§ MR. HORSMANrose for the purpose of bringing forward the Motion of which he had given notice; affirming the expediency of appointing paid Commissioners for the management of the property under the Ecclesiastical Commission. He had to express his sincere regret that the hopes which he had entertained that the labours of the last Committee would have resulted in a settlement of this question, had ended in disappointment. Though every succeeding day tended to confirm him more and more in his conviction of the necessity of improving the Commission and placing the temporalities of the Church in safer hands; it appeared that the probability of giving effect to that proposition was now more remote than ever, and he was, therefore, reluctantly obliged to call the attention of the House again to the subject. They were all familiar both with the character of the Commission and with its proceedings. They knew it to be a very potent, powerful, and irresponsible body; that it was charged with very important functions, and entrusted with the administration of immense funds. They knew that there was hardly a county in England in which it did not exercise some control over considerable estates, or a parish in England in which its intervention might not affect existing interests. In short, whether the temporalities of the Church, or the most sacred spiritual interests of the people, were taken into account, the Commission held a power more vast, more important, and more irresponsible than had been known in this country since the Reformation. Well, therefore, did it become Parliament to keep an eye upon that power—to define its character, to limit its operation, to regulate its use, and take every precaution against possible abuse; and the more so because it was obvious that from the present composition of that Commission, great abuses of one kind or another must arise. It could not 349 be denied but that the duties of the Commission were of vast importance. The Church was beginning every day to feel more and more strongly that the spiritual duties of her mission were sufficient to occupy the whole time and the whole attention of her dignitaries. When, therefore, they proceeded to load themselves with another Bet of duties of an entirely opposite character, it was manifest that a portion, at least, of the labours imposed upon them must be neglected; and, consequently, as it became a matter of necessity that a choice must be made between these two incompatible duties, the people were persuaded that the more the ecclesiastical dignitaries confined themselves to the spiritual duties of the Church, and the less they meddled with secular concerns, the better. This conviction was daily becoming more mature among all ecclesiastical parties, and on very cogent grounds. There was one party in the Church extremely anxious to increase the number of the bishops. They said that the duties to be discharged were beyond the strength of the existing prelates. But these parties, earnest as they were, and most laudably alive to the advancement of the Church, were beginning to perceive how utterly shallow and insincere their arguments must appear, when at the very time that they were complaining of the duties being unsatisfactorily discharged in consequence of the smallness of the number of bishops, it could be shown that the prelates were absenting themselves from their dioceses, and giving their attention to secular affairs elsewhere, which laymen could administer for them, and administer far better. The great ground of complaint, therefore, seemed to be not that we had not bishops enough, but that those we had were not labouring in their right vocation—that they were in London when they ought to be in their own provinces—devoting themselves to temporalities in Whitehall, to the manifest neglect of spiritualities in their more legitimate sphere. It was obvious that a deficiency which arose not so much from an excess as from a neglect of spiritual duties, would never be accepted by Parliament as an argument for supplying the deficiency by an increased number of bishops. There was another party, to which he owned that he himself belonged, who considered that, whether the duties were too onerous or too light, still that the pecuniary concerns of the Church Establishment, its vast financial operations, and the management of its 350 estates throughout England, were altogether alien to the functions of ecclesiastics—that it was not a duty, or a seemly office for an ecclesiastic to fill—that he should leave to other men the grosser cares and intricacies of worldly business—that a prelate should confine himself to the chosen field of his spiritual labour, and place himself in close and intimate relationship with his clergy and flock—conscious of the responsibilities of his high office, and devoted to its duties alone—that it was for him to be familiar with the concerns of every parish under his care, cognisant of the character of every clergyman within his diocese, supplying all wants by his energy, controlling all abuses by his vigilance, and encouraging all that was good by his example—that it was for him to live as a father among his people, spreading around him the atmosphere of love, of reverence, and of religion. Such, in its early days, were the Church's notions of what a Christian bishop ought to be. Such they had been in former times; such all should wish to see them again, and to such it should be the earnest desire of every true Christian to endeavour to restore them. But there was a third party, perhaps more numerous than the other two, who, agreeing and concurring with the others in the abstract, yet, fortified by the conclusions of their daily experience, maintained that there was a proved incompetence to the duties which they had undertaken on the part of the Commission, to the enormous injury of the Church finances from mismanagement, and to the scandal of the Church itself from the proceedings of its dignitaries on that board; and that, whether from regard to the spiritual or the temporal interests of the Church, they protest against a continuance of the existing system. They hold that the pecuniary loss to the Church, great as it was, was of very slight value compared with the unfavourable light in which this board placed her hierarchy before the people. When the episcopal funds were first established by Act of Parliament, they were placed under an episcopal board, under the impression that thereby more confidence would be imparted in the Church. It was thought that, under their conscientious keeping, every talent entrusted to them would bring forth ten for the service of the Church and the advancement of religion; but that delusion had long since vanished, and it became apparent that, instead of these treasures of the Church having been entrusted 351 to the safest keeping, it was manifestly in the most insecure custody. Instead of confidence being reposed in the prelates, it appeared manifest that all confidence was destroyed in them; and there were now no men throughout England more anxious that the whole of the episcopal bench should retire from the Ecclesiastical Commission than the great body of the English clergy, who had become unhappily conscious that the appointment of the present dignitaries had resulted neither in the promotion of the interests of the Church, nor of their own credit. Such being the general opinion, he should have thought that there could be no difficulty or hesitation in giving effect to it, especially when supported by the recommendation of the Committee to which he had already referred. But it seemed to have been ordered otherwise; it seemed that the hearts of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were still hardened—that they were still determined, not without a struggle, to let go their grasp on the Church's funds. But he was ready to appeal to justice, and to the sense of public duty entertained by that House, while he asked them to give him their attention, for a short time, while he proceeded to show, from the statements of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners themselves, what the system was which they carried on, how far they had justified the confidence reposed in them, and how unreasonable, how indefensible—he would not use a stronger term—and how unwarrantable were the claims which they now put forward to still further abuse both the interests and the patience of the public. The Ecclesiastical Commission had its origin in 1836—that is, previous commissions of inquiry had been issued in 1835—which had made reports, and submited certain recommendations on the question of the ecclesiastical establishments; and, in 1836, the same Commission was continued, with instructions to give effect to, and carry out, their own recommendations. That was the origin of the present Commission. It consisted originally of thirteen Members, but the smallness of that number gave great dissatisfaction in certain quarters. The Bishop of London, who was a witness before the Committee, and who had certainly shown no disposition to expose the frailties of his brethren, assigned a very vague cause indeed for that dissatisfaction. He stated that only five of the members of the episcopal bench were on the Commission, 352 and that that was not considered to be an adequate representation of the Church. But the popular version of this dissatisfaction was more ample and more communicative. It pointed to the nature of the Ecclesiastical Commission—how great were its powers, how very convenient, in many respects were its opportunities. These Commissioners were charged with great powers, not only as affecting in great matters the interests of the Church at large, but, in many small matters, the interests of bishops in particular. All matters of allowance, or compensation, or loans, and other points affecting the interests of existing bishops, were ruled by them. They had to decide what future bishops were to pay money to the Ecclesiastical Commission, what they were to receive, and in each case how much; also, they were to say what prelates were to be permitted to sell estates, who were to build palaces, and how much of the Church's money was to be given for these purposes. In short, various things, affecting the Commissioners themselves, were to he ruled absolutely by that board, and a seat at its councils thus came to be looked upon as an important thing. The excluded prelates were not prepared to say why a small portion of the number should monopolise all the prizes, and an agitation commenced for an extension of the Commission. Whether this account of the matter, generally circulated and accepted at the time, were in all respects correct or not, of this at all events there could be no doubt, that an agitation had been got up which waxed very fierce and very formidable, so that at last the minority were compelled to give way—the doors of No. 5, Whitehall-place, were thrown open, when the whole episcopal bench rushed in, and the wonder was, why the deans and other dignitaries did not also contrive to gain admission. As it happened, only three deans got appointed; but the constitution of the Commission became greatly altered in consequence of those changes. Formerly it consisted of eight laymen and five ecclesiastics; it was now constituted of twenty-nine ecclesiastics and twenty laymen. In fact, it became practically an ecclesiastical board—and the worst of all ecclesiastical boards—namely, one composed of only one order of ecclesiastics. The parochial clergy and their congregations were not at all represented on the board, and the result was seen in the proceedings which had taken place. The poorer pastors were left half starved, and 353 their congregations untaught; whilst vast sums of the church treasure were squandered on the luxuries and palaces of their mitred rulers. The transaction of business was not facilitated by this enlargement of the board; and, as if