HC Deb 14 July 1836 vol 35 cc203-18

The report on this Bill having been brought up, on the question, that the amendments made by the Committee be read a second time,

Mr. Cayley

objected to the manner in which this and other measures relating to the Established Church had been hurried through the House. In his opinion, none of those measures were calculated to place the Church upon that broad basis on which he, and other friends of the Church, wished to see it placed. He thought that, in these days, it was a monstrous thing to grant the revenues of the see of Durham to the support of the college, without opening it to all classes of the King's subjects. He felt it would be now useless to divide the House upon the question; but he strongly protested, as well against the manner in which it had been hurried on, as the principles on which it was framed.

Mr. Lennard

concurred in the observations just made by his hon. Friend; and added, that his were also the opinions of the inferior clergy of the diocese of Durham. He thought the Bill ought for the present to be postponed, and, in the next Session, that a general measure of Church regulation should be introduced.

Mr. Poulter

must object to a measure founded on principles contrary to those which were indispensable to the final and satisfactory settlement of the great question at issue. If the House called before them the necessary evidence, they would find that there might be derived from the income of the dignitaries of the Church a large surplus, which might be more advantageously employed. He was convinced that no less a sum than 25,000l. might be derived from that source, with which forty or fifty benefices might be created in populous districts in which they were needed. Why not, also, release archbishops and bishops individually from all temporal matters, such as granting leases, &c, and allow them to devote themselves exclusively to spiritual concerns, by vesting the estates of the Church in a board of archbishops and bishops? Let his Majesty's Ministers, who were, no doubt, honourably ambitious of fame for their political conduct, add to it the fame which would attend measures in which the real interests of the Church were consulted. As the Church of England now stood, it was evidently declining. To prevent this from going on, they ought to be up and stirring; they ought to do something which should be of a final, and not of a temporary character. Motions had been made in that House as to the right of archbishops and bishops to seats in the other House of Parliament, which motions, he believed, originated in political motives, and which motives, therefore, he blamed; but he equally blamed the attempt of those who were on the other side of the question to bury the whole subject in silence, and to refrain from correcting the notorious abuses in the Church establishment. There was another point that demanded attention. If they wished to conciliate the Dissenters, and to draw to the Church of England those who were not at present in communion with it, let them look a little to the liturgy and articles of that Church. Let them consider whether they might not remove from the liturgy some matters that were generally deemed objectionable. Let them consider whether they might not advantageously expunge the Athanasian Creed, and some of the articles; for instance, that which spoke of works as splendid sins.

Mr. Plumptre

enlogised the ability, learning, piety, and devotion of the clergy of the Church of England. It was impossible for any set of men to labour more diligently and honestly in their vocation than they did. He did not say that the Church was faultless, but he did say that the assertion of the hon. member for Shaftesbury, that it was on the decline, was unfounded.

Mr. Charles Buller

complained of the manner in which so important a measure was hurried through Parliament. The Bill was drawn up so, that it was very difficult to propose any amendment to it. The fact was, that the Bill was chiefly founded on some Reports of the Church Commissioners, so recently made, that there had not been sufficient time to consider them.

Mr. Robinson

was a great friend to the Establishment of the Church of England, but that he did not think that this Bill was at all calculated to conduce to its real and permanent benefit. He was decidedly opposed to the translation of bishops, to the small stipends of some of the working clergy, the pluralities, and to non-residence; and although he did not agree with the hon. Member for Shaftsbury in all respects, he admitted the justice of his observation, that we ought to take such steps as might conciliate and attract those who were not of our communion. For the attainment of all the objects to which he had alluded, the Bill fell short of providing adequate means. He wished the archbishops and bishops to be duly provided for; but he never could believe that there present splendid revenues could conduce to the benefit of the Church itself. So far from it, in his opinion they did that Church great harm. He regretted, also that the motion which had recently been made in that House for the abolition of the translation of bishops had been rejected. Human nature was much the same in bishops as in other persons; and when a bishop expected translation, it was hardly to be supposed that he would pay the same minute and vigilant attention to the spritual welfare of his see, as he would do if he knew that he was to remain in it for life. He should like to see the measure postponed to another session, which would give the country an opportunity of examining the reports on which it was founded, the archbishops and bishops an opportunity of studying the subject, and the inferior clergy (than whom a more amiable, excellent, exemplary, and pious body of men never existed) an opportunity of looking into the matter; the result of which investigation he had no doubt would be, that they would agree with him that the present measure of Church reform did not go the length which was essentially necessary to the permanent welfare of the Church itself.

