ECCLESIASTICAL DUTIES AND REVENUES.

HC Deb 20 July 1840 vol 55 cc827-37

Lord John Russell moved, that the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill be read a third time.

Sir R. Inglis

said, he had so often trespassed upon the attention of the House upon the subject of this bill, that he should now only say, that greatly as this bill had been improved since its first introduction to the House, four or five years ago, he thought it still open to the fundamental objection of being a measure for the confiscation of Church property, and tending to the ruin of cathedral establishments. He could not therefore suffer it to pass without raising his voice against it.

Mr. Hume

would express his regret that the bill did not go much farther. So far from its being a measure of confiscation of church property, not one farthing would be taken from the church. The bill would only make a better distribution of the property, and apply a surplus revenue to better purposes. It appeared it was, as far as it went, an excellent measure.

Mr. W. Gladstone

had opposed this bill, not because it reformed too much, or too little, but because it was a kind of reform which would be less effective, and less in conformity with the principle of the institutions with which it dealt, than other reforms which might be applied with greater benefit to the Church. It had been suggested by very high authorities, that the chapters ought to discharge the functions of councils to the bishops, and the cathedrals be rendered useful as places for the theological education of the clergy belonging to the Church. The noble Lord had met this suggestion in a serious, calm, and considerate manner. But the noble Lord's proposition, in the shape of an objection, was this, that there were such differences of opinion in the Church, as would render it impracticable for successive bishops to make use of the advice of the same chapters as their councils, and that if the cathedrals were employed as places for theological education, it would only tend to create so many different sects and schools of opinion, that would produce a great and injurious diversity of doctrine throughout the country. That objection might have held good at a time when the Church of England was torn in pieces by the war of party, and when it might have been justly apprehended that the most injurious results would have followed such a course. The name and idea of party were now from day to day, and from year to year, becoming more odious and offensive to every good member of the Church of England, and were more and more repudiated, both in theory and practice, by her ministers and her divines. So far from entertaining the apprehensions expressed by the noble Lord, he (Mr. Gladstone), on the contrary, believed that the further theological studies were carried in this country, the more the education of the clergy was attended to, the best opinions would be found to prevail among them, and more efficiency would be given to their ministrations. The main objection urged by the opponents of this bill had been, that it would place the ecclesiastical establishment of the country upon an insecure and precarious foundation, and that the present measure seemed only intended to prepare them for further measures of reduction of the property of the Church, and to invite them by degrees to plans of entire spoliation. That was the danger they had to apprehend; and particularly, he was bound to say, with respect to the cathedrals of this country, that he did not believe any cathedral institution could be secure, whether it had twenty canonries, twelve canonries, four, or two canonries, unless the patronage of those institutions should be exercised with fidelity. During the period in which this bill had been under discussion in that House, events had taken place which appeared to show that the Government had not been sufficiently convinced of the necessity of giving to the cathedral establishment that security—which was the only efficient security they could have—namely, the security which arose from the right distribution of their patronage. He should be the last person in the House to complain of her Majesty's Government for employing the power and influence which were to be derived from lucrative and important appointments, by conferring them upon those who concurred in their own political opinions. He made no complaint upon that score. But he did complain of an appointment which had been made during the last few weeks to the warden-ship of Manchester. That appointment seemed to bear out what had been supposed by the hon. Member for Kilkenny, for the bill would not go far enough if they cut away one-half of the abuses, but continued the same system as had been pursued with respect to those that remained. In reference to the gentleman who had received the appointment, it was not his intention to utter one word of personal disrespect. He was a poet and a scholar; but poetry and scholarship were not precisely the gifts which for such an appointment seemed to be requisite. This was the parish church of Manchester. To that church a very large population looked for the rites of baptism, marriage, and burial; there were sought the offices of the Church — there the populalation sought the instruction derived from a parochial Church—and there the ministers ought to have been too glad to have appointed to the office of warden a person who would have entered upon his duties aware of the great spiritual wants to be supplied by that Church. The gentleman who had received the appointment, whatever his distinction might be, was not the best calculated for the service of the Church, or for the parochial administration. He was already the rector of Stafford, in the archdiocese of York, with a population of 2,000 souls, and an income of l,500l. a-year. If they were to leave offices richly endowed, to which no duties attached, he did hope, that the Government would see what were the necessities of the times, and use the patronage of their office in such manner as to make it the most effective. He must say, however, from the interest taken by the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell) in this subject, and from the care he had taken to render the cathedral establishments efficient, that he could not ascribe the late appointment to that noble Lord. He did not wish to interfere with the prerogative of the Crown—he did not complain of the appointment of a person of one politics rather than another; good clergymen there might be, and efficient clergymen, from one political party as well as another, but he objected to the appointment because it had not been made with a view to render the collegiate Church of Manchester conducive to the interests of the Church, such an appointment must meet with his condemnation, and his reprobation.

