HC Deb 06 April 1840 vol 53 cc590-618
Lord J. Russell

, in moving the order of the day for the second reading of the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill, said he had on a former occasion postponed it until he had had the opportunity of consulting the Archbishop of Canterbury with respect to a proposal made by a subcommittee appointed by a committee of the cathedral churches upon this subject. That sub-committee had made a report, into the details of which it was not now necessary for him to enter, but the principle of which was this—instead of suppress- ing a certain number of canonries, and reducing the number, as in the bill, to four, it proposed to retain the present number unchanged, and that a certain large taxation should be imposed on every stall, so as to produce a certain fund for the increase of poor livings. The proposal contained various provisions by which this scheme might be carried into effect. He had now consulted the Archbishop of Canterbury, who was of opinion, having fully examined all the details of the plan, that it was not expedient to abandon the scheme which had been approved of by the commissioners. In that opinion he entirely concurred, and in addition to the intrinsic merits of the proposal, there was this additional reason for going on with the bill as it now stood—that, supposing the plan of the committee adopted, there was no ground for believing that the chapters in general would agree to it, one or two of them having signified distinctly that they did not hold themselves bound by any plan so proposed. There were one or two alterations which he should nevertheless propose in the bill as it now stood. An alteration had been made in the present bill with respect to the number of canonries to be retained in some of the chapels, and especially in that of Westminster. The canonries of Westminster had been attached to parochial charges, and he, therefore, proposed that there should be six instead of four, doing away generally with the proposition of the commissioners, that rich and valuable stalls should be combined with parochial charges. It also appeared to the ecclesiastical members of the commission, that Christ Church, Oxford, partook both of a cathedral and collegiate character, but more of the latter than the former. He proposed, therefore, that there should be two additional stalls, the one to be attached to the professorship of ecclesiastical history, and the other to the professorship of biblical criticism. It was also the opinion of the Archbishop of Canterbury, in which he concurred, that supposing the arrangements of the bill were adopted, the commission, as now existing according to Act of Parliament with respect to bishoprics, should have the disposal of the funds from the suppression of stalls in cathedrals, and that all the bishops constituted by law in England and Wales should ex officio be members of it. That was a change which he hoped would do away with any ground of jealousy with regard to the lay members. With regard to the general provisions of the bill, he had fur- ther to state, that the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, and the Bishop of London, were entirely agreed that they ought to adhere to the scheme proposed by the commissioners. He now begged to move that the bill be read a second time.