Mr. Hume

observed, that when the Bill was in Committee he had protested against its inefficiency: since that time he had looked into it well, and his objections had been completely confirmed. He would put this single proposition to the noble Lord who had the charge of this Bill. That noble Lord had postponed the Church-rates Bill to next session, on the ground that there was no time for it; and yet that referred only to the appropriation of about 250,000l. Now if there was not time for that minor measure, he put it to the noble Lord how there could be time for the present larger and more important measure? How could the noble Lord think of passing, in so hurried a manner, a Bill which allowed the Church Commissioners to do what they pleased? Was it possible that such a measure could be satisfactory to the people of England; or that it must not speedily undergo revision? He had, not half an hour ago, received a resolution, signed by the united Committee of Dissenters, and which embodied all the opinions that he (Mr. Hume) had expressed on the subject. He could see no reason why an Archbishop of Canterbury should have 15,000l. a year; or why the bishops should have more than 3,000l. or 4,000l. a year, as the judges had, except as a matter of whim. He objected, to these extravagant incomes of the dignitaries of the Church, as incompatible with the real interests or the existence of the Church. He held it to be a bad Bill; and the short and the long of it was, that it ought not to pass. He would therefore move as an amendment, that the amendments be read a second time that day six months.

Sir Robert Peel

was of opinion, that his Majesty's Government having duly considered what were the best means of securing a measure of practical Church reform, had actually brought forward a measure to accomplish that. If the House rejected the Bill, they would reject a great benefit. If, for instance, the House rejected the Bill, they would enable his Majesty's Government, in the event of a vacancy occurring in the diocese of London, to appoint a Bishop, who would retain all the emoluments that at present belonged to that see. If the House agreed to press that Bill they would establish the principle that the maximum revenue of the Bishop of London should not exceed 10,000l. a-year. He cordially approved of the course taken by the King's Government on the present occasion If they had adopted any other course—if, for instance, they had proposed to submit the minor details of the measure to the consideration of a Committee of the whole House, it would be impossible for the Legislature to pass any Bill upon the subject in the present session of Parliament. If the House felt generally satisfied with the principle of the measure, he thought that the details of it might very safely, and very properly, be left to the consideration of a commission appointed by themselves. At all events, he thought that that would be a better course for the House to adopt than to reject the Bill for the present session. So much as to the mode of proceeding. He would now say a word or two as to the principle of the Bill. He apprehended that the Bill proceeded upon the principle, that bishops were to continue to sit in the House of Lords. If that were the fact, the House, when it came to consider the expenses to which the bishops were subjected from the necessity of residing a portion of the year in London, independent of the claims upon their charity and benevolence, would see that the amount of emolument proposed by this Bill to be left to the office of bishop was by no means extravagant. An hon. Gentleman opposite had asked why the income of each should not be limited to 4,500l. a-year? When that question was put he thought sufficient consideration was not given to what must necessarily be the difference in the expenditure of the holders of different bishoprics—4,500l. a-year might be an abundant income in one bishopric, whilst in another it would hardly be more than sufficient to provide for the ordinary claims upon the benevolence of the diocesan. As to what had been said of the advantage to be gained to the Government from the translation of bishops he must say, that he thought a most erroneous impression existed upon that head. But even if it were possible for a Government to obtain any undue advantage in that way, he thought that the check of public opinion would be much more effectual than any law that could be passed upon the subject. He thought, however, that no Government that could exist at the present time was likely to attach the slightest importance, or to look for the smallest advantage, from the translation of bishops. It seemed to be taken as an objection to the Bill, that it did not provide directly and positively against the translation of bishops. But although the Bill contained no positive enactment upon that head, it must be obvious to every one that it afforded every possible discouragement to translations, by producing as nearly as possible an equalization of the incomes of all the bishops, or by far the greater number of them. Under the provisions of the present Bill, the incomes of the majority of the bishops would vary from 4,000l. to 5,000l. a-year. The utmost difference between them would not exceed 700l. or 800l. a-year, yet some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to think that such a sum would be sufficient to influence their political conduct; he confessed that he could not join in such extravagant notions of the corruption of human nature. The amount of fees, and the many other expenses consequent upon the translation of a bishop, would leave so small a pecuniary inducement to obtain a translation, as to render it extremely improbable that any would sacrifice a political opinion for the sake of obtaining it. He felt opposed to any provision that should positively forbid translations, because he could imagine many cases likely to rise in which it might be convenient for the Church, and highly beneficial to the Church, that translations should take place, He approved of the arrangement proposed to be made by the Bill, from a full and firm belief that so far from the emoluments being disproportioned to the actual expenses of the bishoprics, if the bishops acted as they ought to do— if they attended to the claims of benevolence and charity which were continually made upon them, and which he believed most of them did—he considered, that the incomes of the Bishops instead of leaving them rich men, would not be more than sufficient to provide for the actual wants of their situation. Upon the whole, therefore he still thought the Bill might be very beneficially adopted, and that no delay ought to be opposed to its progress in the present session.