to make confusion worse confounded, it was provided that there should be no permanent chairman at the meetings of the board, the rule being that the Commissioner highest in rank present should always occupy the chair, but only until one of a higher rank came in; so that the Commission was formed under a junior bishop, who was hardly warm in his seat before a senior bishop came in and deprived him of it, who had again to leave it when an older bishop entered; so that there could be nothing like permanency in the proceedings until the Archbishop of Canterbury came in and took precedence of all others. Now, he should like to know how the business of that House could be carried on if the rule were that the oldest Member present should always occupy the chair, and if their president were to be altered every ten minutes, and no fixity of tenure allowed until the father of the House came in? And yet this system of conducting business was considered so wise as not only to be sanctioned as a rule of the board, but actually to be made the law of the land. It was found extremely inconvenient under such a system to carry on matters of detail with so large a hoard, and, accordingly, in order to expedite business, they determined to refer particular subjects to Select Committees. But how was this carried into effect? In that House, Select Committees usually consisted of a very limited number of Members, while all persons having a personal or pecuniary interest in the inquiry were excluded. But the system of the Ecclesiastical Commission was in every respect the reverse of this. He found, by returns in the tables of the appendix to the report, that the average attendance of the board was ten, and yet the first Committee appointed by them consisted, not of less than ten members, but actually of twenty-three. The Estates Committee had twenty-three members; the Districts Committee, which was next appointed, had twenty members; the Episcopal Incomes Committee fourteen members; and the Finance Committee thirteen members. In short, there was not one of the committees that had not a greater number of members than the average attendance on the board, the largeness of which they were intended to 354 correct. But, in addition to this, the board had no idea of adopting such an innovation as that of excluding persons who had individual interests in the cases investigated. On the contrary, when business affecting any one bishop was to be carried on, he was especially favoured with a summons to attend, and he was allowed to speak and vote at the deliberations exactly as if he were a member of the committee. Not only that, but any member of the episcopal bench could attend any committee, even though not a member of it, and vote and act as the regular members; so that the committee could at any time be swamped and outvoted by persons who were not nominated on it at all. After some months of consideration on the subject—and at the risk of being considered dull and thickheaded—he had not been able to realise to himself what the value of these committees was. The Bishop of St. Asaph had told them that it enabled a bishop familiar with any subject to guide the deliberations and decision of the committee; and the Secretary to the Commission stated that it was a matter of arrangement among themselves, that when any bishop took up a particular question, he, as the secretary expressed it, "worked it through the committee." And there could be no doubt but that where the interests of any bishop were concerned, he had, in some instances, "worked it through "in a most peculiar manner. He did not know whether, in the most palmy days of Toryism, the "working-through" system had been better understood or more vigorously carried out than on the Ecclesiastical Commission. The House would no doubt imagine, after what he had described, that the business of the Commission was not well carried out, but they could not possibly be prepared for such a picture of carelessness, incompetence, and waste, as the revelations of its own witnesses exhibited by the regular valuator of the Commission! What did the House think of large church estates being sold without any valuation having been taken? What did they think of large estates having been bought without the common precaution of a survey? What did they think of works being executed without the Commissioners' own architect giving any estimate of the expense? or what did they think of surveyors, architects, and other officers, being employed under the Commission for years without any 355 arrangement whatever being made with them as to the remuneration which they were to receive? Accordingly their charges, when made, were disputed. Payment was delayed; and from the time of their appointment down to the period when the committee made their report, no settlements of the accounts had taken place. And though a great effort was made to accomplish something that might he called a settlement before the report of the Commission came out, there was no evidence to show that even this was not accomplished by a further sacrifice of the Church's money, in satisfaction of what had been already deemed unreasonable demands. Now, considering the sacred purposes for which the funds were destined, such manifestly unfaithful guardianship was highly reprehensible. It should be remembered that it was the treasury of the poor that these Ecclesiastical Commissioners had squandered and exhausted. Nor was it necessary that he should bring home to them any intentional mal-administration or mal-appropriation of funds. He would say nothing on that head, either of condemnation or acquittal. It was sufficient for him to show that the attendance of the bishops at the board of Ecclesiastical Commissioners so constantly and regularly as to obtain a proper knowledge of the business of the board, was wholly incompatible with the discharge of their ecclesiastical duties. It had been said that they attended only when something relating especially to themselves was going on. To a certain extent that was true—the majority of the bench could only give an occasional attendance, and it became, not unnaturally, an interested one. The board met only once a week, and business was then gone through sufficient for a month. It was impossible for the Commissioners under such circumstances to understand the business. The Bishop of London said, that there was only one person perfectly and sufficiently acquainted with the business of the Commission; and that one person was the Secretary, who became practically the whole Commission. He (Mr. Horsman) felt that he owed some apology to the House for having dwelt so long upon the composition and management of the Commission, without having before alluded to its most important functionary, the Secretary. Now, however, it was necessary that he should inform the House that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had a secretary, or rather that the secretary had a board of commissioners; 356 for he was the sun round whom the whole system revolved. It was with him not Ego et Rex meus, but Ego et Episcopi mei. He had been from the commencement in head—in heart—in authority and in action the whole Commission. Everything was done by him. Did any one want to see the Commissioners? He could only have an interview with the secretary. Did any one want to write to the Commissioners? The letter went through the secretary. Did any one send a communication to the board? It was opened by the secretary, who made it known as he thought fit. He arranged the business—he framed the orders in council—he drew the Acts of Parliament—he selected the subordinate functionaries and employes. He was omniscient, omnipresent, and peripatetic. Nothing could be done without him. Did a prelate wish to sell an estate? He managed the order in council. Was another to build a palace? He found the cash. Had the Commission got into a scrape by what is vulgarly temed a job? The secretry "made things pleasant." Was Parliament to be mystified as to episcopal incomes? The secretary "cooked the ac-counts." Was there a debate in the Lords? The secretary culled the facts for the archbishop. Was an awkward question to be asked in the Commons? He prompted the Prime Minister. He never gave notice of any question which he was about to put to the Minister in the House, but he saw on the following morning the usual paragraph in the newspapers, under the head of Court Circular—" The Secretary to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had an interview yesterday with the First Minister at his official residence in Downing-street." He wished to speak of the secretaryship, as it had an inevitable tendency to become, under the trials and temptations of such an office, so circumstanced, rather than of the individual in his individual capacity who lately filled it. It had been said, that the history of nations was the history of the celebrated men whom they produced. And of the Ecclesiastical Commission it might in like manner be said, that its history was the history of its first and hitherto only secretary. He was the whole Commissioner, and now he would show what a dignified body it had been, or rather what an undignified body—what a caricature it had been of imbecility and helplessness, in the hands of its own subordinate. As he had before said, the Ecclesiastical Commission had property in every 357 diocese in England. It bad a great deal of business necessarily connected with that property, and especially of legal business. And the responsibility of all this business devolved upon the secretary. And he was Vested with a large discretion in the appointment of gentlemen to fill the important and lucrative offices of solicitor and counsel to the Commission; and the first proof of undoubted genius which he gave was in filling all these posts with his own relations. The hon. Member for Malton was the first who found out and called attention to the fact, that he was on one occasion plunging the Commission unnecessarily into litigation; and he imagined that he discovered a family interest in the excitement to litigation, for when the case came to be considered, there was a gathering of the whole clan Murray. There was, first, Mr. Charles Knight Murray, who, representing the Commission, appeared as promoter, and really plaintiff in the cause. Then there was Mr. Murray secundus, attorney or solicitor; and then there was Mr. Murray tertius, who made his appearance in wig and gown as counsel. Now, seeing that the disputes in such a business as the Commission must be numerous, and the wear and tear on the secretary most cruel, they could not be surprised at his calling in, to share the responsibility and the emolument of the office, those on whom his heart could best rely. He exhibited in that respect only a weakness which had possessed many great men in all times and countries. But the question for the House to ask was this—was there or was there not any truth in the suspicion that the secretary of the Commission plunged it into litigation for the purpose of aiding his own relations? That question was not fairly investigated. No one could doubt that it was not properly investigated before the Commission. But the secretary was a very fortunate as well as a very active man. He found friends where he did not know them, and his virtue was rewarded where he least expected it. A most remarkable instance of this occurred with regard to the tenure of his own office. In the year 1836 he was appointed secretary; but when he came before the Committee of that House two years ago, he astonished the Members with the announcement that he was not the servant of the public, holding his office at the public pleasure, but that he held it by Act of Parliament during his life. It then appeared, that in an Act that was passed in 1840, to carry out the fourth 358 report of the Commissioners of Church Inquiry with regard to cathedrals and collegiate