Sir Robert Inglis

was willing to admit that the bill on the table, particularly with the alterations now suggested by the noble Lord, was a great improvement upon the bill of former sessions: but he complained that it was still founded upon the same evil principle. The noble Lord had referred to the contre-projet of certain members of Chapters, which had been considered and rejected by himself and the Prelates whom he had named. The noble Lord had deliberately preferred his own bill, which was founded on suppression to that proposal which involved suspension only; he had preferred confiscation to contribution. The noble Lord indeed enjoyed an advantage not shared by the great majority on either side of the House, for the noble Lord had referred to a document of the existence of which he was not aware till an hon. and learned Friend near him (the Member for Exeter) placed it in his hand, as the noble Lord was sitting down, and when he could not read it; but that paper contained the very proposals which the noble Lord had rejected: and the House had a right also to exercise their judgment in the same matter. He did not pretend to say that he should himself look with favour on that proposal, so far as he knew it: he could only adopt it as a less evil than the bill on the table. It was a less evil, because it did not actually destroy the integrity of the cathedral system, though it suspended some portions, and reduced the incomes of all. But it still left the legal numbers of each chapter; it still preserved to them their whole property in possession and in management; and instead of confiscating that property to distant uses, only required a stated contribution to purposes near and congenial. How any one friendly to the Church could prefer a plan which suppressed half its dignities, and transferred the estates of those dignities to a common fund, to a plan which preserved all its dignities and left to their possessors the management of their property, he could not understand. The noble Lord had said, something about the plan which he had rejected, being objectionable because not final. Now, without entering into the general merits of finality, as applied to public measures, he must say that the plan of the bill provoked further retrenchments and alterations quite as much as the plan rejected. If the graduated taxation suggested to the noble Lord had been adopted by him, it is true that it might have again increased by some other minister, till the whole income had been extinguished; but what security would the Church have, when the noble Lord had reduced the numbers of each chapter to four (with the few exceptions which he had now indicated), that some future noble Lord in the next Parliament might not say, that four were too many; that two would do; and we should come to the hundred Knights of Lear; or the black and white hairs, till all were gone. And who petitioned against this measure? All, or almost all (all, indeed, with the exception of some of the chapters, the bishops of which sat on the commission,) had remonstrated against the measure. The bitterest enemy of the Establishment could not accuse them of any sordid interest in the matter; because their own dignities and their own incomes were preserved. The persons, then, who had the most knowledge on the subject, who were unbiassed on the score of interest, all but unanimously deprecated the measure. Did the parochial clergy, whose incomes were to be increased by it, desire it? On the contrary, the feeling was here also all but unanimous against it. Though the average income of the parochial clergy was far under 250l., and though the funds taken from the chapters were to be applied to augment their incomes, yet they also rejected such unhallowed spoils. He had himself last year presented many petitions from this class of ecclesiastics, disclaiming absolutely all participation in the measure. The measure itself was never contemplated by the King, who issued the commission, or by his right hon. Friend near him (Sir R. Peel), who had advised it. In the words of that commission could be found no authority for its recommendations. They were authorised and appointed to inquire into the state of the cathedral chapters of England and Wales, with a view to the suggestion of such measures as may render them most conducive to the efficiency of the Established Church, He prayed the House to observe that the commissioners were directed to suggest measures for rendering, not the incomes abstracted from chapters, but the chapters themselves, the cathedral churches, most conducive to the object in view. His right hon. Friend could never say that the extinction of half their number, and the withdrawal of half their income, realised the object which he had in view when he framed that commission, namely, the rendering the cathedral system, as such, most conducive to the efficiency of the Church. So much for the right of the commissioners to entertain and recommend these sweeping suggestions. He now came to the wisdom of their first great principle; that all chapters should be fixed at the number of four; the two below should be raised to that standard; the great majority above should be cut down. Carlisle was their bed of Procrustes. Yet what said their model chapter to this mutilation of the others? Why, they say (he quoted from their memorial)— That they felt it to be their duty to state they cannot contemplate with any degree of satisfaction the proposal for reducing the number of canons in other cathedrals to the number of four, because they are aware that with that limited number, it is very difficult and often impracticable, to secure the constant attendance of one of the body at daily prayer, more especially when sickness or old age may happen to prevent individuals from fulfilling their own wishes in this respect. And what, again, says the Chapter of Canterbury? They say, We ourselves have have had at the same time four prebendaries, of whom three were more than 60, and one so much an invalid that he was seldom equal to his duty; what would have been said of our efficiency, if our number had been limited to these four? He might quote the representations of other chapters. Yet, in spite of all, the noble Lord persisted in fixing the magic number of four as the standard of all. He believed that this number would be found inadequate to the regular and effectual discharge of their cathedral duties? But were these all their duties? The noble Lord could not forget that to the cathedrals of, England, the Church of England, and, indeed, their common Christianity, was indebted for some of the ablest, he believed he might say, the largest and best part of the theological literature of the country. The, system which had produced these fruits the bill on the Table proposed to cut down. But it was not only by their contributions to learning and to theology that these institutions were to be valued. Their members were at the head, and justly at the head, of all the diocesan societies of charity and general benevolence. The sources from which these societies derived so large a part of their efficiency, the noble Lord and the commissioners proposed by this bill to cut off, or at least to diminish by one half. Even in the lowest view of the case, the maintenance of the venerable fabrics of our cathedrals, the measure threatened the greatest evil. Could such fabrics be sustained as at present, when half of the means of the chapters shall be withdrawn? Did the noble Lord know that the restoration of every buttress of Westminster Abbey of which seven had been completed, required 1,600l.? And that this expenditure, however, necessary, could not be continued by the diminished resources of the future chapter. In the time of the great rebellion the cathedrals were all but exposed to the hammer, and would have been pulled down for the value of the materials, if it had not been ascertained that the cost of destruction would exceed the value of the lead and timber. Another century might see the great cathedrals of England, not indeed destroyed by violence, but ruined by the forced neglect which this measure would occasion; and travellers might look at Winchester and at York, as they now look at Tintern or Melrose. Observe, he did not undervalue the objects to which the incomes abstracted from chapters were to be applied. He admitted, as much as any man could do, the urgency of the wants thus to be supplied; but they ought not be relieved by this confiscation of property, already consecrated to another use. Some of the minor institutions connected with the cathedral system, which are to be sacrificed by this bill, are in themselves of so small a pecuniary value, that no man can claim their destruction for the sake of the money, which they will bring into the common fund; some are not more than 6l. a-year. Yet the fifty prebendaries of Lincoln, though valueless almost in annual income, are very important as distinctions conferred by the diocesan; and ought not to be withdrawn from the service of the Establishment. The noble Lord might not know of the case of the Six Preachers of Canterbury. Their income was not more than from 15l. to 30l.; yet their distribution excited the greatest interest in the diocese. They were the cheap honours conferred by its chief. He did not mean to say that these were the rewards which the Church required; but so long as human nature existed, so long would the fair and honest meed of merit be appreciated by an ecclesiastic, as the distinctions won and were by the right hon. and gallant soldier whom he saw opposite were appreciated by the army and by himself. So far, indeed, in the present times, was it from being true, that the chapters were animated by low and sordid motives, that there never was a period, when they manifested a more anxious and generous desire to meet the growing wants of the people, and more deeply felt their own responsibilities. They required only in some cases enlarged powers. See how they had used the powers too lately given them, in increasing their smaller vicarages from their own means. He knew one cathedral, Oxford, where they had within a few years secured a prospective increase of income of 2,000l. to those poorer incumbencies. A college also, in Oxford had, instead of dividing 2,000l. a-year among its fellows, arranged their estates in such a way that the same sources produced 8,000l. to the poor vicarages. But while he wished this to continue, he objected to the forced augmentations contemplated by this bill; by which the property of the see of Durham, for instance was taken away to enrich a poor living which, perhaps, had been bought being poor, and might go at once into the market at Garraway's, and be sold for the higher price. The bill not merely involved this result, but hazarded even much higher interests. Did the noble Lord know what was the origin of Cathedrals? They were the missionary establishments of a diocese, from which priests might be sent forth to convert and instruct the people. Could not this purpose be kept in view in giving a direction to the powers of the present system, rather than thus mutilate and destroy it? Could not St. Paul's again be made the central missionary establishment of London, to send forth its preachers into the dense and dark quarters of the vast untaught population? But instead of endeavouring to give new duties, and to preserve institutions, the destruction of which involved the hazard of all property, the bill swept away half the cathedral system, and endangered the rest. He objected to the bill for what it did, and what it omitted to do. Again he said, it shook the foundation of all property. The "too much" as Burke said, was treason against all property. Who had a right to say, that his neighbour holding the lands which the law gave him, had too much; was it a safe precedent? He would concede, indeed, that where ecclesiastical income arose from an increase of population and production, in any particular district, there (the property having been originally granted for the spiritual aid of such district), its produce should be so applied and divided as to minister to the spiritual aid of the population so increased, but he could not go further. He had once before asked, but had never received an answer, what length of time would, in the view of the noble Lord, sanctify an endowment? or, rather, for what length of time, would the sanctity of an endowment endure? He put the case of the late Mr. Tillard of Canterbury, who was said to have left 200,000l. towards objects of general good. If he had bequeathed 40,000l. to a particular stall in the cathedral of his own city, would the noble Lord have considered that he was at liberty to alienate a bequest in a will, the wax of which was almost hot, and the ink not dry? Yet if he would not cancel a will so made, on what ground could he vary or extinguish the bequests of Anthony de Beke, or the other great northern prelates? He objected to the bill, because it mutilated the cathedral system, violated the rights of property, was deprecated by the great body of the Church, and was fatal to its highest interests. He moved that it be read a second time that day six months.