Mr. Mark Phillips

expressed his determination to support the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Middlesex. The Bill, as it at present stood, would confer no practical benefit upon his constituents, and looking at the importance of the Report in general, he thought it would be better to wait until another Session of Parliament for a larger and more beneficial measure.

Mr. A. Trevor

did not consider this the fit or proper time to legislate upon a matter of so much importance, involving so many complicated interests, and operating so strongly upon the existing Establishment of the Church. Therefore, however unusual it might be with him, or however reluctant he might feel on ordinary occasions, to vote with the hon. Member for Middlesex, in not one of whose sentiments upon Church matters could he for a moment participate, he should certainly in this instance, if the motion were pressed, feel himself bound to support the proposition for delay.

Mr. Fowell Buxton's

objection to the Bill was, that it made no provision for increasing the incomes of the smaller clergy, whilst it continued the payment of enormous salaries to the great Dignitaries of the Church.

Lord John Russell

would not again go over the principles of the Bill, which had already been fully stated; but there were one or two points which had arisen in the course of the discussion upon which he thought some little explanation was required. First, with respect to the time at which the measure was brought forward. Those hon. Gentlemen who had expressed a determination to support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Middlesex, argued as if the House had been taken by surprise upon the subject. But he begged the House to recollect, that during the administration of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) a Report was presented to Parliament, and circulated throughout the country, containing the outline of the very plan now submitted in the present Bill, stating generally that the incomes of the two Archbisops and of the Bishops of Durham, Ely, and London, should be larger than the rest, and that the average income of the rest should range from 4,000l. to 5,000l. a-year. That being the case, he really must say, that after the lapse of fifteen months, in the course of which no opposition was made either by the clergy or by the friends of the Church, to the proposed plan; it was now rather too much to say, that there could be any surprise at a Bill being brought in to carry the Report into execution. In the same way with respect to the alterations proposed in the case of deans and chapters of cathedrals, the outline of the plan proposed to be pursued with regard to them was agreed to in a Report made by the Commissioners, and presented to the House on the 10th of March. That Report was immediately circulated amongst all the Members of the House, and published in the different newspapers upon the termination of the month. Upon that point, then, it was equally incorrect to say, that the House could in any way have been taken by surprise. Certainly some delay had taken place in submitting the Bill to the consideration of the House, which was done on the 20th of May, but there had been ample time for its consideration, and he was sure, that no one could say that he was not fully aware of what this Bill was intended to effect, or of the general outline of the plan for the Commissioners. The hon. Gentleman, the Member for Middlesex, (Mr. Hume) stated as a reason for not going on with this plan, that the question respecting church rates should be first settled. Now, he begged the House to recollect, that when the measure respecting Church rates was proposed—a measure which was not, as the hon. Member said, rejected, but, on the contrary, was carried by a large majority—at that time the minority stated as their ground of opposition to the plan, that they were not fully aware of the extent of Church property, and that they thought that there should be no Bill passed with respect to Church rates till they had fully considered the extent of Church property, and see whether there would be any avail- able surplus. This plan proposed to deal with that property, and to apply it to certain Church purposes; and the hon. Member for Middlesex turned round and said, that he would not consider it, that he would postpone its consideration, because he wished to have a Bill respecting Church rates first. There seemed to be a good deal of inconsistency in the hon. Member's argument. He must take one or the other first. [Mr. Hume: Take both together.] Both together? That would be impossible. This Bill proposed to deal in the way which the Church Commissioners and the Government thought best with the whole property of the Church. It was also taken into consideration whether there was an extravagant amount of income appropriated to the Cathedrals or the spiritual wants of the Church, and whether if there were a surplus it should be otherwise applied? If the House decided that there was no such extravagant amount, undoubtedly they would introduce an amendment into the Bill. But the question before the House now was, the manner in which this Bill dealt with episcopal revenues and dioceses, and dealt with them chiefly, if not wholly, upon the subject of which the Report had been long before the country. It was, he must say, an extravagant hyperbole of the hon. Member for Middlesex, to say that this was a Bill to promote the translation of bishops. The hon. Gentleman, at the very time he made such an assertion, must be very well aware that, under the existing system, the incomes of some of the bishoprics were very large, whilst the incomes of others were comparatively small. Here, then, if at all, existed the desire to obtain or to give translations; but by the Bill now under consideration of the House, the incomes of the great majority of bishoprics would be very nearly equalised, and the desire to obtain or to give translations consequently, removed. Under the provisions of the Bill now proposed, he felt quite satisfied that the great object of every Bishop would be to establish himself permanently in his diocese, instead of looking for a removal, which would add only a few hundred pounds per annum to his income. Most of the high dignitaries of the Church were men far advanced in life before they were raised to the episcopal bench. Was it likely that men of this character, between sixty and seventy years of age, would be induced to go to the House of Lords to barter their votes, night after night, in favour of questions which they did not approve of, and all this for the sake of being removed from the west to the north of England, and gaining by the removal about 500l. a-year? Why, the other day, with respect to bishoprics in Ireland, in one of the bishoprics that had been suppressed there was a vacancy; in point of income, the vacant bishopric was worth 1000l. a-year more than that of Cork; but the Bishop of Cork at once refused it; yet, in this instance, the amount was larger than it would probably be in most of the cases under this Bill, The effect of this Bill would be to render translations, if not impossible, very unusual, and he hoped it would receive the support of the House.