churches, and which had no more to do with the secretaryship of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners than with the beard of the Great Mogul, a clause had been inserted, by which he was appointed treasurer and secretary, and his tenure of office changed from being "during pleasure" to "during life." How that extraordinary change happened, no one had the least idea or means of telling. The Bishop of London, who was next in authority and omniscience to the secretary, knew nothing about it. The secretary himself was as innocent as one of his own babes. The idea of converting his terminable appointment into a perpetuity, had never been mooted at the board, or apparently entered the mind of a single Commissioner; yet so it was. Words had been slipped into the Act, in one of its very latest stages in the House of Lords, which conferred the office of secretary for life; but bow it came there, or by whom inserted, remained as much a mystery to the secretary as to the Committee and to the world; and to the present moment that gentleman was in a painful state of ignorance as to the identity of his unknown benefactor. This was another instance of the business-like capacity and vigilance of the episcopal board; but it was trifling in comparison with what he had now to tell. He begged to call the attention of the hon. Member for Montrose to what he was now about to say; and if it did not make every hair on his head stand on end, he was no longer the man he used to be. What would the House and the hon. Member for Montrose think when he told them that this board of episcopal trustees, charged with the administration of large funds—of enormous funds—which were destined to be applied to the most sacred of purposes, took no cognisance whatever of the receipt or disbursement of those immense sums of which they stood charged as the recipients? Yet such was the fact. From 1836 to 1845 they kept no accounts. They had no knowledge. They exercised no supervision. They asked no questions. They instituted no control. They had no audit of the immense sums of money that went into or were taken out of the funds entrusted to their charge. Such was actually the fact from 1836 to 1845. He saw a right hon. Commissioner opposite shake his head. But on what authority was he making the statement? On the evidence taken before the Committee of 359 the House. He took the fact from the evidence of the omniscient secretary himself, given before the Committee. He said before the Committee, that during the whole period he had mentioned, all the moneys received were paid into his bankers to his private account; and all the moneys paid out by the Commissioners were paid by his own private cheques. And having in that manner received all the proceeds into his own hands, and paid all disbursements by his own cheques, and all this without any supervision, control, or questioning whatsoever by any party, the balance remaining, if any did remain, which could be known only to the secretary, was paid into the account of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in the Bank of England. But of course, under such a system, the balance was likely to be small. It turned out that there was none worth mentioning. The extravagance of the Commissioners and the dexterity of the secretary took care of that. So that during the whole of the time that he had mentioned, all the monies of the Ecclesiastical Commission were left entirely at the disposal of the secretary to do what he pleased with; and the sums which passed thus through his hands during those nine years, for one purpose or another, could not amount in the aggregate to much, if at all, less than 1,000,000l. Such was the system till 1845. No thanks to the Commissioners that the same system did not remain in operation until the year 1850. But in 1845 the secretary said that a new system had been established. It was owing to an accident that that new system was founded. It turned out that the reason was this: the hon. Member for Paisley asked, in the year 1845, for a return of all parties subscribing to railway companies for sums above 2,000l., and amongst the parties so returned, the secretary to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners figured for no less a sum than 580,000l. That extraordinary fact was brought under the notice of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and they then seemed for the first time to become aware of the extraordinary and unlimited power which the secretary had over their funds; and then it was that another mode of making and receiving payments was adopted. But it was only in consequence of that accidental discovery that the new mode was adopted, if indeed it were adopted at all. He said if it were adopted, because if in the carrying out of the new system of check or audit, the exercise of the check 360 upon himself were confided to the secretary's own hands, it was quite clear that its object was entirely defeated, and its establishment was altogether delusive. But now he begged the House to pause and reflect for a moment on the danger and the immense injury to the Church which that system, so long and uninterruptedly pursued, invited. Only let them consider what that fund was, and what was the object for which it was created. It was a great national provision for the purest of all national purposes. Parliament had been suddenly aroused to the conviction that it had been long and lamentably negligent of the spiritual instruction of the people, and in the uncultured state of its wild and untaught masses it saw at once a peril and a reproach. The conscience of the community had been awakened, and the necessity of an effort being made to reclaim their neglected millions from infidelity and turn them to Christianity, had been recognised and acknowledged. The darkness of vast heathen localities had become the theme of many a meeting, and the burden of many a pulpit, and Christians of all denominations girded themselves to the new and holy enterprise. The never-tiring zeal of the Dissenters spurred the activity of the Establishment. Our laymen stimulated one another. Our busiest merchants gave their time and their money, and many members of their families rejoiced in the occasion to devote themselves to that lofty and laborious work. The clergy toiled with redoubled vigour, presenting a happy contrast between the present generation and the last. The bishops themselves handed round the begging-box, and stimulated the laity by their alms and exhortations. The effect was incredible. Since that Act had passed that House fifteen years ago, at the commencement of Church reform, more had been done for the spiritual advancement of the people than had been done during a century before. Churches had been built, and congregations had sprung up as if out of the ground—the character of whole localities was changed—peace and tranquillity took the place of riot and sedition; and the accents of prayer and thanksgiving had been heard where all before had been blasphemy and profaneness. The work was blessed. But the fountain-head, as far as material means could go, of all its blessedness as a great social and spiritual revolution, was intended to be that great reservoir of wealth, of which the Legislature had made the dignitaries of the Church 361 the guardians in Whitehall. There was the spring—the stay—the strength of all these isolated and self-directed efforts. Every individual exertion was to be met by a proportionate grant from the parent institution. Every local movement was to be sustained by that arm. There was to be the life of every enterprise—the centre of every organistion—all for that object which possessed the minds of so many good men. For the furtherance of that single prayer, that its own poor might have the gospel preached to them, there was, in the creation of that national fund, well guarded and well distributed, a source of usefulness more inexhaustible and more blessed than any that human agency could decree. With the full knowledge of all this, Parliament deliberately, advisedly, and solemnly placed the administration of those ecclesiastical funds in the hands of the highest dignitaries of the Church. With the full knowledge of the solemn duties attached, these dignitaries not only accepted but claimed the guardianship of these funds. They claimed it as in accordance with the nature of their high office. They claimed it as a fund so precious that only in the hands of the dignitaries of the Church could it be safe. A part even of the episcopal bench was not considered good security—the whole body was admitted to share in that holy guardianship. Laymen were not to be trusted. Laymen of the highest character, selected with the greatest care by the Ministers, and surrounded by all those guards and securities which experience has rendered efficient in our public offices—even such a board is, at this moment, scouted by the dignitaries of the Church. And yet they, having by this excess of zeal got the fund into their hands, carelessly and unscrupulously cast it, as if the souls' welfare of a whole people were of no more account with them than so much dirt, not to a board of selected laymen, but to a single layman—a man of no public standing—a subordinate in their own office, and without a single one of the precautions against fraud or injury which any man of common sense, or common feeling, or conscience, would be ashamed to dispense with in the affairs of his humblest neighbour, who had entrusted his interests to his keeping. And the House would not be surprised to find that from such a system, or rather from such an absence of all system, from such a mode of carrying on business, the usual consequence had followed. His history 362 of the Ecclesiastical Commission was happily drawing to a close. It was not a very grateful subject for a churchman to dwell upon—it was rather a humiliating one. He had only now to state these two additional facts, which completed the catastrophe which every practical and experienced man in the House must have anticipated as the natural result of business ill administered, and confidence much misplaced. The two facts were these:—About three years ago it was intimated to the public that the Ecclesiastical Commission was bankrupt; and about three months ago it was notified to the First Minister of the Crown that the secretary had run away with all the money he could lay his hands on. Now, that catastrophe appeared to him as much a matter of course, and as inevitable, as the happy conclusion which usually winds up a novel. The two matters—the bankruptcy of the Commission and the running away of the secretary—need not astonish any one who knew the world, or knew the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. But he believed that the latter untoward event, the elopement of the beloved secretary, had thrown his episcopal friends into a state of great consternation, and the shock had been even felt over the way, in Downing-street. But of the circumstances connected with the last occurrence, the public had as yet very little knowledge. The circumstance of the elopement of the secretary had been kept secret, most secret. No successor had been appointed as yet, and not even a vacancy declared; but the public had learnt, through the usual vehicles of public intelligence that a large sum of money had disappeared, and that the secretary and treasurer of the Ecclesiastical Commission had disappeared along with it. He would take that opportunity of asking the noble Lord at the head of the Government, or perhaps the right hon. Gentleman who usually took the management of ecclesiastical affairs in the House would inform him, whether it were true that the late secretary and treasurer of the Ecclesiastical Commission had left the country? Whether or not he had created defalcations in the funds of the Commission? What was the amount of those defalcations? Whether any steps had been taken