Mr. H. G. Knight

said that it was satisfaction to him that the Bill now before the House had been so long delayed, because it had afforded the noble Lord the opportunity of introducing modifications which he (Mr. Knight) thought great improvements, and had afforded time for the preparation and consideration of other schemes, could any preferable scheme have been suggested. The House was now given to understand that all the substitutes had been withdrawn. The House had therefore only the choice of either the plan before them or none; and, for his part, he felt that be could in no better way consult the welfare of the Church of England than by supporting the present Bill. He was aware, and indeed the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford had informed the House, of the feeling against the Bill which existed amongst persons who are entitled to the utmost consideration. He would not be so base as to impute base motives to them. Let others, if they would, assail them with calumnies that were unjust, and imputations that were groundless. He was well aware that they were actuated by nothing but a deep sense of what they believed to be their duty. But he would entreat them to look at this subject in a large and comprehensive point of view, to remember how long the present plan had been before the public, that it came recommended by the heads of the church; that it was offered to the people as a satisfactory church reform; that, consequently, it was calculated to have a twofold effect, moral and pecuniary, of which the moral part would be neither the least powerful nor the least beneficial. He would also remind his hon. Friend of a circumstance to which he seemed not sufficiently to advert,—namely, that there existed at this moment a great and real emergency, a destitution of spiritual instruction in many parts of the country frightful in extent, and which, if unrelieved, would be terrible in its consequences. God knew he had no wish to humiliate the Church, or to weaken the Establishment, but he did feel that the spiritual wants of the people must, in one way or the other, be provided for, and he could not hope for the assistance of Parliament (strongly as he felt it was the duty of Parliament to lend that assistance) until, to use the words of a noble Duke, whose opinions had become almost oracular, "the Church had done something for herself." There was another reason, for which he thought the Church was bound to come forward on this occasion. On this subject the Church had some reason to reproach herself. He was far from meaning to cast any censure upon the present race of clergy; he knew how superior they were to their predecessors, how exemplary in their conduct, how diligent in their calling. All he meant to allude to was what the clergy regretted themselves, the torpor of the 18th century, those past times in which the Church did not take notice of the multitudes who were springing up in her towns, and demanding her care. The Church had awakened; but past neglect was an element in the present duties of the Church and the present claims of the people. He felt sure that if the Church did not do something for herself, she might continue to reign in her strongholds and fortified places, but she would not be the Church of the nation. But his hon. Friend had said, that the wills of founders must be respected, and that the altar must not be deprived of the service which was its due. But the founders of our cathedrals were all Roman Catholics. They enriched those foundations in order to perpetuate the Roman Catholic religion. How, then, did the Protestant chapters become possessed of those estates? Was it by looking upon the will of the founder as an obstacle not to be surmounted? A few years ago, the chapter of Durham had asked, and obtained, the sanction of this House to the transfer of a portion of their estates to the institution of an University. Did not that transaction put the hon. Baronet's argument in respect of the will of the founder, and Parliamentary interference, entirely out of court? And as to depriving the altar of the service which belonged to it, was that the object of this bill? He should have thought from the language of the hon. Baronet, that this bill involved the destruction of the cathedrals. Had that been the case, no man would have opposed it more strenuously than himself. But he had the consolation of knowing that all the cathedrals were to be maintained, that service would be performed in them, in the same manner in which he had been, all his life, accustomed to see it performed, in the largest and most splendid cathedral in the island—the cathedral of York—in a manner of which he had never heard a complaint. The hon. Baronet had adverted to the loss of rewards for merit, asylums for lettered ease, attractive prizes, nor would he say that these should be disregarded. We have human instruments to work with, and must employ human means. Nor should a diocesan be deprived of the power of testifying his approbation of a deserving minister. But if there were as many prizes left in the ecclesiastial profession as in any other, would not that suffice? Might not good livings be reckoned amongst the number of the prizes? Was it necessary to preserve the non-resident prebendaries of Lincoln and York? But his hon. Friend said he would find them duties. But the question was, what duties were most wanted, and in what places? and he must say, that it was not in the towns in which the cathedrals existed. The bill provided for an archdeacon, who might become more efficient, and act as a link between the Bishops and the parochial clergy. It might also be advantageous if a certain number of curates were attached to every see, who should be at the disposal of the bishop, and who might be sent to preach the word in destitute places. But these were not duties which prebendaries could perform; and he could not but be of the opinion, that the stipends of some of the prebends would be more beneficially employed, in part providing for the spiritual necessities of those who were now destitute. He was entirely of opinion that, in the case of suppressions, it would be most just, in the first instance, to restore the tithes to a certain amount to the parishes in which the tithes accrued; and, in the second place, to provide for the necessities of populous towns within the diocese, and this he was happy to see was enacted by the present bill; and whilst he was on this part of the subject, it was fair to state how much had already been done by the bishops and chapters themselves, It was not till the 4th of William 4th. that the law enabled the chapters to part with any portion of their inheritance; but since that time, they had not been slow to avail themselves of their new powers. Most of the poor livings in the diocese of Durham and Winchester had been augmented. Christ Church, Oxford, had acted with great liberality, and many other dignified bodies deserved the same commendation. He was well aware that, though this bill would do much good, it would not do half enough. He was well aware that the exigency was so great that recourse must be had to every legitimate source. There were three great objects to be achieved—the augmentation of poor livings, the multiplication of resident clergy, and a large and perennial fund for the building and endowment of new churches—objects in the accomplishment of which this bill would go but a little way. It was, on this account, that he had wished to see a more equitable arrangement of tenths; that he desired to see an increased value given to the leasehold property of the Church; and when it was once seen that the Church was making such great exertions herself, an appeal to this House for a Parliamentary grant might be made with more confidence, without which, in addition to all he had mentioned, no sensible effect could be made on our great manufacturing towns. But, whilst he was on this part of the subject, he would say that, in order to relieve the present necessities, further improvement should he made in the Church Building Acts; he knew they had been amended, but it was still so much easier and so much cheaper to build a meeting-house than a chapel of ease, that in this way a premium was offered to dissent; and it was most unjust to leave the hands of the Church manacled, and then reproach her with doing so little. It also appeared to him, that in order to provide the endowments of which the hon. Baronet despaired, the laws of mortmain ought to be relaxed. In these days a recurrence of the abuses which had led to these enactments need not be apprehended, and a modification of those restrictions would lead to nothing but good. Something might also be hoped from lay impropriators. He knew the law no longer imposed the original condition; but when the necessities were so great, and the subject was brought into notice, he was willing to hope that great lay impropriators would remember the sacred obligation which was originally attached to that description of property. He should, perhaps, be accused of travelling out of the question now before the House, but he did not think he was, for when he shewed how much more was wanted, he made it the more evident how desirable it was that this bill should be permitted to pass. The hon. Baronet had expressed his disapprobation of a commission, and had intimated that the change might be carried into effect by the chapters themselves. Much had been said and written against a commission. It was to destroy the independence of the Bishops—it was to elevate the minister of the day into a Protestant Pope; but, as it was, did not every Bishop owe his mitre to the Minister of the day? Yet the independence of the right rev. Bench was by no means destroyed, and though he desired to see the wants of the diocese in every case first attended to, yet the fruits of suppressions should not be lavished within any particular district for the sake of consuming them all, and wherever there was an excess, it could only be disposed of through the intervention of a third party. The objection on this part of the subject appeared to be removed by calling upon each bishop, as the bill now does, to be present whenever any matter connected with his diocese shall be under consideration. With this safeguard there could be no doubt that all would be well and judiciously done. He had no apprehension for the fate of the bill in this House, but he did not feel so confident of its success in another place. He only hoped that it would occur to the Prelates who might think themselves bound to hand down to their successors an unimpaired inheritance, that the inheritance would not be impaired if they could point out to districts reclaimed, new congregations, the empire of the church extended, the fold made equal to the flock. It was said this hill was the result of a panic— that the danger was past—that the sacrifice need no longer be made. Let it not be said that the vows of amendment which were made in the hour of sickness were forgotten in the day of recovery. The cry which had been raised against the church, a short time ago, had only the effect of shewing the number of her friends. She found herself much stronger than she had ventured to suppose. But let not this discovery induce her to refuse what in itself was prudent or desirable. She was now in a situation to reflect with composure and concede with dignity, We ask her to assist in administering to the wants of the people, and to give herself an even stronger title to their affections; and he only prayed God that He would be pleased to direct his servants, and induce them to prefer whichever course would be most conducive to the maintenance of his church and the glory of his name.