Mr. Warbtirton

could not help thinking that this Bill was at variance with the principles laid down on former occasions, not only by the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), but by the hon. Gentlemen who sat on that (the Ministerial) side of the House. When matters of charity and of education had been under the consideration of the Legislature, the principle laid down invariably was, that Parliament should not provide all the money necessary, but that it should vote a sum in aid, leaving to the friends of the charity, or the promoters of the education in question, to supply all that might be further required to carry the object into full effect. He wished to know why a similar system should not be pursued with respect to the Established Church.

The House divided on the original question: Ayes 90; Noes 43—Majority 47.

List of the AYES.
Adam, Sir C. Estcourt, T.
Anson, hon. Colonel Euston, Earl of
Arbuthnott, hon. H. Ferguson, Sir R. A.
Astley, Sir J. Fergusson, R. C.
Baldwin, Dr. Forbes, Wm.
Barclay, C. Forster, C. S.
Barnard, E. G. Fremantle, Sir T.
Bernal, R. French, F.
Blake, M. J. Gaskell, J. Milnes
Bonham, R. Francis Gordon, hon. W.
Bramston, T. W. Goulburn, rt. hn. H.
Bridgeman, H. Graham, Sir J.
Brodie, W. B. Grey, Sir G.
Childers, J. W. Hawkins, J. H.
Clements, Visc. Hogg, J. W.
Clive, E. B. Hoy, J. B.
D'Eyncourt, C. T. Hughes, W. H.
Donkin, Sir R. Jervis, J.
East, J. B. Jones, T.
Ebrington, Viscount Knatchbull, Sir E.
Elley, Sir J. Knox, hon. J. J,
Labouchere, H. Poulter, J. S.
Lawson, A. Pryme, G.
Lefevre, C. S. Pusey, P.
Lefroy, right hon. T. Rice, rt. hon. T. S.
Lennox, Lord G. Robinson, G. R.
Lennox, Lord A. Ross, Charles
Lowther, hon. Col. Rushbrooke, Col.
Lowther, Lord Russell, Lord J.
Lygon, hon. Colonel Sheppard, T.
Mackenzie, S. Sibthorp, Colonel
Maher, J. Smith, B.
Maule, hon. F. Strickland, Sir G.
Maunsell, T. P. Tancred, H. W.
Moreton, hon. A. H. Thomas, Colonel
Morpeth, Lord Tynte, C. J. K.
Neeld, J. Vere, Sir C. B.
North, F. Walter, J.
O'Loghlen, M. Wilson, H.
Parker, M. Wood, M.
Parker, J. Wyndham, W.
Pechell, Captain Yorke, E.T.
Peel, Sir R. Young, G. F.
Pendarves, E. W. W.
Philips, G. R. TELLERS.
Plumptre, J. P. Stanley, E. J.
Plunkett, hon. R. E. Stuart, R.
List of the NOES.
Aglionby, H. A. Lennard, T. B.
Attwood, T. Lushington, C.
Baines, E. Parrott, J.
Barclay, D. Parry, Sir L. P. J.
Bewes, T. Philips, M.
Biddulph, R. Potter, R.
Bowring, Dr. Rippon, C.
Brocklehurst, J. Ruthven, E.
Buckingham, J. S. Scholefield, J.
Buxton, T. F. Strutt, E.
Chalmers, P. Thompson, Colonel
Chapman, L. Thornely, T.
Chichester, J. P. B. Trevor, hon. A.
Conyngham, Lord A. Tulk, C. A.
Duncombe, T. Villiers, C. P
Fielden, J. Wakley, T.
Hall, B. Wallace, R.
Harland, W. C. Warburton, H.
Hawes, B. Ward, H. G.
Heathcoat, J. Williams, W.
Hector, C. J. TELLERS.
Humphery, J. Hume, J.
Hutt, W. Buller, C.

