§ Viscount Melbournesaid, that the Bill of which he had then to propose the second reading was a measure founded upon the Report of the Commissioners appointed by the Crown. The Reports of those Commissioners were already upon the table of their Lordships' House, and, as must be known to them, one of the recommendations contained in those Reports was, that the temporal offices attaching to the see of Durham should be separated from the ecclesiastical offices. The Bill, however, to which it then became his duty to direct the attention of the House, was one that did not at all require he should trouble them at any length in the way of general argument in order to persuade them to agree to the second reading; at the same time, it was in some degree necessary that he should trespass upon the indulgence of the House, in order to correct, or rather to guard against, some misapprehension that had gone abroad upon the subject, and more especially for the purpose of correcting some misrepresentations which had gone forth as well in another place as- outside the walls of Parliament. Still he should only trouble them with a few observations, stating the objects of the Bill, defending its authors, and explaining the principle upon which it was founded. It had been represented out of doors that the measure went to create two new additional bishoprics. The fact was not so. It did no such thing, neither did its authors propose to introduce into Parliament any additional ecclesiastical Peers. It had been found that the sees of Gloucester and Bristol might be advantageously united, as might those of St. Asaph and Bangor. It had likewise long been matter of great inconvenience and the cause of great complaint, that the sees of York and of Chester should be so very large. These two latter sees it was proposed to divide into four, and to unite those four first mentioned so as that they should form only two. Thus there would be no addition made to the House of Lords, no increase of ecclesiastical authority in that branch of the Legislature, nor would episcopal jurisdiction be in any way extended. On that point there was a general misapprehension of the provisions of the Bill, and he wished to give to that a most distinct contradiction. The next topic to which it would be necessary for him to 658 direct the attention of the House was the invectives with which the measure and its authors had been assailed, and one of the most prominent grounds of the attack thus made was the amount of income which the Commissioners recommended should be allotted to the Bishops. In the whole of the discussion of that question their adversaries had treated them as if the authors of the measure had to frame a new system, instead of dealing with one that they found already established, as if there had not existed in this country for many centuries an ancient and settled establishment, which the great majority of the people were determined to support, and to which they adhered with a most warm and cordial attachment. Even those who in a degree withdrew themselves from the communion of the Established Church, and who in fact professed themselves Dissenters from the Church, still would rather it should remain established, than submit to the dominancy of any of the sects into which the Protestant community was divided. The established religion had at all times commanded the respect and approbation of the great body of the Dissenters. With this state of things it was that they had to deal; and unless they intended entirely to alter the nature and character of that Establishment—which, for one, he begged to say he was by no means prepared to recommend or support; unless they were prepared to recommend a complete change of the nature and character of that Establishment, there was nothing for them to do but to retrench the superfluity, and correct that which appeared to them to be in some degree subject to the charge of being an abuse. He had seen out of doors the right reverend Prelates accused of great cupidity and avarice, as evidenced in the recommendation which they had concurred in making. Nothing, however, could be so unfounded as that charge. It was utterly impossible that the Commissioners could be influenced by such feelings; for, as the Bill was not intended to have any present or personal operation, they could have no individual interest one way or the other—no selfish object to promote. It was true that they might be attached to their order—it was true that they might be more or less under the influence of professional or religious prejudices, but it was not true that their conduct partook of a base, sordid, or dishonest character. He would ask their Lordships to give their consideration to what were the present incomes of the Bishops, and to what they proposed them to be; and he would begin 659 with the higher rates of income. Taking that of the Archbishop of Canterbury, which they proposed should be 15,000l. a year, he would ask their Lordships whether, considering the station which the Arch, bishop of Canterbury was accustomed to fill, and the respect and influence they desired to secure to him in his station, he was hereafter to hold—considering the nature of the society in, which he must move, and those rules of life, from the observance of which it was impossible for any man to escape—considering the wealth in this country and the distribution of that wealth—considering the fortunes that had been amassed and were every day amassing—could it be said that 15,000l. a year was an extravagant income? Their Lordships knew very well what such an income as 15,000l. a year was. He did not say, that if carefully attended to, if well watched, it was not sufficient for the purposes for which it was intended—he did not say, that it would not enable him who possessed it to live in comfort, to afford a decent and proper hospitality, or even to