§ Upon the Motion of Mr. Charles Grant, the House again went into Committee upon this Bill. The discussion upon clause 89 was resumed.
§ Mr. O'Dwyer
opposed the clause, and said, that he could see no necessity for increasing the Episcopal Establishment in India. It would be moreover a precedent to extend the Church Establishment all over the British territory.
Sir Matthew White Ridley
supported the clause. It did little more than make an alteration in the title of two clergymen, without increasing the salary of the additional Bishops.
opposed the clause, at some length, and said, that it would be more fair if all denominations were placed on the same footing. He objected strongly to introducing a Church Establishment into India when this country was groaning under the weight of a Church Establishment.
§ Lord Morpeth
supported the clause. He believed, that he represented a larger number of Dissenters than any other Member in that House; but though he had the greatest respect for their feelings, and though no one looked with more goodwill to the success of independent missions than he did, yet he did not think, that in supporting the present clause he was acting in opposition to the feelings and opinions of his constituents. When he compared the amount of service to be performed, and the extent of country and population over which it was spread, 1032 he did not think that three Bishops were more than sufficient to perform those duties. The change did not propose any additional expense, and he thought the maintenance of an Established Church was a matter of national concern, and of the greatest importance to the British, as well as to the Pagan, or rather Semi Pagan inhabitants of India.
§ Mr. Cutlar Fergusson
said, the only question before the House was, whether the Episcopal Establishment was to be increased or not? If the question had been whether the Episcopal Establishment was to be introduced into India, he should have voted differently. Two Bishops might possibly be quite sufficient, and he did not pledge himself to the number. The Bishops who had died in India so rapidly, had not died in consequence of excessive labour in their professional duties, but in consequence of the great precariousness of human life in that climate. The consequence of this was, that during the twelve years which had elapsed since Bishops were first appointed in India, for half that time, India had been without any Bishop—an inconvenience which would have been prevented by the appointment of two Bishops. Supposing confirmation to be necessary according to the tenets of the Church of England, it was extremely desirable that there should be a Bishop at all times in India. Whether there should be two or three Bishops, he did not mean to give an opinion; but there ought to be more than one. He did not think there was any hardship in compelling the inhabitants of India to pay not only for the Government which protects them, but also for the religion of that Government. With great submission to the hon. member for the University of Oxford, he must inform him that there was no dominant religion where the British flag was hoisted abroad. In India as elsewhere, the Established Churches of England, Ireland, and that of Scotland, stood upon an equal footing. He, therefore, concurred in this clause to the extent which he had mentioned, but no further, and without holding himself bound to any of the subsequent clauses relative to the Church in India.
did not exactly understand the logic of the hon. Member, who argued that he should not have voted for the Establishment of Episcopacy in India, but as there was already one Bishop, he 1033 had no objection to have two more. The hon. Member had also referred to the importance of the rite of confirmation; but considering that there were only 40,000 Christians in India, he (Colonel Evans) thought it too much to subject the natives of that extensive region to such an Establishment for the sake of so small a number.
§ Mr. George F. Young
said, he should not have troubled the House if it had not been for some observations of certain hon. Members. It was true that the Bishop of Calcutta, as explained in the preamble, had a most extensive jurisdiction—a jurisdiction to which his attention could not be fully extended; but after all, his jurisdiction would extend 2,000 miles from West to East, and over all that surface an European population would no doubt soon be diffused; and as the extent of Surface over which the Bishops had jurisdiction was made the ground of the present change, the same ground would be equally available for a further extension of the Episcopal Establishment.
§ The Committee divided on the Clause—Ayes 85; Noes 47: Majority 38.
§ Clause agreed to.
|List of the AYES.|
|Adams, E. H.||Inglis, Sir R.|
|Althorp, Lord||Jermyn, Earl|
|Baring, F.||Kerry, Earl of|
|Barnard, E. G.||Lamont, Captain|
|Bouverie, Captain||Leech, J.|
|Buxton, T. F.||Lefevre, C. S.|
|Cavendish, Lord||Lyall, G.|
|Collier, J.||Macaulay, T. B.|
|Crawley, S.||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Divett, E.||Mosley, Sir O.|
|Ebrington, Viscount||Mostyn, Hn. E. M. L.|
|Estcourt, T. G. B.||Palmer, R.|
|Fancourt, Major||Parker, J.|
|Feilden, W.||Parker, Sir H.|
|Finch, G.||Pendarves, E. W.|
|Forster, C. S.||Peter, W.|
|Goring, H. D.||Petre, Hon. E.|
|Graham, Sir J.||Phillpotts, J.|
|Grant, Right Hon. R.||Plumptre, J. P.|
|Grey, Colonel||Pryme, G.|
|Grey, Sir G.||Ridley, Sir M. W.|
|Grosvenor, Lord R.||Rooper, J. B.|
|Halcomb, J.||Russell, Lord J.|
|Howard, Hon. F. G.||Scott, Sir E. D.|
|Hughes, H.||Scrope, P.|
|Shepherd, T.||Ewing, J.|
|Stanley, E.||Ferguson, Captain|
|Strickland, G.||Fergusson, R. C.|
|Tuncred, H.||Grant, Right Hon. C.|
|Todd, R.||Johnston, A.|
|Tracy, C. H.||Mackenzie, J. A.|
|Troubridge, Sir E.||Macleod, R.|
|Ward, H. G.||Maxwell, Sir J.|
|Wilbraham, G.||Maxwell, J.|
|Williamson, Sir H.||Oliphant, L.|
|Winnington, Sir T.||Sharpe, General|
|Wynn, Right Hon.||IRELAND.|
|SCOTLAND.||Coote, Sir C.|
|Hill, Lord M.|
|Bannerman, A.||Jephson, C. D. O.|
|Bruce, C. L.||Lefroy, Dr.|
|List of the NOES.|
|Aglionby, A.||Scholefied, J.|
|Attwood, T.||Strutt, E.|
|Bewes, T.||Turner, W.|
|Briggs, R.||Warburton, H.|
|Brocklehurst, J.||Wilks, J.|
|Brotherton, J.||Young, G. F.|
|Dykes, F. L. B.||Gillon, W. D.|
|Evans, Colonel||Murray, J. A.|
|Ewart W.||Oliphant, L.|
|Faithfull, G.||Oswald, R.|
|Fielden, J.||Bellew, R. M.|
|Gaskell, D.||Blake, M.|
|Gisborne, T.||Finn, W. F.|
|Harland, W. C.||Fitzgerald, T.|
|Hawkins, J. H.||Lynch, A. H.|
|Hume, J.||O'Dwyer, A. C.|
|James, W.||Ruthven, E. S.|
|Lister, E. C.||Ruthven, E.|
|Marsland, T.||Talbot, J.|
|Parrott, J.||Vigors, N. A.|
|Philips, M.||Walker, C. A.|
|Potter, R.||Wallace, T.|
|Romilly, J.||Sheil, R. L.|
§ The 104th Clause, relating to Haileybury College, was then read.