Amendments read a second time.

Mr. Arthur Trevor

said, that he considered he was doing nothing more than discharging an act of duty to the diocese with which he was more immediately connected, by moving the insertion of a clause for fixing the amount of the income of the present bishop, and all future bishops of the diocese of Durham, at a sum not less than 10,000l. per annum. In the situation he had the honour to hold, he felt this was a duty he was bound to discharge, and, whatever might be the result, he should never regret the course he had taken. The hon. Member then moved that a proviso, to the effect stated, be added at the end of the 10th Clause.

Clause read a first time. On the question that it be read a second time,

Lord John Russell

, said he would not oppose the clause being brought up, and read a first time, but he should certainly oppose the second reading of it.

The House divided: Ayes 0; Noes 133 —Majority 133.

[The Teller, with Mr. Trevor, was Mr. Maunsell. It does not appear necessary to give the Noes, as they were composed both of the ayes and the noes of the lists immediately preceding.]

Mr. Charles Buller

rose to move a clause, providing, "That until provision has been made for the adequate payment of the parochial clergy, and for the supply of religious instruction to those parts of the country stated in the Reports of the Commissioners to be destitute thereof, the Archbishop of Canterbury shall receive 8,000l., the Archbishop of York 7,000l., the Bishop of London 4.500l., and the other Bishops 4,000l. per annum." He considered that in doing this he was acting in conformity with the recommendation contained in the Report of the Commissioners; and he repeated the opinion he had before expressed with regard to this Bill, that it was a most incomplete measure of Church Reform. The hon. and learned Gentleman then proceeded to remark on the low rate of remuneration of the working clergy. He said, it appeared from the Report on the table of the House, that the resident clergy employed by the resident incumbents numbered 1,006, and their stipends on the average were 86l. a-year. The non-residents numbered 4,224; and their stipends averaged 79l. a-year. Thus the total number being 5,230, the average stipends were 81l. a-year. If it were a question between the bishops and the working clergy, he should say, they ought to look to the working clergy first. The Government, however, had followed the contrary plan; their first consideration appeared to have been to provide large salaries for the bishops. What had the Government done? A Bill had been brought in, in which a great deal was said about deans and chapters, and no doubt it would excite the admiring gaze of the public, when they came to examine its details. The bishops being politicians, had been objected to, and it was said that he wished to make them independent of the Government; but in the purposed arrangement, all kinds of temptations were held out to them. The incomes began at about 4,000l. a year; then there were several at 5,000l; the next step was 7,000l.; up to the see of Durham it was 8,000; 10,000l. was to be the income of the Bishop of London, and the Archbishop of York; and 15,000l. was the amount proposed for the Archbishop of Canterbury. His first proposal was to equalise the incomes of all the bishops, making an exception in favour of the Bishop of London, on the ground that he was a fixed resident in a most expensive place; he thought it was necessary on this account to give to the Bishop of London a little more than to the others. He not only proposed to equalise the incomes of the bishops, but also to reduce them. As his guide in fixing the incomes, he had taken the scale of payment of the very highest paid profession in the country, and that was the profession of the law. He put aside the income of the Lord Chancellor, however, not considering that a permanent income; but with that exception, he had taken the highest rate of pay for service to the public that could be got. He could not imagine any reasonable objection to his plan, unless it were said to be unjust to pay the clergy and the bishops at the same rate as members of the law were paid, there being this difference between the professions, that the one depended for success on the possession and exertion of individual talent, and having surmounted their early difficulties, and reached the top of their profession, they secured to themselves almost a monopoly of the business, and derived large sums from it. Such was not the case with the clergy. Of course, when it was wished to take a judge from the list of those barristers who were deriving large sums from their profession, it was necessary to offer them considerable incomes to induce them to accept a seat on the bench. If it were desired to possess the talents of Sir A. Cooper and Sir B. Brodie, their income must be fixed, with reference to the incomes they were