Colonel Sibthorp

hoped, that there was still strength left among those connected with the Church to reject this measure. Until her Majesty's Government, which was a disgrace to the country, was changed, there would be no hope for the preservation of the Church.

Mr. Darby

observed, that the House by the vote to which it had just come, had decided, that mere possibility was the subject of valuation. Now, under this very bill, he knew a canon residentiary, who wished to renew a life; he would therefore ask the noble Lord whether these matters were to be the subject of compensation, and what was to be the extent to which the House was to allow the compensation in the changes to be made by this bill?

Lord John Russell,

in regard to the question of the hon. Member, did not propose to make any compensation to the lessees of the Church under this bill. The commissioners, in the cases to which the hon. Gentleman referred, would have power to renew the lease, and it would be for them to judge whether it was proper to renew it or not. At the same time he thought, with reference to certain matters, it would be fit that they should have a certain regard to the interests of the lessees. He owned, that it was a subject of difficulty. He could not vote for a clause giving general compensation, still there were cases which would not be fairly treated by abrogating the right of the lessees without giving indemnification or a power of renewal. He did not propose to give anything by this bill, because it was intended to leave a power in the hands of the commissioners to renew or not, and if they made it compulsory on the commissioners to renew, it was obvious, that they would be giving to the lessees a greater interest than they had at present; for supposing a person in the situation of lessor should not choose to renew, and should say, that he would take the chance of the lease falling in, he might now do so, and consequently they could not compel the commissioners to renew without increasing the lessee's interest. It was not therefore intended to give any power of indemnification under the present bill, but the whole subject must come under the consideration of Parliament in the next Session. He must say also one word as to the appointment of a person of learning and ability to a situation which he (Lord John Russell) considered similar to that of dean in one of the cathedral churches in the country; he was not acquainted with that reverend gentleman, he had never seen him, but he could hot disavow all the responsibility of the appointment, because the noble Lord at the head of her Majesty's Government had communicated to him the intention of recommending that gentleman to the Crown, and he could not offer any objection to the appointment.

Mr. Goulburn

could not but think, that if the noble Lord entertained any doubt whether the lessees should have compensation, the point ought to be settled at once, because he could conceive nothing more calculated to produce injury than to leave such a question unsettled. He would not consent to be a party to holding out any expectation of compensation, because he was confident, that if the property remained in the hands in which it now was, their regard for the general interests of the Church would prevent a renewal of the leases. If he understood the noble Lord, that in future they were to have claims for compensation to be decided by that House, or entertained by the commissioners, he said distinctly, that they ought not to pass this bill without laying the foundation for the compensation which the House might determine ought to be given. But at a time when they were making great sacrifices on the part of the Church to afford spiritual instruction to the people, they ought not, as he thought, to deprive the people of that instruction to make any such compensation. His object, in consenting to this bill, was to promote what he believed the bill would promote—the spiritual instruction of the people—and whatever should tend to prevent that, should have his determined opposition.

Bill read a third time.

On the question that it do pass,

Lord John Russell moved to insert a clause declaring, that the first two vacant canonries in the cathedral church of Ely shall belong to her Majesty, but that no person shall be eligible or qualified to hold them except the Regius Professor of Hebrew, the Regius Professor of Greek, the Norrisian Professor of Divinity, or the Master of Jesus.

Clause read a first time.

On the question that it be read a second time,

Mr. Goulburn

claimed to have the University of Cambridge upon a perfect equality with the University of Oxford. He did not see why there should be seven professorships of Oxford— why they should have annexed to them canonries in the collegiate Church of Christchurch, and that only two professorships in Cambridge should have the chance of having canonries. What he asked the noble Lord was, to endow the three professorships and the mastership of Jesus, in the University of Cambridge, by annexing to them four canonries in the cathedral church of Ely. All, however, that the noble Lord proposed to do by his clause was, that the first two canonries that should be vacant in Ely might be held by these professors, who might resign the professorship in a few days and still retain the canonry. The clause which he intended to introduce, if the noble Lord's should be rejected, was to declare, that in the cathedral church of Ely, the first, second, third, and fourth canonries that should be vacant should be permanently annexed to the Norresian professorship of Divinity, the Regius professorship of Hebrew, the Regius professorship of Greek, and the mastership of Jesus College. Jesus College was especially entitled, for it was founded by a Bishop of Ely, the appointment of the master was vested in the Bishop of Ely, the master received only a small amount, and it was considered almost a matter of course now if the master's income was not increased from some other source, that he should have annexed to his offices a prebendaryship of Ely.