Sir R. Peel

said, it was his intention to give his vote in favour of the second reading of this bill. When he appointed a commission for the purpose of drawing up the report on which this bill was founded, he did not do it from any wish for popularity; but he did it from the sincere belief that such was the state of spiritual destitution in some of the largest societies in this country, in some of the great manufacturing towns, that it could not be for the interest of the Church of England to permit that destitution to exist without some vigorous effort to apply a remedy. He thought that if the Church set the example of providing a remedy, it would be a great encouragement to individuals to come forward in aiding the Church—that the Church setting an example of making a sacrifice would be the most likely way to to induce the Legislature to assist the Church; but he was convinced that the Legislature would never consent to come forward without the Church made a sacrifice. He did not regret the number of the canons being restricted, believing that their revenues might be made subservient to the ad- vantage of sound religion. At the same time he had an impression that there was a disproportion between the means of the higher dignitaries of the Church and the means of the minor orders of the clergy—a disproportion which could not be permitted to exist without bringing discredit upon the Church. If he might use the expression, the "staff" was taken away from the working ministers of the Church. Looking at the miserable state of spiritual destitution which existed in some of the large towns of the empire, he believed that it was a positive good to make a reduction in the incomes of the higher orders of the Church for the purpose of supplying that deficiency—that it would have a tendency to strengthen the foundations of the Church, and give it a stronger hold on the respect and affections of the people. He should be sorry, indeed, after having adopted this measure, to take advantage of some temporary abatement of feeling towards the Church for the purpose of receding from the opinion which he had formerly expressed. He firmly believed that the clamour in favour of reform in the Church had been abated by the example set by the Church of making this reduction. He thought they would find that the clamour might shortly be revived, and that then the confidence that was now placed in the Church would be entirely removed, if it were found that the Church had taken advantage of an apparent indifference, caused by confidence in if, for the purpose of receding from a measure which the Church itself had been the first to bring forward. He thought it was also of immense advantage to the Church that it should take the reform into its own hands, and that by a commission composed exclusively of the friends of the Church this measure should be brought forward. This bill was founded on the recommendation of a commission; and he could not express in too strong terms his sense of the gratitude that was due to that commission for the manner in which the members of it had performed their duty. His firm belief was, that those members of the episcopal bench— the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Lincoln, and the Bishop of Glocester—who formed part of that commission, would find; not only in the satisfaction of their own consciences, but ultimately in the public acknowledgement and grateful feeling of the people of England, ample compensation for their disappointment, when they found their proceedings disapproved of by persons for whom they entertained the highest respect. He believed it would be ultimately conceded that they were the true friends of the church, in taking this reform into their own hands. He did not anticipate from his hon. Friend that there would be any serious impediment in the way of passing this measure; but he must say, if he did, it would only be an additional motive with him for declaring his adherence to the opinion he had heretofore expressed. With respect to the details of the bill, he must say, as a friend of the church, he preferred the recommendations of the commissioners to any of the other plans proposed as a substitute. He thought that the proposal of making vested interests subject to a tax for the purpose of supplying the funds was highly objectionable, and speaking generally, he preferred the principle of the measure recommended by the commissioners to the principle of any of the other plans recommended. He rejoiced to hear that the objections against the permanent commission were done away with by including in it all the bishops. He was also very glad that the noble Lord had anticipated a motion he should have made, to leave the canonries of Christ Church undiminished in number, on account of the academical character of Christ Church. He thought his hon. Friend (Sir Robert Inglis) would hardly maintain that excessive ecclesiastical incomes ought to exist, seeing the absolute necessity there was of providing means of worship in the manufacturing districts. He thought his hon. Friend would not carry his opposition so far as to object to some legislative interference to correct that which, if not corrected, would reflect great discredit on the church. In a measure of this kind the animus of it determined its character. The whole of the revenue taken was for the purposes of spiritual education. It was for the purpose of strengthening the working of the establishment. It was requisite that they should widen and strengthen the foundation of the church; if they did not, the ornamental capital would be too heavy for the base; and it was wise in the church to make some reduction in that capital, and in the ornaments that were appended to it, solely for the purpose of widening and strengthening the foundations on which it stood, first by increasing a religious feeling, and secondly, by drawing the affections of the people towards the church.

Mr. W. O. Stanley

would not oppose the second reading of the bill. When he saw it supported by the leading Members of the House, he felt sure, that he should only do harm in opposing the bill. There were many points in the measure which he should feel it his duty at another time to bring under the consideration of the House. He hoped that no more of the property of the church in Wales would he alienated. The commissioners were deceived with regard to the church in North and South Wales. There was not so much destitution in North Wales, nor was the church so rich as was supposed.