to recover the money from the late secretary, or from any other parties? And, if recovery from him were hopeless, whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had asked to be allowed to 363 make up the loss out of their own pockets? The circumstances which he had stated, except the last, which was of very recent occurrence, he had taken from the evidence given by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners themselves, or their subordinates, before the Committee of the House of Commons; and he begged now to draw the attention of the House to the character and proceedings of that Committee, for they were extremely important. That Committee was nominated, by an arrangement, as he had been given to understand, between the hon. Gentleman the Member for Malton, who moved for it, the Government, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. And when it was first appointed, it was granted, as he had been informed, upon two conditions. That, however, he was not competent to assert positively, as of his own knowledge. He merely said that he had been so informed, and he spoke in the presence of those who could correct him if he were wrong. He was told that at the time of its appointment, it was understood that it was granted upon these two conditions. In the first place, it was to be taken without discussion; and in the next, the names of the members appointed to form it should be submitted to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and were to be approved of by him. As to the first of these conditions, he was in great doubt. As to the second, he believed he was correctly informed. [Mr. J. E. DENI-SON expressed dissent.] Did the hon. Member for Malton mean to say he was wrong in both? The first condition was immaterial; but as to the second, unless he heard a distinct contradiction to the fact that night in the House, he should say that he had fair grounds for believing it. And he was much surprised to hear the hon. Member for Malton cast any doubt upon it. But, at all events, he spoke under correction. He could have no knowledge of the facts himself. But he believed, to the present moment, that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, or parties acting on their behalf, had the names of the Committee submitted to them, and were parties to their appointment upon it. But of this fact, at all events, there could be no doubt, that every Ecclesiastical Commissioner in the House was placed upon the Committee. Charges were made against the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. A Committee was appointed to investigate those charges; and five Ecclesiastical Commissioners were named upon the Committee, as judges, to conduct the inquiry into their own proceedings. 364 He stated that fact as a most important one. He was not complaining of the fact—he was stating it for reasons which the House would immediately perceive. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford was on the Committee. The noble Lord the Member for Hertford was also a member. Two Cabinet Ministers were members of it; and its chairman, who drew up the report, was the brother of a prelate. In short, that Committee (and that was what he was anxious to show) was composed of gentlemen of high standing, great experience, and established character and influence in the House. It was also composed of Gentlemen whom no one could possibly accuse of being unfairly disposed towards the Commissioners. If any one could accuse them of views of any particular tendency or bias, it must be of bias to the side of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and not against them. Well, then, the Committee so constituted conducted the inquiry through two Sessions. They then come to a unanimous resolution condemning the management of the Ecclesiastical Commission, and recommending the appointment of paid commissioners to take charge of the temporalities under its control. That was the unanimous report of the Committee. There was another question respecting the number of paid commissioners, about which they were not quite so unanimous. They were unanimous as to the payment of the commissioners, but their number was a subject of some difference in the Committee. He was present and took part in the discussion, and he believed the feeling of the Committee was nearly unanimous, even for the resolution. But the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for the University of Oxford, and the hon. Member for Huddersfield, differed as to the proper number of paid commissioners. Five Ecclesiastical Commissioners were present; they gave strength to the unanimity of the Committee as to the propriety of appointing paid commissioners. Two of them were also Cabinet Ministers; and on a subsequent day one of those Cabinet Ministers voted for the appointment of three paid commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman who was more directly engaged in the carrying through of Ecclesiastical Bills was not present; but as he had voted for the first part, namely, the recommendation of paid commissioners, he (Mr. Horsman) presumed if he had been present, he would have voted for the second arrangement. However, the 365 Committee agreed as a whole upon the appointment of three paid commissioners, in whose hands the management of the temporalities of the Church should be placed. And this was the point of difference between the Committee and the episcopal bench. The Bishop of London had always wished to have one paid commissioner appointed by the Government, to be added to the unpaid commissioners. The Committee wished to have three. He (Mr. Hors-man) felt very strongly that the Bishop of London would have more power given to the bench of bishops by his proposition than they had at present; for all the power which now exists would then be left in the hands of the bishops, but all the responsibility would be thrown upon the one paid individual. If, on the other hand, there were a board of three paid commissioners, they would supersede altogether the commissioners of the episcopal board; and there would be also the very important improvement that, instead of having only one board day in the week, and persons calling upon any other day finding none but subordinates to give them any information, there would be principals always present, and any person could communicate at once with the responsible persons, as in all the other departments of the State. This was, therefore, the difference between the resolution which he had moved, and that proposed by the members of the episcopal bench. They wished to retain the power in their own hands, but to have an additional functionary added, on whom the responsibility should be thrown; while he and those who thought with him wished to supersede them in their power, as regarded the pecuniary affairs of the commission, by the appointment of three paid commissioners. That being his object, he brought forward his present Motion for this reason; because the view which he had taken being the view of the Committee and of Government—being at least the view which was voted for by one Member of the Cabinet, and approved of, as he supposed, by the others—it being also obvious that there was another party attempting to defeat the recommendations of the Committee—he had been fearful lest the Bill which had been last year introduced should make its appearance again. He would, therefore, state the position in which they would find themselves should that contingency take place. It had been already agreed that three paid commissioners should be appointed, one to be nominated 366 by the Archbishsp of Canterbury. To that arrangement, he, acting with the other members of the Committee, had agreed; but his agreeing that one of the three commissioners should be nominated by the Archbishop of Canterbury, was quite different from the archbishop nominating one out of two; and yet, when the Bill came into the House, it appeared that such was to be the privilege of the archbishop. The promoters of this arrangement affected to take the management of the estates out of the hands of the Commissioners by means of an Estates Committee. Now, what was the composition of that Committee? It consisted of eight members—four of them nominal and irresponsible, and four working members. Of the first class were the two Cabinet Ministers, who could not of course be expected to attend to the duties of such business, and two unpaid laymen, who were not likely, as universal experience had proved, to devote much of their time to the duties of this office. Four working members were therefore left. Who were they? Why, two paid commissioners, one of them appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and two bishops. This, then, was the actual board. The two bishops, selected by the bench of bishops, were likely to give a pretty close attendance, and from the archbishop's commissioner a pretty sedulous attendance would be expected likewise. Therefore, there were the two bishops and the archbishop's commissioner against the Government commissioner. How was it possible for any Bill to be introduced to the House more at variance with the object of the recommendation of the Committee, and more wisely devised to give more power to the prelates than they had before? He had been anxious, therefore, not having heard of any measure to be introduced, to secure a declaration on the part of the House as to whether they were prepared to support the recommendations of the Committee, and he asked them to consider in what form the question came before them. This Commission had not exercised efficiently one single duty. As trustees of public monies, the trust had at one time kept no accounts—had no checks, and no audit. As guardians of church estates, they had trifled with the responsibilities of guardianship, selling lands without any authorised valuation, buying large estates without any previous survey, and employing agents and subordinates without any stipulation or agreement as to terms of remuneration. 367 Their orders in council were framed upon incorrect statements. Into their Acts of Parliament provisions were smuggled of which they had no knowledge. They had given great dissatisfaction to the clergy—they had inflicted great loss and injury on the Church. Places of worship had been built in many populous districts in reliance upon their aid; but they were bankrupt, and could not fulfil their obligations. Their chancellor of the exchequer had run away with the money; and, to sum up all, a Parliamentary Committee, composed of their own friends, and examining their own witnesses, had not had one word to say in their favour; but, passing a vote of censure on their proceedings, had unanimously recommended a change in their administration as indispensable to the interests both of the Church and of the public. He would not weaken the effect of these facts by any comment of his own. He knew not what official answer they might receive, but he believed that the duty of every man in that House was very plain, and not to be mistaken; and that whatever might be the character in which they professed to act here, whether as guardians of the public interests, as protectors of the poor, as upholders of our ecclesiastical institutions, or as friends of Christianity, and of all which could advance its blessed progress—they were called on, promptly and efficiently, by a declaration of opinion which could not be mistaken, to put an end to a state of things alike discreditable to the Church, and injurious to the interests of true religion.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed—
That a Committee of this House, to which was entrusted an inquiry into the composition and management of the Ecclesiastical Commission, having recommended the appointment of three paid Commissioners for the management of the property under the Commission, it is expedient that effect be given to that recommendation.
