claim the lands of the church. Sooner or later a demand so just must be fully recognised; and governors will assuredly arise, who will have both the power and the will to execute justice. Such malversations as those which have been recently exposed by the Rev. Mr. Whiston, and others, cannot last for ever; and the sooner the whole system is altered, if it be the system that is in fault, the better for all parties. By returns moved for by our honourable member, Sir B. Hall, (to whom the whole country is deeply indebted for the information on ecclesiastical affairs which he has brought to light,) we find that the portion of the “REVENUES of the SEE of LONDON, for the seven years ending thirty-first December, 1850,” arising from the “SHARE OF PADDINGTON RENTS, &c.” amounted to £56,939 1_s._ 6_d._, while the “share of the various payments in respect of share of Paddington estate,” for the same period, amounted to £1742 10_s._ 3_d._ The correctness of that return is certified to, and signed “C. J. London.” {129} The lay lessees received double this sum, as per agreement, so that for seven years £170,817 4_s._ 6_d._ has been paid, _chiefly in the shape of increased house-rent be it observed_, by that portion of the people of Paddington, who have had the felicity of living on “The Bishop’s Estate.”