Mr. T. G. Estcourt

said, the measure now offered to the House was a measure which could only be designated as one of spoliation and oppression. He was not insensible to the advantages which would arise from the church setting the example of providing for the spiritual destitution which prevailed, nor was he instructed to say that that example ought not to be set. He objected to the commission, as one liable to change in its lay members. Persons might be introduced into the commission as lay members who might be the greatest enemies of the church. The church would not be backward in employing any surplus revenues there might be for the advantage of the church. He entered his protest against the bill, with a full determination to give his vote in support of the amendment moved by his hon. Friend.

Mr. Lambton

supported the bill because it carried a salutary principle of reform in the reduction. He was anxious that this bill, before it passed through the committee should receive certain alterations to make it meet more completely the spiritual demands of the people. He trusted the noble Lord would not refuse to make the provisions of this bill more in accordance with the prayers of the petitions, showing the want of spiritual instruction in that quarter, which he and his hon. colleague had presented from the county of Durham, and that none of the funds of the church in that diocese should be alienated to the purposes of the church in other districts. Of the want of spiritual instruction, if that needed any proof, he was supplied with abundant evidence by the judges at the late assizes. He would suggest to the noble Lord that it would be wise also to introduce a clause into the bill empowering the ecclesiastical or executive commissioners under it to enfranchise the church property which might be alienated in all cases where they could do it on terms advantageous to the church.

Sir W. Follett

thought the House was placed somewhat in a difficulty in being now asked to assent to the second reading of this bill without having had an opportunity of examining the documents in its support which had been recently laid on the Table by the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell.) Before he could give his assent to the second reading, he begged to understand whether it were intended to embody the principle contained in the recommendation of the commissioners for the suppression of the canonries and deans and chapters. Until he came into the House he was not at all aware that the Church Commissioners, with the Archbishop of Canterbury at their head, had decided so expressly against the proposal which had been made to them on behalf of the deans and chapters. The noble Lord had allowed the second reading of the bill to stand over in order that he might give his consideration to that proposal, and yet be allowed no time for hon. Members on the opposition side of the House to give it their attention. [Lord J. Russell had given notice on Friday of the second reading to-day.] That might be, but he and others were not at all aware when the second reading was fixed for to-day that the proposition which had been made on behalf of the cathedral bodies had been so peremptorily decided against. Moreover, none of his hon. Friends had yet had an opportunity of looking over the elaborate arguments contained in the papers now on the Table. He wished to understand whether by now agreeing to the second reading they should stand pledged to the principle of the suppression of canonries, and deans and chapters. If the suppression were to be general (and on this he wished for a distinct explanation from the noble Lord), he should certainly vote with the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford, against the second reading of the bill.

Mr. Hume

expressed his surprise that the second reading of this bill should meet with any opposition on the ground of any imputation of spoliation assigned to its provisions by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, and he denied that it contained any such principle, or that it would in any degree interfere with the interest of any individual. He considered the language which had been used by the right hon. Member for Tamworth that night was much more calculated to support the church than anything he had heard in opposition to the measure.

Mr. Gladstone

rose to address a strong expostulation to the noble Lord upon the point argued by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Exeter. The House was placed in a difficult position on this subject—for the noble Lord had only delayed hitherto the second reading of this bill in order to give himself an opportunity to consider the proposal of the deans and chapters, an advantage of which he seemed now disposed to deprive the House. He earnestly requested the noble Lord, therefore, to give the House some explicit declaration upon this point. He was not one of those who were opposed to legislation upon this subject, but he thought that this bill was not calculated to settle the question in a proper manner, but rather to unsettle that which it professed to arrange. He believed that the individuals who had made proposals for an arrangement to the Government were not aware, except through the newspapers, that their proposal had been decided against by the noble Lord. He could not assent to the principle of general suppression; and, unless he heard some satisfactory explanation from the noble Lord, he should vote against the second reading.

Mr. Harcourt Vernon

said, that although perhaps there might be some unfairness in proceeding with this bill without taking into consideration anything that might have been proposed by those who called themselves the sub-committee, he had no misgiving, for his own part, on this question of suppression. If this bill went to suppress cathedral establishments generally, he should cordially agree with his hon. Friend who had just sat down. Such, however, was not the case, and he concurred with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, that this bill placed cathedral establishments upon the only ground on which they ought to stand—viz., their obvious and absolute utility. He considered that one or two canons or prebendaries could just as well perform the not heavy duties incumbent upon those officers as four. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet also, that the animus in which this subject was treated ought to be taken into consideration. The measure was not, as had been stated, an invidious attack upon the Church, but was a measure which was calculated to strengthen and make the Church more firm. Thinking the measure called for by the deficiency of adequate funds to benefit the people by the extension of religious instruction—thinking that deficiency of in- struction was partly owing to the defective distribution of the existing fund—a distribution which this bill was intended to relieve—thinking, also that the House could not fairly approach such a measure as had been suggested by the hon. Member for Leeds until they had done all in their power without trenching on vested rights to improve the distribution, he should give his support to the second reading of this bill. As to the confiscation of which the hon. Baronet below him (Sir W. Follett) had spoken, the hon. Baronet should consider the etymology of the word "cathedral," and what was the origin and object of cathedral institutions. The object of this bill was, that wherever there should be found to exist any degree of spiritual destitution in a diocese in which the canonries were to be suppressed, such arrangement as to that property should be made as should secure its expenditure in the most efficient manner to provide a remedy for such destitution. The hon. Baronet feared that our abbeys and cathedrals would fall into decay; but did he not know that in most cathedral churches there were specific funds for the purpose of keeping them in repair? With respect to the improvement of small livings, it was impossible that such benefices could ever be so greatly increased in value by these funds as to render them, as the hon. Baronet feared, saleable objects. With respect to the distribution of these funds falling into lay hands, it would only be a similar circumstance to that which prevailed with respect to Queen Anne's Bounty. He must say that he considered this measure was called for by the destitution of religious instruction that prevailed throughout the country, and by the deficiency of adequate funds for the service of the Church of England. They could not go with a fair face to seek the assistance of individuals, or ask for their co-operations in the work of church extension, until they had first tried every thing in their power with the funds now in possession of the Church, which did not go to the extent of materially injuring the Church, but of merely diminishing its decorations. There was in this country a great body of the religious public who entertained the most friendly feelings towards the Church, but who at the same time would wish to see a diminution of its sinecure portions. The House ought always to keep in view, when dealing with these subjects, the objects for which the institutions were established—namely, the diffusion and propagation of religious truth. Unless this were had in view, to use the language of Burke, "the hoary head of inveterate abuse would not obtain reverence nor conciliate respect."