§ SIR G. GREYsaid, that he would not follow the hon. Gentleman through the history of the Ecclesiastical Commission, which he had stated this evening with greater accuracy than on former occasions. The original Commission was, as the hon. Gentleman had clearly stated to-night, a Commission simply of inquiry, and limited to a small number of members. To the present Commission was confided the duty, not of inquiry, but of the administration of funds in accordance with rules laid down by Act of Parliament. Now as to the composition of the Commission, 368 he (Sir G. Grey) had expressed his opinion in this House, and he was prepared to repeat the expression of that opinion in the terms used in the report of the Committee—a report in which he, as a member, concurred—that the number of members composing the Commission was too large for the convenient transaction of much of the business entrusted to it; that though the breaking up of the original body had involved a great improvement upon the early practice of the Commission, still that there was a want of regular and systematic attention to business, which a more direct responsibility pressing upon the members would naturally tend to secure. The Committee thus pointed out the defects which they conceived to exist in the constitution of the Commission; and he concurred in the recommendations of that Committee—recommendations, however, which the hon. Gentleman had not quite correctly described. In his (Sir G. Grey's) opinion, the larger was the body of which a commission consisted, the more irresponsible was each individual member. The composition of the Commission had, he thought, an inevitable tendency to throw into the hands of the secretary a greater share in the transaction of business, without imposing upon him a corresponding share of responsibility, than was warranted by the nature and importance of the affairs to be transacted. He had, therefore, been prepared to concur in a proposition for the alteration in the Commission. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, had alluded to a Bill introduced into the House in 1847, the object of which was, by the appointment of a paid commissioner, who should be a Member of the Estates Committee, and whose concurrence should be necessary to make valid any act of that body, to concentrate the responsibility in the hands of such commissioner, and to withdraw the business connected with property to a great extent from the general commission. There was a great deal of business then before Parliament, and it was obvious that the Bill would be strongly opposed. It was then that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Malton gave notice of a Motion for the appointment of a Committe to inquire into the constitution of the Ecclesiastical Commission. His (Sir G. Grey's) noble Friend near him stated, that in abandoning the Bill for the Session, he would accede to the Motion for a Committee of Inquiry; and that Committee was appointed. And 369 now, having alluded to that Committee, he (Sir G. Grey) would give the most direct and unqualified contradiction to two assertions which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cockermouth had made. The hon. Gentleman had stated that the Committee was granted upon two conditions—the one being that no discussion should take place in the House on the matter, and the second being that the names of the Members of the Committee should be approved of by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Now, this was the first time that he (Sir G. Grey) had ever heard of such conditions. He had never before heard of either of them, and he utterly disbelieved that they had any existence whatever, except in the fertile imagination of the hon. Gentleman. As to the appointment of the Committee, he (Sir G. Grey) had hardly thought of it from that time to this; but his rceollection of what took place was confirmed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Malton behind him. No discussion took place simply to facilitate the immediate appointment of the Committee, the notice for which stood after other notices on the paper, and could not, therefore, have been at once brought on in any other way. The object of so nominating the Committee was merely to prevent the subject from being postponed to a future and a very indefinite day; and it was on that account, and on that account alone, that his hon. Friend had consented to the appointment of the Committee without discussion. So far from the want of discussion being made a condition to the granting of the Motion, the question was not discussed in order that the appointment of the Committee might not be indefinitely postponed. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cockermouth did not then state one word of objection to the arrangement. It was an unworthy suggestion for the hon. Gentleman to have now made—[Mr. HORSMAN: Hear, hear!]—and an unworthy one for the hon. Gentleman now to repeat, as by his cheer he appeared to do. He (Sir G. Grey) was not prepared to follow the hon. Gentleman through all the charges which he had made against the administration of the Ecclesiastical Commission. Should an answer be deemed necessary for the vindication of these Commissioners, there were others in the House more conversant than he was with the details of the administration in question, and who could, therefore, state what they thought necessary for the vindication of the character of the Commissioners. 370 He knew that the composition of the Commission was inconvenient, leading to irregularity in the discharge of business, and to an undue share of confidence being placed in the secretary—a confidence which had certainly been abused, the secretary being guilty of a defalcation to the amount of 6,000l. or 7,000l. He was glad of an opportunity of stating the amount, because very exaggerated reports existed with regard to it. He had been asked whether it did not amount to 70,000l. He could only reply, that the sum was under 7,000l., he believed about 6,500l. The hon. Gentleman stated, that the greatest secrecy had been observed respecting these transactions. Now, he (Sir G. Grey) was not aware that any steps had been taken to preserve secrecy in the matter. A committee had been appointed by the Commissioners to investigate the affair, and immediate measures were taken to secure whatever property of the secretary could be made available to diminish the loss. For this purpose the services of the solicitors to the Treasury were placed at the disposal of the Commissioners. The hon. Gentleman had stated, that no declaration of vacancy in the secretaryship had been made. He was not aware that any such declaration was necessary. No new appointment had taken place, because it was not intended—and in this determination the Government quite coincided with the Commission—it was not intended to fill up the joint office of secretary and treasurer. A Bill was now before Parliament, providing for the repeal of the clause unadvisedly passed sanctioning this junction of offices; and, until Parliament should have had an opportunity of considering whether that clause ought to be repealed, no new appointment would take place. No step would be taken by the Commissioners which could fetter the free discussion of the question. Concurring, as he did, with much of what had been said by the hon. Gentleman as to the inexpediency of the constitution of the Commission, he did so without concurring in the sarcasms against the credit of members of the Commission which the hon. Gentleman had seen fit to indulge in. He hoped, on the contrary, that the good taste of the hon. Gentleman himself would convince him, on reflection, that he had acted ungenerously in talking about the bishops having sent round the begging-box, and sought for subscriptions to which they contributed nothing themselves. With respect 371 to some of these right rev. prelates, and he particularly alluded to the late Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London, they had contributed, and that most munificently, to the erection of churches, and other objects for which subscriptions were set on foot. With regard, also, to the appropriation of the funds placed in the hands of the Commission, the hon. Gentleman dealt rather in romance than reality. The object for which these funds were applied was the augmentation of small benefices; and he believed that, in fulfilment of that object, the Commission had been productive of an immense degree of good. Returns of the appropriation of these funds, and of the number of these augmented benefices, were before the House. It was unnecessary for him, therefore, to state the amount of these augmentations, and the number of clergymen now, through the agency of the Commission, labouring in populous districts and remote parts of the country formerly inadequately supplied with the means of spiritual instruction. That there was still room for improvement in the proceedings of the Commission, he admitted. Every precaution ought to be taken to ensure the best possible administration of the funds entrusted to their charge. As to the proceedings of the Committee, he must be allowed to correct one misstatement of the hon. Gentleman. He had begun by alluding to the alleged conditions under which the appointment of the Committee was said to have taken place; and the whole tone of the hon. Gentleman's speech went to impugn the fairness and impartiality of the Committee. He stated that it comprised five Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and two Cabinet Ministers. He (Sir G. Grey) could find only four Ecclesiatical Commissioners, two of them being Cabinet Ministers, who, indeed, the hon. Gentleman seemed to think, were placed upon the Ecclesiastical Commission more for ornament than use. Now, as regarded the ordinary transaction of business, he (Sir G. Grey) admitted that it was impossible that either his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer or himself could attend to the ordinary details of the business of the Commission of which they were ex-officio members, although, of course, they were ready to give their opinions upon any question of importance. But he hoped that the House would not run away with the idea that there were on the Committee five Ecclesiastical Commissioners, 372 and two Cabinet Ministers in addition. [Mr. HORSMAN: There was also Mr. Nichol.] He admitted that he had overlooked the right hon. and learned Gentleman. But, after all, there were only five, and not seven, out of the fifteen Members of the Committee; and of these, the hon. Gentleman was aware, there were some who had expressed their disapproval of the constitution of the Commission. How could he then argue that they would enter on the inquiry determined to support the Commission? Again, he said, there was one Member of the Committee, the chairman, who was the brother of a prelate, and who might, therefore, it was contended, be acting under the influence of the Ecclesiastical Commission. Now, the hon. Gentleman, in making these insinuations, had omitted to state, that, during the first year when the Committee sat, when it was engaged in taking the greater part of the evidence which it collected, the chairman was the noble Lord the Member for Totness.