now making in their profession. In the army and navy, in the church, and in public offices, there was constant employment and constant pay. In his opinion, the fair scale of remuneration for the clergy would be that of the army and navy; indeed, at present, the working clergy had nearly the same sums as the subalterns of the army were paid; it was in the higher stations that the great difference existed. Officers in the army and navy were very happy if they obtained 300l. or 400l. a year. He proposed to give to the bishops much higher incomes than that. And, by the way, he would here remark, that he did not see why the high sense of an honourable occupation should not animate the clergy, as governed those devoted to the other professions, in place of the ordinary desire of accumulating wealth. An officer in the army was proud of wearing the King's uniform, and was encouraged by that distinction to brave the dangers of the field. The bishop, on the other hand, fought under the banner of the cross; he was engaged in the constant struggle against the enemy of men's souls to save souls. Were his motives to be supposed to be of so low a nature that they must treat him as they would hired mercenaries, and crown him for the fight, or tempt him by the prospect of plunder. As he had said before, he proposed to fix the scale of the incomes of the bishops and the archbishops according to the highest scale of remuneration in the legal profession, except the income of the Lord Chancellor. To the Archbishop of Canterbury he would give the same income as was received by the Lord Chief Justice of England. The Archbishop of Canterbury had no duties to perform which required travelling, whereas the Chief Justice of England went the expensive circuits every year. The income of the Archbishop of York he would reduce to the miserable pittance of 7,000l. a year. He took for his guide here the income derived by the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas. He supposed he should not be charged with a desire to reduce the bishops to beggary. The office of the Master of the Rolls, every one knew, was the best office in the gift of the Crown. The Minister was thought lucky who had it to bestow, and the person was thought lucky who succeeded in obtaining it. The income was 7,000l. a year. The great advantage of the situation was its permanency, and the office of the Archbishop was equally permanent. Then the labours of the Master of the Rolls were known to be severe, and no one would pretend that the duties of the Archbishop were laborious to anything like an equal extent. To the Bishop of London he would give 4,500l. a year, which was the sum allowed to the common-law lords. It might be said that the bishop had to maintain a peerage, but he hoped we had not yet come to this, that it was to be considered no advantage to have the honour of a peerage without a very large income to support it. The judge, he must observe, had to pay out of his income the expenses of his circuits each year. To the remainder of the bishops he would give 4,000l. a year each. Such was his proposition, and he should be sorry if it were considered a very heinous and malicious attack on the Church. He did not profess any great attachment to the Church Establishment; but those who knew the position in which he was placed, with regard to his constituency, would do him the justice to say, that he had had many hard battles to fight in that part of the world, owing to his having declared himself in favour of an Established Church. If, however, he were called on to say whether he would prefer the Church Establishment as it was, or none at all, he should say none at all; and such he believed to be the feeling of the country on the subject. In his opinion, popularity was essential to the Church, to enable it to exercise a beneficial influence, and that, in its present state, it was not popular. The hon. Member concluded by making the motion announced at the commencement of his speech.

Clause read a first time.

On the motion, that it be read a second time,

Lord John Russell

said it was impossible that he could agree to the motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman. In his opinion the comparison which had been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman was quite inapplicable. Between the situation of the bishops, and that of the members of any of the professions referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman, there was a vast difference. The bishop had to maintain a large establishment, to observe hospitality, to contribute to the work of charity, and to preserve his position amongst those who possessed large landed property, while persons engaged in other professions were not liable to such serious charges on their incomes. He thought, that to reduce the means of the bishops and archbishops in the way proposed, would exceedingly impair the efficiency of the Church.