Mr. Baines

expressed himself in favour of the second reading of the present bill, which proposed an application of the sum of 130,000l. a year to reward those who were the principal labourers of the Church, and particularly so, as that amount was not taken from the funds allotted to the payment of those who did labour. He did not think that the application of the funds of cathedral livings was by any means a new principle. It had been very strongly adopted by Bishop Burnet 130 years ago, and his sentiments upon that subject, to which he (Mr. Baines) would take the liberty of calling the attention of the House, were remarkably in unison with those of the framers of the present bill. His words were:— We hear much of the poverty of some livings but nothing of the wealth of others, but take it on the whole, no Christian Church has a better provision, and if the lands belonging to deans and chapters who are of no more use than abbots and monks were divided amongst the poor clergy in every diocese, there would be no just cause of complaint unless that bishops daughters do not go off so well as they do now, with a good sinecure. And if bishops themselves were brought to an equality of revenue, as well as functions, it would prevent the great scandal given by commendams and translations that are daily increasing. That was the language of Bishop Burnet. The Bishop of Llandaff (Dr. Watson) in his letter to the Archbishop of Caterbury proposes an equalization of bishoprics and large church livings on vacancies, as a great benefit to the establishmen. He also expresses his wish to see appropriated as they become vacant one third of every deanery, prebend, a canonry of the churches of Westminster, Windsor, Christchurch, Canterbury, &c, for the same purpose mutatis mutandis, as the first fruits and tenths were appropriated by the 2nd and 3rd Queen Anne, and he expresses his decided objection to commendams. The noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire (Lord Stanley) had also professed himself an advocate for the principle of present bill, for in his address to his constituents, in North Lancashire at the last general election said— That he thought the wealth of the Church ought to be appropriated to raise the livings of the poor clergy, instead of being devoted to purposes comparatively useless. He shared this opinion in common with those of every class in society, and he thought that by deducting from the wealth of the large livings, and adding to the poorer, the Church would be placed in a situation to be more available for the instruction of the community. These authorities which he (Mr. Baines) quoted he conceived to be tolerably high in favour of the principle of the present bill, and particularly so as their devotion to the cause of the Established Church could not be doubted. He would in conclusion say, that the ecclesiastical reforms which had been introduced by the noble Lord the Secretary for the colonies, had been of the utmost service to the Church, at the same time that they were calculated to give much satisfaction not only to Dissenters, but to all classes of religionists.

Mr. Goulburn

did not rise to reply to the elaborate eulogy which the hon. Member for Leeds had pronounced on the noble Lord, nor to enter into the disputed questions in reference to this subject. When, however, so much praise was lavished on the noble Lord, it was only fair to remind the House of the simple fact, that this measure in reality originated in the commission which had been appointed during the administration of his right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth. Having supported the principle of this bill on two former occasions, it was necessary for him only to say, that it should have his cordial support so far as principle was concerned. If he understood that principle, it was that a portion of the funds of the cathedrals should be rendered available for the purpose of more extended parochial instruction, and although he admitted that cathedral dignities were something more than ornamental—that they had been of real value to the Church Establishment—he still, having before his eyes the dread of those calamities which religious destitution entailed, thought such an application of those funds desirable in every point of view. They all knew the baneful consequences which resulted from religious ignorance, and how such a state of things was calculated to spread infidelity and disaffection. To counteract these great evils, it was essential that the pure doctrines of the Church of England should be more extensively promulgated among the people, and it was on that ground that he should give his support to the second reading of this bill. For his own part, he did not think 130,000l. anything like commensurate to the exigency of the case; and he would go further and say, that for the suppression of an evil of such magnitude, of which all parties complained, the public ought to come forward with a liberal hand. He did not mean to state that a better arrangement than the present might not have been made, but on this point he would say no more at present, but reserve to himself the right of making any practical amendment which he might deem prudent at some future stage of the bill. He could not, however, resume his seat without expressing his regret that the noble Lord had not made the same arrangement with respect to the cathedral church of Ely, that he had made in reference to the cathedral establishment of Christ Church.