§ MR. HORSMANThe chairman who drew up the report was the hon. Member for Malton.
§ SIR G. GREYBut the hon. Gentleman did not dissent from the report, or express, until now, any doubt of its impartiality. Well, but the hon. Gentleman stated that this Committee recommended the appointment of a separate and distinct board, to be composed of three paid commissioners, to whom should be referred all business connected with the estates. Now, that was not the interpretation which he (Sir G. Grey) put upon the recommendation of the Committee. No doubt the Committee recommended a change in the composition of the Commission; that a considerable division of duty should take place; that business of a more purely ecclesiastical nature should be separated from the management of the property; but that to the united body should be referred the ultimate decision of all questions—the small committee managing in all its branches the property of the Commission, but still as a committee. To show that this was intended to be a committee of the Commission, and not an independent body, he need only call the attention of the House to one of the paragraphs of the report. It was as follows:—
That three paid commissioners should be appointed, two to be nominated by the Crown, and one by the Archbiship of Canterbury. That in order to constitute a quorum of the board, or of 373 the Committee for managing property, the presence of one of the paid Members shall be necessary.Therefore, he contended that the intentions of the Committee of the House of Commons were, that there should be formed a Committee of the Commission, and that to form a quorum of this Committee the presence of one of the paid members should be necessary. It was not intended to supersede the Commission, but to insure the better management of the estates by the presence at the board of men devoting their time and attention to the subject, and acting under the responsibility attaching to them as paid members of it. The hon. Member for Cocker-mouth had stated that he (Sir G. Grey) had concurred in these recommendations. He had done so—he did so still——and the Bill introduced last year was founded substantially on the report of the Committee. But of that Bill the hon. Gentleman had not given a correct version. The Bill authorised the appointment of three Church Estate Commissioners—two to be appointed by the Crown, and one by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Now, he (Sir G. Grey) admitted that he thought that the Bill was defective in making the Committee too large. He thought it desirable to concentrate responsibility, and that, therefore, the Estate Committee should be a small body, who would give their entire attention to the subject. On further consideration, therefore, the Bill became the subject of modification, and his noble Friend near him had moved that the Bill be committed pro forma, in order to introduce alterations, which, it was thought, would improve the character of the measure: one of these alterations being intended to remedy the defect to which he had just alluded, and to reduce the number of the Estate Committee, and to provide that none of its acts should be valid unless concurred in by the paid Commissioner appointed by the Crown. It was also proposed in the original Bill that no report of the committee should be considered at the general board, unless in the presence of the paid Commissioner. In the Bill, as amended, it was proposed that no business of any kind should be transacted at the board unless in his presence. With regard to the resolution moved by the hon. Gentleman, he hoped the House would not take such an unusual step as to fetter themselves by the adoption of a resolution in reference to 374 the subject-matter of a Bill before the other House of Parliament, and which would, probably soon, come before this House. He thought that it would be inexpedient to anticipate the decision upon a point which would properly be considered in Committee on the Bill. When the Bill came before them, the hon. Gentleman would have an opportunity of taking the sense of the House, both on the principle and details of the measure. All he asked was, that the House should not come to any premature expression of opinion. He had now said all he felt necessary to say upon the Motion before the House; but he felt that he must add a word on a matter personal to himself. He was almost ashamed to allude to a letter which the hon. Gentleman had written to his constituents at Cockermouth. He was glad, for the sake of the hon. Gentleman, that he did not deem it expedient or right to reiterate in that House, and in his presence, the charges which he thought it not unbecoming to bring against him, in a letter published in a newspaper—charges of gross dishonesty and of wilful fraud in the conduct of the Bill of last Session. As the hon. Gentleman had not ventured to repeat that charge, he would not condescend to reply to it. But if he abstained from doing so, it was because he should not feel himself justified in entering into charges published only in the columns of a newspaper. He felt also that any hon. Member of experience in that House knew that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cockermouth must have drawn largely on his imagination in describing a scene which never could have taken place in passing the Bill, pro formâ, through Committee.
§ MR. HUMEthought the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had confined his reply to mere trifling, which was not worth noticing, passing over altogether those abuses which were charged, and ought long since to have been redressed. No less a sum than 128,000l. had been applied by this Commission to the benefit of the bishops, and only 93,000l. for the use of the poor clergy and the augmentation of small livings; though it had been shown in that House that there were 20,000 working curates whose incomes were only 80l. a year each. What he contended was, that this fund ought to be placed in the hands of laymen, who should be responsible to the Treasury, and not to the bishops, who were interested parties. The House 375 had resolved that the Bishop of Durham should have an income of 8,000l. a year; but it was reported that he received twice that amount, and it was the same with other prelates. If men in ordinary life appropriated to themselves property belonging to others, they would be brought before the courts of justice; but when bishops were guilty of such conduct, they found men on all sides ready to get up and defend them. The right hon. Baronet, however, did not attempt to defend them; he admitted the present administration of the fund was wrong. He hoped Ministers would be more successful this year in passing their Bill, than they had been in former years. For his own part, he felt obliged to his hon. Friend the Member for Cocker-mouth, and so, he was sure, did the country, for the manner in which he had followed up this subject, and made himself master of it; and he hoped he would persevere until he succeeded in putting an end to the abuses which existed. Twenty-five years ago, when he (Mr. Hume) attempted to overhaul the Church, and see justice done, he well remembered what an outcry was raised against him. He was proclaimed by the clergy as an atheist, and as a man unworthy to be recognised in society, and all this was done to cloak and cover over their own abuses. These denunciations had no effect on him, and he hoped his hon. Friend would treat them with equal contempt, and consider that abuse from such quarters was praise. They had abolished sinecures in the Army and the Navy: why should they be permitted in the Church?—why should not the funds set apart for religious purposes be applied to those purposes, and not to the enriching of bishops and clerical sinecurists?
§ MR. AGLIONBYpromised to give full expression to his views on this most important subject when the Bill introduced into the House of Lords should have come down for the consideration of hon. Members of that House. He contended that the public were much indebted to the hon. Member for Cockermouth for having brought this question forward on the present and former occasions, because it was impossible that too much attention could be paid to the management of a large amount of property vested in the hands of the Commissioners, of which very little was publicly known, and probably much less would have been known, either as to the property itself or the mode of its management, had it not been for the hon. 376 Member for Cockermouth and other hon. Members, who had moved for inquiries in that House. It was, however, matter of regret that there should have been anything like personal matter imported into the debate, and that the manner of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department should have indicated a little soreness at something which had appeared in a letter written by his (Mr. Aglionby's) hon. Colleague, that had appeared in the newspaper, and in which, it was fairly to be presumed, that hon. Gentleman had stated facts, knowing the consequences, and believing what he published to be true. His hon. Colleague was perfectly able to defend himself, and doubtless he would do so; but in the meantime it was to be regretted that the right hon. Baronet had, in alluding to the subject, used expressions for which in all probability he would himself feel sorry.
§ LORD J. RUSSELLA Cabinet Minisister cannot be sorry for his expressions.
§ MR. AGLIONBYsaid, he did not know for what a Cabinet Minister felt sorrow; but if ever it was felt by a right hon. Gentleman holding that office, this was the occasion for him to evince it. The expression used by the right hon. Baronet was a strong one. It was, that the hon. Member for Cockermouth had drawn upon his fertile imagination for some of his statements. Now, the allegation of his hon. Colleague was this: that the Committee had been granted on two conditions: first, that there should be no discussion at the time of appointing it; and, next, that the name of the Committee should be submitted to the Archbishop of Canterbury for approval. The right hon. Baronet had admitted, with reference to the former, that the Committee were appointed without any discussion, in consequence of the lateness of the Session, and that it was intended they should be appointed without any discussion; and, therefore, as far as that point was concerned, his hon. Colleague had not drawn upon his fertile imagination for his facts. The right hon. Baronet, with reference to the second point, had said, not that the names were not submitted, but that he did not know of their being submitted to the Archbishop of Canterbury. It was manifest from some portions of the speech of the right hon. Baronet, that he had misunderstood the hon. Member for Cockermouth, for that hon. Member had not intended by any of his observations to represent the Committee as an unfair Committee. 377 He had stated its constitution, its numbers, and how many of its Members were connected, eitheir directly or by feeling, with the Church; and he argued that the very circumstance of so many Members having no bias against the Church, and being still unanimously in favour of the report they adopted, imparted to that report a consideration and a weight with the country, which it would not have possessed had it emanated from a Committee hostile to the Church. Again, the right hon. Baronet was wrong when he said that his hon. Colleague had cast an unjustifiable slur upon the bishops of the Church in describing them as bishops going about with the begging-box. For what was the evidence of the Bishop of St. Asaph? By question 1,104, the Bishop of St. Asaph was asked—
Considering the purposes for which the Ecclesiatical Commission was appointed, and the desire to increase the efficiency of the Church, would it not be desirable that all the revenues of the Church should be thrown into one common fund?—I do not think it would; for there had been a greater increase in the staff of bishops than in any other department of the Church.Do you think that an increase of bishops would tend to the diffusion of more spiritual instruction to the people?—Yes.More than adding to the small clergy?—Yes; my opinion is that if there were more bishops, we should get a charitable fund for the poor clergy.How do you expect to attain that object?—By our calling on the laity to subscribe funds for the purpose.So that, although his hon. Friend's mode of speech might be figurative, the substance of it was not so far wrong. [Sir GREY: The bishops did not withhold their subscriptions.] He had not said that they had. The right hon. Gentleman had contended, however, that this Motion was ill-timed, as there was at this moment a Bill on the subject before the other House of Parliament.