Lord J. Russell

said, that if the House did not like the clause he had proposed, it might adopt that of the right hon. Gentleman, yet he had hardly given any valid objection to the clause as it had been proposed. The question with respect to the universities of Oxford and Christchurch turned upon the fact, that it was a collegiate establishment, but the cathedral of Ely was never considered part of the University of Cambridge. The clause would serve the purpose for which it was intended. As it stood, it had been altered to meet the wishes of the dean of Ely.

Lord Stanley

hoped, that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Goulburn) was in error, and that a person resigning the professorship would not retain the canonry. The words were, "no one shall be eligible or qualified to hold" the canonry who was not one of these professors. If that were the meaning of the clause it would not require alteration.

Dr. Lushington

said, that as the words were, "no one shall be eligible or qualified to hold," it appeared, that if the party resigned the professorship, he would be disqualified from longer holding the canonry.

Mr. Goulburn

would then move to insert the word "four" instead of the word "two."

The House divided on the original question:—Ayes 60; Noes 26: Majority 44.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A.	O'Ferrall, R. M.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T.	Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.
Barnard, E. G.	Pendarves, E. W. W.
Bernal, R	Philips, M.
Bridgeman, H.	Price, Sir R.
Brotherton, J.	Rawdon, Col. J. D.
Buller, C.	Roche, W.
Byng, G.	Russell, Lord J.
Childers, J. W.	Rutherfurd, rt. hon. A.
Clay, W.	Salwey, Colonel
Clive, E. B.	Sanford, E. A.
Dalmeny, Lord	Slaney, R. A.
Denison, W. J.	Somers, J. P.
Ellis, W.	Somerville, Sir W. M.
Ferguson, Sir R. A.	Stanley, hon. E. J.
Finch, F.	Talbot, C. R. M.
Fitzroy, Lord C.	Thornely, T.
French, F.	Troubridge, Sir E, T.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.	Tufnell, H.
Hawes, B.	Vigors, N. A.
Hobhouse, T. B.	Vivian, J. H.
Horsman, E.	Vivian, rt. hn. Sir R.H.
Hume, J.	Warburton, H.
Hutchins, E. J.	Williams, W.
Lemon, Sir C.	Wood, G. W.
Lushington, C.	Wood, B.
Lushington, rt. hn. S.	Wyse, T.
Macaulay, rt. hon. T. B.
Maule, hon. F.
Morpeth, Viscount	TELLERS.
Morris, D.	Grey, Sir G.
Morrison, J.	Sheil rt. hon. R. L.

List of the NOES.
Acland, Sir T. D.	Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.
Acland, T. D.	Inglis, Sir R. H.
Baker, E.	Milnes, R. M.
Baring, hon. W. B.	Nicholl, J.
Blair, J.	Pakington, J. S.
Broadley, H.	Palmer, G.
Brownrigg, S.	Patten, J. W.
Buller, Sir J. Y.	Pusey, P.
Chute, W. L. W.	Somerset, Lord G.
Courtenay, P.	Stanley, Lord
Darby, G.	Wyndham, W.
Dunbar, G.
Estcourt, T.	TELLERS.
Freshfield, J. W.	Fremantle, Sir T.
Gladstone, W. E.	Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Clause read a second and third time, and added to the bill.

Sir R. Inglis

said, he regarded the bill as the destruction of the cathedral system; he would therefore propose a clause which would continue the framework of that system as now existing, in number, title, and dignity, leaving the property at the mercy of the noble Lord opposite. He moved the following clause:— And whereas it is expedient, that the several establishments of the cathedral and collegiate churches of England and Wales should be maintained in their integrity, so far as relates to the number of members composing the said several establishments, and also so far as relates to the maintenance of the several colleges or corporations of minor canons and vicars choral of the said cathedral or collegiate churches; be it enacted, that nothing herein contained shall prevent any patron or patrons from collating any person duly qualified to any office, prebend, or dignity in any cathedral or collegiate church; provided always, that the estate, hereditaments, income, and emoluments, now by law invested in every such office, prebend, or dignity, shall go and be applied in manner according to the provisions of the present bill, any thing herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding. He hoped, that his motion would not be opposed. The object which was had in view was to enable patrons to collate persons to dignities with a view to their enjoying a rank to which their exertions entitled them. In many instances the amount of emolument was merely nominal; and as the real object was the conferring of rank, to which it was natural that persons in all professions should look, he conceived that no well-founded objection could be made to the clause.

Clause read a first time.

On the question that it be read a second time,

Lord John Russell

thought that the clause was inconsistent with the general provisions of the bill. He could not think that it was at all desirable that the number of church dignitaries should be kept up, and he could not but imagine that the conferring of rank, without being accompanied by some emoluments, would not be so desirable as the hon. Baronet seemed to suppose. He should, therefore, oppose the motion.