Mr. Liddell

had very strong objections to the bill, although he would not go the length of opposing it in its present stage. The principle of the bill had not, in his opinion, been quite correctly stated by some hon. Members, for it not only provided for the suppression of a large number of dignities, but it also provided that, after those dignities should be suppressed, the revenues derivable from them were to form a common fund for the augmentation of poor benefices throughout the country. To that principle, if unqualified, as it was in this, although not in former bills, he had no hesitation in giving his most determined opposition, should he be the only Member in the House to vote against it. His reason for not opposing the bill in its present stage was this, that the 56th clause, which enacted that the property to be derived from the suppression of those dignities was to form a common fund for the augmentation of poor benefices generally, contained a promise to this effect—"unless urgent cause be shown for exclusive appropriation." Upon the faith of Parliament in adhering to the spirit and letter of that proviso, did he abstain from opposing the bill in its present stage. There were, however, words at the end of that proviso, which diminished much the confidence which the qualification of the principle of the bill created —namely, "due regard being had to the spiritual wants of other dioceses." He therefore gave notice, that in committee he should move that these words be struck out, because if a system of comparison were to be instituted between the spiritual wants of one district and those of another, the spirit of the bill would, in his opinion, be greatly violated. The bill proposed an important change in the diocese of Durham, one of the most important in England, to which he must object, certain as he was, that in the case of that diocese an urgent case could be shown for exclusive appropriation, on the grounds of inadequate endowment, extensive spiritual wants, and the most judicious and beneficial management of the revenues by the present dean and chapter of Durham. He begged of the House to consider, that they paid over 11,000l. a year to the revenues of a new see. The present Bishop of Durham had paid over towards the construction of a bishoprick in Yorkshire, which had property amounting to 1,800l. a year, nearly 40,000l. He would now say a word with regard to the case of the University of Durham. The 28th clause provided that such arrangements should be made respecting the deanery and canonries in the cathedral church of Durham, and their revenues, as, upon inquiry and consideration of the act for appropriating part of the property of that church to the establishment of a university, and of the engagements subsequently entered into by William the late Lord Bishop of Durham and the Dean and Chapter should be determined on. Now, he did not know whether the object of that clause was to get rid of those engagements, under the pretence that the university was established before those engagements were entered into, but he could not avoid saying that it was open to that interpretation; and he hoped that no consideration would prevent those engagements from being fulfilled, virtually at least, by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Considering the great increase which was going on in the population of Durham, and likewise in that of other dioceses, he objected to the abstraction of the revenues of that diocese, already in a state of spiritual destitution for the purpose of contributing to the spiritual wants of other parts of the country. In Newcastle, with a population of 50,000 therewere but six churches, which was one church to 8,000 souls. With regard to benefices, he had always been of opinion that 300l. a year ought to be the minimum income, and yet there were no less than thirty-four benefices connected with the Dean and Chapter of Durham, and containing large populations, the income of each of which was under that amount. He could not help adverting to the fact of the munificence of the Dean and Chapter of Durham, in contributing from their revenues to the augmentation of small livings, and the endowment of new places of worship. They had, as he had already stated, applied 110,000l. to the University of Durham. Since the Archbishop's Enabling Act, which gave them the power, they had contributed no less than 120,000l. towards the augmentation of livings. They had appropriated to these objects in the whole no less than 400,000l., besides acts of private munificence. He assured the noble Lord and the House that he approached this question without any party feeling; but, knowing the necessities of the diocese of Durham, he should resist the abstraction of one farthing of its revenues for any other purpose than was strictly connected with the spiritual wants of the diocese. He approved of the introduction into this bill of the 57th clause, yet he was not quite satisfied with the security it gave. The present Bishop of Durham, though an estimable prelate, had been appointed by the noble Lord, and the Dean of Durham, was also Bishop of St. David's, and therefore interested in another diocese. He should be better satisfied if the commission included the two archdeacons of the diocese. One of the main reasons which prevented him from opposing the bill was that which had been stated by the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn), namely, that considering the moral and spiritual wants of the community at large, unless the church gave up some portion of its revenues it would be impossible to call upon the state to contribute. When that sacrifice had been made, and when the church had come forward and had done all in its power voluntarily to aid this object, he should then consider that the state had no excuse for not taking into consideration the whole subject of the spiritual destitution of the community, and by relieving this great evil, so much complained of, contribute essentially to the prosperity of the empire.

Mr. Law

said, that looking at the title of the bill, which purported that it was to carry into effect the fourth report of the commissioners of ecclesiastical revenues, he could not but recollect that that report contained propositions most objectionable. The principle embodied in the bill, that of diverting church funds to the purpose of general education, it was impossible to correct in the machinery. He was, therefore, compelled to oppose the bill in its present stage. He agreed with his right hon. colleague (Mr. Goulburn) in the necessity of giving to the chapter of Ely, if not the whole of the stalls, a greater number than four. The same objection applied to other chapters. If these reductions were forced upon the church, the wants and claims of each chapter should be attended to. If the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford pressed his motion to a division, he should divide with him against the bill. It was a mistake to suppose that the university he represented had changed its sentiments upon this subject, as might be seen in an able petition which had been presented to the House, and he should betray his trust if he did not offer the best opposition in his power to the further progress of this bill.

Sir T. D. Acland

should give his vote with so much difficulty and reluctance if the question was pressed to a division, that he must state his reasons for the course he meant to adopt. If he believed, with his hon. Friend (Sir R. Inglis), that it was impossible to deal with the subject at all, or to interfere with church revenues, he should be bound to refuse to vote for the second reading of this bill; but when they spoke of tile principle of the bill, they ought to give the largest and widest interpretation to the principle, when the main and professed object of the promoters of the bill and that of the friends of the church were the same. If the latter consented to the second reading of the bill, it was in the belief that they could deal with the details in the committee. The hon. Member for Nottingham had said, that it was better to have this bill than none; but if no better reason could be given, nothing should induce him to consent to the bill. There were, however, many other means of effecting the same object. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Durham had mentioned one, the distribution of 120,000l. by the dean and Chapter of Durham amongst the incumbents of small livings. This was his justification—that very many of the true principles were shadowed out (he did not say embodied) in the bill, and upon those principles he hoped that they should be able to work.

Mr. Bell

entirely concurred in all that had fallen from his hon. Friend who had spoken so recently; he could confirm all his statements, and he would further observe, that the spiritual destitution in that portion of the county of Northumberland which he had the honour to represent was very great indeed, and it had been materially augmented by the increase of collieries and manufactories. While alluding to Newcastle, to North Shields, and the neighbourhood, there was one very important fact which his hon. Friend had omitted to mention, and it was this—that after leaving Newcastle and following the banks of the river Tyne to North Shields, a distance of seven miles, there was but one church, although within that space the population amounted to upwards of 20,000 persons. He would add, that the collieries were extending themselves to the north and east of Newcastle, and perhaps hon. Members might not be aware that no colliery of any extent was opened out without bringing with it a population of from 500 to 1,000 persons; and although the bishop of the diocese and the dean and chapter, landowners and coal owners, had done much to provide for the spiritual wants of the people generally, yet it was quite impossible they could do all that was required. He was sensible of the great liberality of the bishop and dean and chapter generally, and he too would enter his protest against the surplus revenues of the diocese of Durham, supposing the bill to pass, being appropriated to any other object than the spiritual wants of that particular diocese. If he thought any other course would be adopted, he for one should vote against the second reading of the bill.

Mr. Slaney

supported the bill, as one of the best and most practical measures which could be introduced for strengthening and extending the usefulness of the Established Church. At the same he hoped the noble Lord would not adopt the suggestion which had been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, to limit the application of the funds to the particular locality in which they might accrue.