§ SIR G. GREYWhat I said was, that, considering the matter to be one of detail, I thought it would be more in accordance with Parliamentary use to wait until the Bill before the other House of Parliament should come down to this.
§ MR. AGLIONBYsaid, that his hon. Colleague had placed his notice of Motion on the books before he was aware that a Bill had been introduced into the other House, and before it was even known that it would be brought forward there. The more the question was discussed, the better. The probability was, that had his hon. Colleague agitated it when the Commission 378 was instituted, the feelings in the country would have been such that there would have been no Commission at all—that the large amount of church property would never have been invested in their hands, because anything more perilous and unfortunate than to lock up such a quantity of property in the hands of any Ecclesiastical Commission could not be conceived. If it were the best constituted Commission in the world, it would be monstrous folly ever to put them in possession of property so extensive. The value of that property was at present about 1,000,000l., and for aught that was known, it might increase to 9,000,000l. or 10,000,000l.; therefore it was too vast and important to be managed by any Commission.
§ SIR H. WILLOUGHBYhoped the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Motion. He would remind his hon. Friend the Member for Malton, that in respect to the appointment of the Committee, he, at the time, thought its composition was dangerous. He did not wish to undervalue the labours of that Committee, but the result had shown the dangerous course of the system which had been pursued. There was the case of the secretary, who was afterwards found to be connected with railway speculations to a large amount. He was connected by family ties with the solicitor of the Commission; and it came out that the secretary was irremovable. It was not right that a Commission entrusted with the administration of so large an amount of real property should be so constituted.
§ SIR R. H. INGLISobserved, that one of the hon. Members for Cockermouth had come to the rescue of the other. The hon. Member for that borough who had last spoken, had said that such was the management—he had afterwards wittily said mismanagement—of the Ecclesiastical Commission, that it might be expected ultimately to get control of property to the amount of 9,000,000l. or 10,000,000l. Now he (Sir R. H. Inglis) apprehended that if the whole ecclesiastical revenues of England, in the hands of churchmen, laymen, or corporations, were invested at one moment in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, they would not amount to one-third of the sum the hon. Member had named. He was not there to defend the Ecclesiastical Commission; ever since its institution he had opposed it. He had always regretted it as a great violation of the rights of property vested in the episcopal body, and in chapters and other 379 corporations, by the liberality, not of the State, or of kings, but of private individuals. He had not been the defender of the Commissioners or the Commission; but he should be ashamed to hear language such as that which had been addressed to the House by the hon. Member for Cockermouth—language which he believed to be utterly unsubstantiated in fact, without rising and giving it an indignant denial. The Church had as much right to its property as any lay corporation had to theirs; and the duties towards the poor were as much the duties of each individual of society, as of the Church. But the hon. Member for Cockermouth said, that the bishops had squandered and exhausted the treasures of the poor. [Mr. HORSMAN: Yes.] He (Sir R. H. Inglis) denied the assertion as emphatically as the hon. Member repeated it. The treasures of the poor had not been entrusted to the bishops of the Church, and they could not, therefore, have either exhausted or squandered them. The hon. Member also said, that the bishops had given out their exhortations for contributions. Did the hon. Member mean to say that they had given nothing but their exhortations? If he did not mean that, his statement had no point: if he did mean that—if he did mean that the bishops exhorted others to give, and themselves gave nothing, his statement had no correctness. He (Sir R. H. Inglis) was now speaking in the presence of some of the members of the Ecclesiastical Commission; and he was prepared to state his personal belief in the fact, that in order to institute the bishopric of Manchester—whether, in the estimation of the hon. Member for Manchester, that was a large or a little boon, he could not say—in order to institute that bishopric sooner than the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of their own powers were able to do, the late Archbishop of Canterbury, the present Bishop of London, and, he believed, the late Archbishop of York, had contributed a sum of money each which amounted in the aggregate to 2,500l. a year. The hon. Member for Cockermouth had been pleased to contrast the life of the primitive bishop with that of the bishop of the present generation. Perhaps he would draw a similar contrast between the life of a primitive and a present layman. And if they went back to the apostolic ages, the primitive Christians in the lowest rank of life set an example which he believed every one would do well to follow. The hon. 380 Member, however, forgot the altered constitution of society in the present day—that in the state of things which existed in England there were different ranks of society and different duties enjoined; but he defied the hon. Member for Cockermouth, as he had defied others before him, to point to a single period in the history of England since the country had enjoyed the first outlines of her existing constitution, in which the bishops had not held a prominent position as the first estate of the realm, and in which they had not as of right enjoyed their own property, as much as any layman in the land. His objection to the working of the Commission had been its tendency to convert the hierarchy of England, and, indeed, all the humbler members of the Establishment, into stipendiaries. Such was the professed object of the hon. Member for Montrose, and such the object, he believed, of the hon. Member for Cockermouth. Arcades ambo! The hon. Member for Montrose had said to-night, that twenty-five years ago he was the only Church reformer. [Mr. HUME; Not the only one.] He (Sir R. H. Inglis) protested against the arguments which the hon. Member for Cockermouth had directed against the institutions of the Church, and the individuals composing it. He had taken the hon. Member's words down at the time, and he found they were, "that the bishops will not withdraw their grasp from the property of the Church." Did the hon. Member mean to say that the bishops had not a legal right to their own property—that they had not a statutable right to the property confided to them as bishops? and did he mean that they should be made to withdraw their "grasp" from their own property? Whose property was it, if it were not theirs? He protested against this language, as also against the tendency of some legislative measures with respect to the Church; and he hoped that Her Majesty's Government, with, he trusted, the assistance of the House, were prepared to resist the present Motion. He nevertheless felt, with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, that this Motion would not merit the support of a single vote in that House for, according to the usages of Parliament, if a Bill on a particular subject were before one House, legislation on it was suspended until the measure had come before the other. If the Motion were persevered in, he trusted it would be resisted; but he hoped the hon. Member would adopt the 381 suggestion thrown out, and withdraw his Motion altogether.