exhibit a becoming degree of generosity, but be must assert that it would allow of nothing superfluous; every man knew, that it would not furnish the means of princely splendour, of magnificence, or extreme luxury; above all, it would not admit of any waste, profusion, or negligence. Then he put it to their Lordships, and he put it to the country, whether, unless they intended materially to alter and change the character and nature of the Establishment—for which, he repeated, he was not prepared—it was just, to say that what was recommended on this occasion was in any degree exorbitant? and if this were true, as regarded the higher rates of income, he imagined it applied with greater force to the inferior incomes. When they were told, as they were perpetually told, that the proposed incomes were three times as much as was allowed to the principal Ministers of State, and considerably more than was allowed to the superior Judges in our Courts of Law, he begged to say he considered those comparisons as in no degree fair, or as leading to any just inference. As regarded the higher offices of the State, their Lordships knew that there always had been, and always would be found, competent persons of considerable fortune, who were tempted by motives of ambition to undertake such offices. That was not the case, he apprehended, in the Church. Fortune and title might descend on a man engaged in the ecclesiastical pro- 660 fessions, but he conceived it was a rare thing for a man with a considerable fortune to embark in the first instance in the Church. A man came to a see probably a poor man; it was very improbable that he came to it a rich man. He came to a high station in the state, then, a poor man, and with the disadvantage of having an income which terminated with his own life. Their Lordships were all aware of the embarrassments to which high station subjected individuals under such circumstances. With respect to the higher situations in the law, they were generally bestowed on barristers who had been lawyers in great practice, and who had had an opportunity of making a fortune in the course of their practice before they arrived at that station. He said, then, taking all these matters into consideration, it must be felt that, unless it was intended to alter the whole system of the Establishment, they were justified in allowing the incomes that had been recommended, and as far as any suggested change in the entire nature of the Establishment went, he would declare that he believed it not to be called for by the feelings or wishes of the country. There were two other points that had been made the subject of much attack—first, the constitution, and secondly, the powers of the Commission. It was thought that those who had become familiar with the subject in the course of the inquiry which had been instituted were likely to be the best qualified to carry into effect the recommendations they themselves had made. It was proposed that the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, and the Bishop of London should be permanent members of the Commission. There were to be two other Bishops in it, and a noble Earl, whom he saw opposite; there were two laymen, whom it was proposed to appoint; and these were to be removable at the pleasure of the Crown. The power given was to carry into effect the recommendation of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Those regulations were not to be departed from, the powers of the Commissioners were to be limited to matters of detail and modification. Their duty, then, was to form a scheme to carry the recommendations into effect to be submitted to his Majesty in Council; and when approved of by the Privy Council, his Majesty would be empowered to make an order to carry the plan into operation and such order was to be laid before Parliament. He did not believe that, as regarded this arrange 661 ment, persons most jealously disposed could find any reason to be apprehensive of the authority with which this Commission would be trusted. He had now described the principal provisions of the measure, and, in conclusion, he would move that their Lordships should give the Bill a second reading with a view to carry the recommendations of the Commissioners into effect.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, he should not make any observations on the details of the Bill, but there were some of them to which he objected because they did not appear to go far enough. His chief reason, however, for opposing the Bill was, that he did not regard it as likely to be a final settlement of the subject. It might be said, indeed, that no Bill could be considered to be a final settlement of any question; but he thought that the Bill now before the House made very little advance towards such a consummation. He did not deny, that the Bill was calculated to do a great deal of good, but there remained much more to be done. The noble Viscount had made some very strong remarks for the purpose of justifying the proposed income to be allowed to the Archbishop of Canterbury, but he had said not a word about the proposition that the future Bishop of London should have 10,000l. a-year,—a proposition which he was not prepared to accede to. He felt that it was rather an invidious task to make remarks of this kind, but he must say, that while he agreed with the noble Viscount that they were not called upon to provide the Prelates and superiors of the Church with means for splendor and luxury, they were bound to think a little of the other persons in the profession who really did a great deal of the work—he meant the working clergy and curates of the country. Misconceptions of the nature of the Bill out of doors might exist, but the disproportion of the work and pay of the clergy had long excited public attention, and he believed that very little misconception prevailed upon that point.