Lord Teignmouth

wished the noble Lord to postpone the measure till after Easter. The delay which had already taken place had resulted in a decided progressive improvement of the bill. The principle of locality had only been faintly arrived at in the original measure, but now due regard was to be had in all cases to the diocese in which the revenues should arise. The bishop of the diocese was now to be allowed to sit as commissioner upon all cases occuring within his own diocese, while all the bishops of England and Wales were ex officio to be members of the commission. These were decided improvements in the bill. The chapters also had been consulted, who were the best qualified to give direction as to the mode in which these surplus revenues should be distributed. There was another chapter he was also anxious to consult— the chapter of accidents; he wished to see what new lights might arise, what new events might take place, to modify the present scheme, and render it more favourable and effective for all the purposes of an Established Church. He particularly approved of the principle of localising the funds accruing under this bill, and recommended that halls should be appropriated to large parishes until the spiritual wants of the people were provided for. Although opposed to some of the provisions of the bill, he could not vote with his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford.

Colonel Sibthorp

regretted to see the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies introduce such a measure as this to the House. He considered the noble Lord the child and offspring of the Church, his whole family being dependent on Church property for everything they had, yet he had shown throughout the most decided enmity to the Church. He had no confidence in the noble Lord. He would trust him with his purse in private life, but he had no opinion of him as a politician or a Minister.

Lord John Russell

was glad to hear the assurance of the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln, that he would trust him with his purse, he hoped he would have no objection to extend the same confidence to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in case he should make a demand upon it. With respect to the bill now under the consideration of the House, putting aside the objection of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, that Parliament should not interfere with subjects of this nature, he had been asked by the hon. and learned Member for Exeter, what was the principle on which this bill proceeded. He thought they might introduce a bill of this nature on two grounds. Supposing from the lapse of time the cathedral establishments had become ill adapted to the purposes for which they were intended, it was perfectly competent to Parliament to propose such amendments as would adapt them to the present times. But with regard to this bill, there was another and stronger reason for the interference of Parliament. Revenues had formerly been set apart for ecclesiastical purposes to which there was now little or no duties attached, while there existed a want of religious instruction in many populous places which called loudly for the consideration of the Legislature. It was therefore necessary to find some mode by which that want could be supplied. It was, then, upon these two grounds that he thought a bill of this kind ought to have been introduced, and it was for those reasons he now asked the assent of the House to the principle upon which it was founded. He did not ask the House to consider the principle of the measure as the only one which could be adopted, and in committee other plans could be brought forward and investigated. He only wished that the House should express its opinion that some measure of the kind was necessary. For his own part, after full examination and after consulting those best qualified to judge on such matters, he had come to the conclusion that certain cathedral stalls ought to be suppressed. He could not, however, agree with the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, that those stalls ought to be attached to large and populous parishes. He did not think that such a course was advisable. He thought it was desirable that there should be men in the church of different capacities, and engaged in different pursuits, who, however, would all alike add to the respectability and dignity of the establishment, although in different ways. One person might, for instance, be attached to a large and populous parish, whose time would be employed in visiting his congregation and that person might be also an eloquent preacher. Another person might have no talent for eloquence, but he might have an extensive knowledge of theology and be highly qualified for the elucidation of the sacred Scriptures. Both those persons would add in their different ways to the respectability and usefulness of the church; but if the stalls were added to the large parishes, they would lose either the eloquent preacher or that sound learning which contributed to the dignity of the establishment. He therefore could not consent to the proposition of the noble Lord. With respect to the suppression which had been alluded to, that was a question upon which he would not enter until the proposals of the commissioners were laid before the House. If Dr. Spry and the Dean of Ely, and the Dean of Chester had no objection to their proposals being laid before the House he should not oppose that course, as he should at the same time submit the answers which had been sent to those pro- posals, when the House would have an opportunity of comparing the two schemes. For himself, he considered the scheme originally proposed by the commissioners to be the best, and he believed the Archbishop of Canterbury had arrived at the same conclusion. He did not know that it was necessary to enter further at that time into the provisions of the measure. He was glad, however, to find, that the qualification which he had introduced with respect to Christ Church had met with, the approbation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth, but he must say, that he thought the principle which had been acted upon in the case of Christ Church would fail if it was extended to Ely. He trusted the bill would pass in the present Session.

The House divided: Ayes 87; Noes 11: Majority 76.

List of the AYES.
Abercromby, hn. G. R. Hoskins, K.
Acland, Sir T. D. Hughes, W. B.
Adam, Admiral Hume, J.
Aglionby, H. A. Hutton, R.
Baines, E. James, W.
Barnard, E. G. Lambton, H.
Barry, G. S. Liddell, hon. H. T.
Beamish, F. B. Lushington, S.
Bell, M. Maule, hon. F.
Bernal, R. Melgund, Viscount
Blair, J. Morris, D.
Blewitt, R. J. Muntz, G. F.
Bolling, W. Pechell, Captain
Bowes, J. Peel, Sir R.
Brocklehurst. J. Pendarves, E. W. W.
Brodie, W. B. Philips, M.
Brotherton, J. Pigot, D. R.
Buller, E. Polhill, F.
Busfeild, W. Power, J.
Clay, W. Pusey, P.
Collier, J. Rice, E. R.
Craig, W. G. Rundle, J.
Curry, Mr. Sergeant Russell, Lord J.
Davies, Colonel Salwey, Colonel
Ewart, W. Scholefield, J.
Ferguson, Sir R. A. Seymour, Lord
Filmer, Sir E. Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.
Fitzroy, Lord C. Slaney, R. A.
Fitzsimon, N. Stanley, hon. W. O.
Fort, J. Stansfield, W. R.
Gaskell, J. M. Stewart, J.
Gordon, R. Stock, Dr.
Goulburn, U. hn. H. Teignmouth, Lord
Hall, Sir B. Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Hastie, A. Tufnell, H.
Hector, C. J. Turner, E.
Hill, Lord A. M. C. Vernon, G. H.
Hindley, C. Vigors, N. A.
Hobhouse, Sir J. Wakley, T.
Hobhouse, T. B. Wallace, R.
Hodgson, R. Warburton, H.
White, A. Wyse, T.
Wilbraham, G. TELLERS.
Williams, W. Parker, J.
Wood, B. O'Ferrall, R. M.
List of the NOES.
Adare, Viscount Morgan, C. M. R.
Baker, E. Richards, R.
Christopher, R. A. Sibthorp, Colonel
East, J. B. Williams, R.
Estcourt, T. TELLERS.
Glynne, Sir S. R. Inglis, Sir R. H.
Holmes, hon. W. A. Law, E. C.
Back to