§ MR. J. E. DENISONsaid, as the House had done him the honour, on his Motion, to grant a Committee to inquire into the composition and management of the Ecclesiastical Commission, and as the Committee did him the honour to desire him to draw up the report, he felt that perhaps he had in some degree stopped short of his duty in not taking an opportunity to bring the whole matter before the House. But it was a case of difficulty, of great magnitude and importance; and as the Government had consented to take the matter into their own hands, and adopt the recommendation of the Committee, he felt he should best accomplish the object he had in view, and best discharge his duty both to the Committee and the House, by leaving the Government, which was really the proper medium for doing so, to carry the measure through the House. He endeavoured in that Committee to conduct the inquiry to the best of his ability—searching for the truth, at the same time desirous of not creating unnecessary personal annoyance to any one. As something had been said in the course of the debate, of the members of the Committee, he wished to say that he felt he owed a great obligation to the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite for the fairness and candour with which they entered into the inquiry, and the great services which they performed on the Committee. If he had erred in not bringing this matter forward, he had erred from an anxious wish to save the time of the House, of which he was at all times a zealous economist. It was entirely contrary to his habits to make a speech, merely for the sake of speaking. He believed that everything that was necessary would be done by the Government. Some questions had been addressed to him by the two hon. Members for Cockermouth. The hon. Gentleman who introduced the subject asked him whether, as regarded the composition of the Committee, a sort of bargain had been made that the subject should be introduced without discussion; and he also asked him whether it was not another bargain that the names of the Committee should be submitted to the Archbishop of Canterbury? The right hon. Baronet has, I trust, explained to the satisfaction of the House, the real interpretation of the bargain. The only bargain I made was this—" If you will give me the Committee as an unopposed 382 Motion, and grant it to me to-day—as under other circumstances I should not be able to bring it on—I will not make any speech." As to the second question, he should have answered it by giving it the most straightforward contradiction. But the hon. Member for Cockermouth had come to him from his place, and asked him whether he did not remember something that took place in the lobby of the House that led him to make the statement that the names of the Committee were to be referred to the Archbishop of Canterbury. As the hon. Gentleman stated that something of that kind had occurred, all he (Mr. Denison) could say was, that he would not speak positively, but only to the best of his recollection that nothing of the sort had occurred. He had asked his noble Friend at the head of the Government if he would be so kind as to refresh his recollection as to whether any reference of the names of the Committee was to be made to the Archbishop of Canterbury. He could state positively that he had no direct communication with the archbishop in regard to this Committee himself. His noble Friend said, he had positively no communication with the archbishop with regard to the names; and therefore what the channel of communication with the archbishop was, if such communication took place, he could not tell. He must say, that he should have thought he was not acting fairly by hon. Members if he had asked any Gentleman to enter into a Committee of Inquiry which was to be bound by any restrictions whatever. He asked that House whether, in the course of the time he had had a seat in it, there was anything in his conduct that could lead them to suppose he was capable of acting in such a manner? He would go a step further. It had been said, that the Gentleman who was chairman of the Committee was the brother of a prelate. He would ask, if any Gentleman in that House had observed anything in his conduct that could justify an imputation that any private or personal considerations would divert him from the straight path of duty? It had also been said, that several members of the Ecclesiastical Commission had seats in the Committee. Now, in selecting the members of that Committee, he wished to have Gentlemen upon it who were cognisant of the subject, and he was anxious that Gentlemen connected with the Ecclesiastical Commission should take part in the inquiry. He had confidence in the strength 383 of his case; and he would ask if it was not a great deal more satisfactory to that House, and to the country, that the report should emanate unanimously from a Committee composed of all sides, and some of them members of the Commission, than if it had come from a Committee differently constituted. With regard to the subject which had been introduced to the notice of the House, he would pursue the course taken by others, and refrain from entering upon a discussion of it. He must state, however, that any Gentleman who diligently read the inquiry would find many painful facts—many things that must excite regret. It would be necessary to have a full discussion of the details of the Bill introduced into the other House when it came before them. He would, however, observe, that since the Committee sat, and since the report was made, two circumstances of some importance had occurred. One had been referred to—the defalcation of the secretary. The Commission was so jealous of the funds committed to their charge, so scrupulous of the expenditure of every farthing, that they would not consent to have a Commissioner whose salary should be paid from the funds of the Church. He could not doubt that such a Commission intrusting large sums of money to an individual, would have taken those precautions to procure that proper amount of security which was always expected from any persons into whose hands money was placed. He hoped, that this money of the Church would not be lost. There was another point to which he would refer. A Commission had been issued to inquire into and report on the better management of church property. He was given to understand that the report of that Commission would be laid on the table of the House that evening. He would for a moment assume that for the better conduct of these matters—for the proper management of the affairs of the Church—some central board, to act as an arbitrator and an umpire between the Church and the lessees, would be required. He would ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government, whether it was possible that the Ecclesiastical Commission, as now constituted, could be that board of reference? He had no hesitation in saying that it was impossible. He must frankly tell the noble Lord, that if he proposed to have two Commissioners instead of three, though he would, of course, be ready to hear all the arguments 384 that might be urged, his impression was, that it was absolutely necessary they should have that full number of Commissioners; that there should be three, and no fewer. He trusted that, after what had occurred on both sides of the House, the hon. Gentleman would not think it necessary to ask the House to divide upon his Motion.
§ MR. MANGLESsaid, that having been frequently consulted by the hon. Member for Cockermouth with regard to this question, and knowing and appreciating the motives which actuated the hon. Member in the course he had taken, and feeling also that the hon. Member had not had fair quarter extended to him, he felt it incumbent on him to address a few observations to the House. He had understood the hon. Member for Cockermouth distinctly to speak of the constitution of the Committee, not as disparaging it, but rather as an argument à fortiori in support of the recommendations of its report. His hon. Friend had said, here was a Committee composed of a certain number of members of the Ecclesiastical Commission, containing also some Ministers of State, with the chairman himself the brother of a right rev. prelate; and if such a body had any prejudices at all, they must fairly be supposed to have leanings towards the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Commission. And if such a Committee had come to the conclusion that it was absolutely necessary that three paid Commissioners should be added to the Ecclesiastical Commission, on whom the labour and responsibility should mainly depend, with regard to the administration of the property of the Church, it was surely a strong argument that any legislation contemplated by the Government should be based on such a recommendation. The hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford also had dealt rather hardly with the hon. Member for Cockermouth. The hon. Baronet, zealous friend as he was of the Established Church, could not be a warmer one than the hon. Member for Cockermouth, although they might differ with each other as to the best means of carrying out their common object. The views of the hon. Member for Cockermouth would increase the power, the means, and the efficiency of the working clergy of the Church; and he (Mr. Mangles) was sure that in these views he had the support not only of the working clergy themselves, but also the good opinion and confidence of a very large majority of the laymen of the Establishment.
§ MR. HORSMANwished to offer a very few words in explanation. He had been asked by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, if the bishops are not the proprietors of the property entrusted to their hands, who then are its proprietors? He (Mr. Horsman's) answer was, that they were not proprietors, but trustees—it was not the property of the bishops, but of the Church, meaning by that term the congregation of the people at large. The difference between the hon. Baronet and himself was simply this—the hon. Baronet considered the bishops the masters of the Church; he (Mr. Horsman) considered them its servants. Now, he must say, that the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Malton also, had shown considerable adroitness in endeavouring to lead the House away from the really important point before them. The right hon. Gentleman had noticed two points, which were both quite immaterial, and had misrepresented his (Mr. Horsman's) remarks. He said that he (Mr. Horsman) had impugned the character of the Members of the Committee, and stated that they went into the Committee with the intention not to do justice. Now, he must reply that he had said nothing of the sort. When he called upon the House to look at the recommendations of the Committee, he desired them to observe, at the same time, how that Committee was composed. It could not be said that it was a partial Committee, chosen from one party, and therefore not carrying the weight which a Committee of higher character would have done. What he said was, that the Committee was composed of Gentlemen of the highest character, of the greatest experience, and of the most established influence in Parliament; and that for those reasons its recommendations were entitled to more weight, because such a Committee could not be supposed to be hostile to the Commission. If he had not before expressed himself correctly, he begged now to say that it would have been impossible to select Gentlemen against whom it would be more difficult to found a charge. There was only another subject on which he would say a word, and it was in reply to what the right hon. Gentleman said as to a letter of his (Mr. Horsman's). Now there was one very good reason why he (Mr. Horsman) should not in his opening speech have noticed that letter. He had a public question to submit to the House, and he did not think those bringing it forward 386 were justified in mixing up personal matters with it. But the right hon. Gentleman rather seemed to say that he (Mr. Horsman) shrunk in that House from standing by what he said or wrote elsewhere. He had been in that House fifteen years; and a man must have been there to very little purpose indeed if he did not know that, sitting down deliberately to make such a statement as he had done, he was doing that which might be attended with very serious consequences. He well knew that, and that he placed himself in a position of great responsibility and of no small peril. He knew that the very publication of such a statement as he had made was very dangerous, and very hurtful to himself in the first instance, because it must prejudice every impartial person against the man who made the accusation, and must enlist the sympathy of every right-minded individual in favour of the men in high position, so accused. Notwithstanding all this, and with a knowledge of its responsibilities and its perils, he deliberately wrote his letter, and on the first day on which Parliament met he gave his notice of the present Motion, and thus afforded an opportunity for those who were affected by his charges to give an answer to them. As the right hon. Baronet had not thought proper to go into the subject, he would not do so. He had not another word to say upon it, but he wished nothing to be insinuated in that House that he shrank when there from standing by anything that he expressed out of doors. With regard to the Motion he had brought before the House, since he had given notice of it, a Bill had been introduced into the other House, which would shortly come down there; and as that was a fair Parliamentary ground for opposing his Motion, he would not trouble the House at present by pressing it.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.