Mr. Arthur Trevor

feared, from the temper of the House, that the hon. and learned Mover would have a larger minority in favour of his present motion, than he had the good fortune to muster on the late division. He wished that all had the candour of the hon. Mover, who, doubtless, would vote with him, and confess, with him, they were no friends to the Church Establishment. He must repel with ineffable contempt, all insinuations made on such a question, that the higher order of clergy of the Established Church were actuated by avarice, and displayed unworthy symptoms of servility in their court to a Minister or Sovereign, in hopes of securing preferment in the Church.

Sir Love Parry

stated, that the Bishop of Bangor, in Wales, received at present but 3,800l. a year, and yet he did not complain, although he contributed largely to the assistance of a very ill-paid parochial clergy. Now, under these circumstances, he felt called upon to support the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard, because he could never consent to have the tithes taken from the poor people of Wales, to support an unnecessarily gorgeous Church Establishment, or to create a bishopric for the service of the good people of Manchester, who professed aloud they did not wish to be troubled with a bishop.

Mr. Villiers

said, there was so much justice in the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard, that the motion which he had just made should have his decided support. He agreed with him, that the vice of the Report naturally arose out of the constitution of the Commission appointed to inquire into the Church Establishment. It was altogether hypocritical to allege that the measure of his Majesty's Ministers was at all a measure of effective Church reform.

The House divided: Ayes 44; Noes 82 —Majority 38.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A. Chalmers, P.
Astley, Sir J. Chapman, L.
Attwood, T. Chichester, J. P. B.
Baines, E. Conyngham, Lord A.
Bewes, T. Duncombe, T.
Bish, T. Hall, B.
Blake, M. J. Hawes, B.
Bowring, Dr. Hawkins, J. H.
Brady, D. C. Heathcoat, J.
Bridgeman, H. Hector, C. J.
Brocklehurst, J. Hume, J.
Brotherton, J. Humphery, J.
Buckingham, J. S. Hutt, W.
Buxton, T. F. Lennard, T. B.
Lushington, C. Tancred, H. W.
Parrott, J. Thompson, Colonel
Parry, Sir L. P. J. Thornely, T.
Philips, M. Wakley, T.
Potter, R. Wallace, R.
Pryme, G. Wood, Mr. Alderman
Robinson, G. R.
Ruthven, E. TELLERS.
Seale, Colonel Buller, C.
Strutt, E. Villiers, C. P.
List of the NOES.
Adam, Sir C. Lennox, Lord G.
Angerstein, J. Lennox, Lord A.
Anson, hon. Colonel Lowther, hon. Col.
Arbuthnott, hon. H. Mathew, G. B.
Barclay, D. Maule, hon. F.
Barclay, C. Maunsell, T. P.
Bellew, R. M. Morpeth, Lord Vise.
Bonham, R. F. Murray, J. A.
Bramston, T. W. Neeld, J.
Brodie, W. B. Nicholl, Dr.
Campbell, Sir J. O'Loghlen, M.
Chandos, Marquess of Parker, M.
Clive, E. B. Peel, right hon. Sir R.
D'Eyncourt, C. T. Pemberton, T.
Donkin, Sir R. Pendarves, E. W. W.
Egerton, W. T. Perceval, Colonel
Elley, Sir J. Philips, G. R.
Estcourt, T. Pinney, W.
Euston, Earl of Plumptre, J. P.
Ferguson, Sir R. A. Plunkett, hon. R. E.
Fergusson, R. C. Praed, W. M.
Forbes, W. Pringle, A.
Forster, C. S. Pusey, P.
Freshfield, James W. Rice, right hon. T. S.
Gordon, hon. W. Rolfe, Sir R. M.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Ross, C.
Graham, Sir J. Rushbrooke, Colonel
Grey, Sir G. Russell, Lord J.
Hamilton, G. A. Sheppard, T.
Harland, W. C. Steuart, R.
Hay, Sir A. L. Thomas, Colonel
Hobhouse, Sir J. Townley, R. G.
Hogg, J. W. Trevor, hon. A.
Howick, Lord Visc. Tynte, C. J. K.
Hughes, W. H. Vere, Sir C. B.
Jervis, J. Wilson, H.
Jones, T. Wyndham, W.
Knatchbull, Sir E. Yorke, E.
Knox, hon. J. J. Young, G. F.
Lawson, Andrew TELLERS.
Lees, J. F. Stanley, E. J.
Lefroy, Anthony Mackenzie, S.

The Report was agreed to.