thought it adviseable to adjourn this clause, and to leave it open to discussion next Session, or else to refer it to a Select Committee up stairs.
§ Mr. Charles Grant
objected to delay. The clause involved no principle which required such postponement. Far more important clauses had already been decided by the Committee. The present mode of appointing candidates to civil offices in India, involved the principle of competition, and it was much more advantageous that the appointments to those offices should be open to competition than the subjects of patronage.
§ Mr. Cutlar Fergusson
said, the College had hitherto proved a great expense to the Company, costing not less than 10,000l. per annum, whilst it had not produced anything like adequate advantages. If the clause were persisted in, he should certainly take the sense of the Committee upon it.
§ Mr. Macaulay
defended the present system of education at the College. At no other seminary in England could persons who were candidates for civil offices in India be properly educated. The principle of competition in opposition to patronage was that on which the clause depended, and on that he took his stand.
defended his proposition of referring the clause to a Select Committee. The details of the subject required much consideration. He doubted the advantages of the College and of its different professions. The students could not be controlled or restrained at Hailey bury, because they could not be kept wholly out of the town, and over that the principles of the College had no jurisdiction. If the President of the Board of Control were determined to persevere in the system of competition for writer ships in India, he should recommend him to assign two to the University of Oxford, two to that of Cambridge, two to that of Dublin, two to the University of London, and four to the Scotch Universities, in rotation, as the vacancies occurred.
§ Lord Althorp
supported the clause. The placing of the candidates in Haileybury College, after the examination, would be a means of ascertaining the fitness of the persons to be sent out.
§ Mr. Warburton
agreed that it was necessary to adopt some system of competition. The question was—whether the system proposed was the best? What would be said, if, at the University, the fellowships were to be granted at the very moment of the students entering into the College? He thought that they ought to admit the principle of competion at the time of their leaving the College, as well as at their entrance. He was sorry that the latter part of Mr. Malthus's plan had not been adopted—that of admitting a great number of young men, who were afterwards to be sent out to India. Instances were frequent of men obtaining distinction at College, and gaining fellowships, who afterwards settled down into college monks.
§ Mr. Charles Grant
said, that one of the circumstances which had brought odium upon the College of Haileybury, was that the professors took upon themselves to do what was their duty, and to exercise the power of expulsion in cases of misconduct. The prize, which was snatched from the grasp of a family by the rejection of a son, was so great that the consequence was highly injurious to the reputation of the College. Young men who entered the College of Haileybury, were educated in a manner which was particularly adapted to a situation of a peculiar nature in India, so that the failure in attaining that object rendered the whole expense of money and time which had been devoted to it a complete waste. The system proposed by the hon. Member would have the same effect. He was happy to inform the hon. Member that Mr. Malthus entirely approved of the plan now proposed.
§ Mr. Hume
said, that nothing which he had heard had removed his impression that it was proper to abolish the College altogether, giving at the same time every opportunity of competition, in order to secure the fittest persons to be sent out to India. Young men brought up there went out quite unfit for their situations, and at the same time imbued with such ideas of their own importance as were extremely injurious to the service.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Colonel Leith Hay
then proposed a clause, to the effect "That it be enacted, that of the established chaplains at each Presidency in India, two shall always be ministers of the Church of Scotland, and shall enjoy such salaries as are paid at the time to military Chaplains, provided always, the ministers of the Church of Scotland, so appointed and paid, shall have been ordained and inducted by the Presbytery of Edinburgh, according to the forms of the Church of Scotland; and that they shall be under the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Presbytery of Edinburgh, with an appeal to the Provincial Synods of East Lothian and Tweedale, and the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland."
was of opinion, that if a Presbytery could be formed in India, it would be better than to appeal to the Presbytery in Scotland.
§ Mr. Charles Grant
observed, that a sufficient number of Presbyterian clergymen could not be found for that purpose.
§ Colonel Hay
observed, that if the hon. Member really wished for the admission to India of all classes of Dissenters from the Church of England, the way to obtain the object was surely not to object to the admission of one class.
§ Mr. Warburton
had the same objection to this clause as to that which he had entertained to the clause respecting the Bishops—namely, that he did not think that the Hindoos and Mahomedans should be made to pay for an establishment in which they had no interest.
§ The Committee divided on the question, that the Clause be inserted Ayes 63; Noes 35: Majority 28.
§ The House resumed. The Report to be received.