The Bishop of Exeterwas very unwilling to disturb the unanimity with which he hoped the second reading of this Bill would be agreed to. The object of the Bill, which he owned he entirely approved, was to put an end to the practice of commendams, and to discourage the practice of translation. He thought, too, that nothing could be better devised than the plan of distribution, because nothing was 662 taken from any other rank of the clergy than the episcopal. But, although he warmly assented to the general policy of the Bill, he must be permitted to make two or three remarks upon some of its provisions. He did certainly wish that a larger machinery than was necessary had not been erected; he thought that all that was necessary was, that a Commission should be created by Parliament to carry into effect the objects recommended by the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. There was in the Bill as it now stood, a tendency to a perpetual change, because a machinery calculated to produce a perpetual change was to be established; and to that part of the Bill he did not feel disposed to consent. He thought, that instead of having a septennial revision of the revenues of the sees, it would have been much wiser to give the measure a permanent character, and a security against repeated changes. He lamented also that this Commission was to be made a Corporation, because there was no reason why it should be so, except for the purpose of making perpetual changes. He thought that it would be quite sufficient to appoint the Commissioners for the period of time which would be necessary for the purpose of carrying into effect the preamble of the Bill. The noble Viscount had told their Lordships that the Commissioners who had made the recommendations were to be appointed; that was a very fit and proper regulation, but what security was there that those persons would be permanent members of the Commission, seeing that they were removable at his Majesty's pleasure? He did not deny, that there could be found a similar instance of persons being removable at the pleasure of the Crown who were Members of a Corporation; but he believed no instance could be produced in which the majority of the Commissioners were so. But the objection which he felt to the constitution of this Commission did not stop there. The Commission being subject to removal at the pleasure of the Crown, would necessarily become a political body, liable to shift and change with the change of Governments and the variations of political influence. They would therefore be exposed to the temptation of using their power for political purposes. It was only a very short time ago that an Ecclesiastical Commission for Ireland was appointed, and of all the Members of that Commission one only was removeable at the pleasure of the Crown, and therefore it was less likely 663 to be operated upon by political influence. This departure on the part of the present Government from the precedent they had so recently established, he confessed, did not a little startle him, especially as that precedent seemed to be avoided in such a way as to make the Ecclesiastical Commissioners totally dependent upon the political influence of the day. He was willing to hope, however, that when the Bill went into Committee it would receive some improvement in this respect. He must take that opportunity of expressing his dissent to that clause of the Bill which gave the Commissioners the power of summoning before them any persons, and of calling for any documents, thus rendering the Bishops liable to be dragged about from the very extremities of the country at great inconvenience and expense. In the 10th clause it was proposed, that the Commissioners should prepare and lay before his Majesty's Council such schemes as were calculated in their view, to carry into effect the recommendations of the Report. From those words, coupled with certain recommendations, it appeared to be possible that the Commissioners would recommend some scheme which would destroy the independent character of the clergy, and make them stipendiaries of the State; and that measures would be proposed which would enable the Commissioners absolutely to grasp the whole of the Church lands and estates. He considered that to be possible; but he did not think it had been gravely intended by the present Commissioners that such schemes should be proposed. He heartily thanked the Government and the noble Viscount for the manner in which the Bill had been brought forward; and he rejoiced that the noble Viscount had declared himself unwilling to become a party to any scheme for disturbing the entire establishment of the Church. Whatever defects there were in the Bill he hoped would be remedied in Committee; and he trusted that the end of their deliberations would be to strengthen their attachment to the Church, which he hoped they would ever continue to support, as it was established, for the purpose of upholding true religion, real piety, and sound morality and loyalty in the land.
The Bishop of Lincoln, as one of the members of the Commission, begged to assure his right rev. Friend that he had never contemplated any such propositions as those which had been conjectured by that right rev. Prelate.
The Bishop of Herefordfelt, that he could not give a silent vote on the present occasion—a vote, however, he could not call it, for there appeared to be so much unanimity in the House, that he supposed they would not be called upon to record their votes. But he could not say, that he felt satisfied with the Bill, or that he looked without fearful apprehensions to the consequences of the great changes which it was designed to make in the Church, and which he thought were calculated to destroy its independency. He believed that the effect of the Bill would be to render the clergy mere stipendiaries of the State. Although such a proposition was not positively stated in the Bill, he believed it must follow as a necessary consequence; for the man who was not at liberty to hold and administer his property himself, but was amenable to a tribunal which had the power to examine into the amount of his property, and to say to him—"Beyond this you must not go; deliver the rest to me"—such a man he could not conceive to be in any other state than that of a dependent person. He would ask, was that the intention of the Church Commissioners? But he would refrain from going any further, seeing the opinion that was held by a large majority of that House, or rather by nearly the whole of their Lordships; he would only say, that he felt this Bill to be a blow struck at the Church, which would be so fatal that he feared it would never recover from its effects.
The Archbishop of Canterburywas anxious to correct some misapprehensions on the part of the right rev. Prelate who last addressed the House, and who seemed to suppose that certain Bishops were to be under such a management that they would not be any longer masters of their own incomes and estates. If the right rev. Prelate had looked a little more accurately into the Bill, he would have seen that a certain payment was to be charged upon the larger sees, with a view of leaving them, on the average, as many thousands a year as were stated in the Bill. All the management of their own property was left to them, subject to the regulations prescribed. Suppose, for instance, the Archbishop of Canterbury's income was estimated at 18,000l. a year; he would be charged a tax of 3,000l, in order to reduce it to 15,000l. a year on the average; some years it might be more and others less. When the Bill passed into a law, then, he would hare to pay 3,000l. a year for the 665 next seven years, when a revision would take place, and in proportion to the varying increase or diminution of the revenue the tax would be augmented or decreased. There was then nothing but a mere tax, and nothing that in the slightest degree would take away from any Bishop's independence in the management of his own income. Some gross misrepresentations had been made in respect to this Bill, but they had been ably noticed by the noble Viscount; and there were some objections to be taken to parts of the Bill, but which were very properly reserved until it went into Committee, which would be the proper time for the discussion. He must, in conclusion, express his gratification at hearing the declarations of the noble Viscount with regard to his attachment to the Church, and his unwillingness to entertain any proposition for an entire change in its constitution.
§ Bill read a second time.