Mr. Goulburn

expressed his intention to vote against the motion. The effect of the clause would be to strike out three-fourths of the bill; and however much he might concur in its principle, he could not consent to its adoption at this late stage of the measure.

Mr. Acland

said, he should support the clause moved by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, notwithstanding the inconsistency pointed out by his right hon. Friend. He would vote for it, not for the sake of offering pecuniary rewards to able young men, but to maintain these spiritual offices in the Church.

The House divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 55: Majority 40.

List of the AYES.
Acland, Sir T. D.	Pakington, J. S.
Baker, E.	Palmer, G.
Broadley, H.	Perceval, Colonel
Buller, Sir J. Y.	Pusey, P.
Darby, G.	Teignmouth, Lord
Estcourt, T.	Wyndham, W.
Freshfield, J. W.	TELLERS.
Gladstone, W. E.	Acland, T. D.
Grimsditch, T.	Inglis, rt. hn. Sir R.H.

List of the NOES.
Aglionby, H. A.	Morrison, J.
Baldwin, C. B.	O'Ferrall, R. M.
Baring, rt. hn. F. T.	Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.
Barnard, E. G.	Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.
Bernal, R.	Pendarves, E. W. W.
Blair, J.	Phillpotts, J.
Bridgeman, H.	Ponsonby, C. F. A. C.
Buller, C.	Russell, Lord J.
Childers, J.W.	Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.
Clay, W.	Salwey, Colonel
Dalmeny, Lord	Scrope, G. P.
Ellis, W.	Sheil, rt. hn. R. L.
Ferguson, Sir R. A.	Slaney, R. A.
Finch, F.	Somers, J. P.
Fremantle, Sir T.	Style, Sir C.
Gordon, R.	Thornely, T.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H	Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J	Tufnell, H.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.	Vernon, G. H.
Harcourt, G. G.	Vigors, N.A.
Hobhouse, T. B.	Villiers, hon. C. P.
Hodges, T. L.	Williams, W.
Horsman, E.	Wood, G. W.
Hume, J.	Wood, Colonel T.
Huraphery, J.	Wood, B.
Kemble, H.	Wyse, T.
Lushington, rt. hn. S	TELLERS.
Morpeth, Viscount	Manle, hon. F.
Morris, D.	Stanley, hon. E. J.

Clause rejected.

Mr. T. Acland

proposed a proviso to the 63d clause, reserving the existing rights as regarded deans.

Lord J. Russell

replied, that ample reasons had been stated in the 4th report of the commissioners, presented in the year 1836, why the amendment of the hon. Gentleman should not be adopted.

The House divided:—Ayes 8; Noes 76: Majority 68.

List of the AYES.
Acland, Sir T. D.	Perceval Colonel
Arbuthnott, hon. H.	Wyndham, W.
Eliot, Lord
Freshfield, J. W.	TELLERS.
Pakington, J. S.	Inglis, rt. hn. Sir R.H.
Palmer, G.	Acland, T. D.

List of the NOES.
Adam, Admiral	Lushington, rt. hn. S.
Aglionby, H. A.	Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.
Baines, E.	Morris, D.
Baldwin, C. B.	Morrison, J.
Baring, rt. hn. F. B.	Norreys, Sir D.
Barnard, E. G.	O'Ferrall, R. M.
Barry, G. S.	Palmer, R.
Bernal, R.	Parker, J.
Blair, J.	Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.
Bridgeman, H.	Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.
Briscoe, J. A.	Pendarves, E. W. W.
Broadley, H.	Price, Sir R.
Childers, J. W.	Protheroe, E.
Clay, W.	Russell, Lord J.
Currie, R.	Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.
Denison, W, J.	Salwey, Col.
Duke, Sir J.	Sanford, E. A.
Evans, G.	Scholefield, J.
Ferguson, Sir R.	Scrope, G. P.
Finch, F.	Seale, Sir J. H.
Freemantle, Sir T.	Sheil, rt. hn. R. L.
Gordon, R.	Smith, R.V.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.	Somers, J. P.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.	Stock, Dr.
Grey, rt. hn. Sir C.	Style, Sir C.
Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.	Thompson, Ald.
Grimsditch, T.	Thornley, T.
Harcourt, G. G.	Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Hastie, A.	Tufnell, H.
Hawes, B.	Verney, Sir H.
Hindley, C.	Vernon, G. H.
Hobhouse, r. h. Sir. J.	Warburton, H.
Hobhouse, T. B.	Williams, W.
Hodges, T. L.	Wood, G. W.
Hodgson, R.	Wood, B.
Hume, J.	Wyse, T.
Hutton, R.
Kemble, H.	TELLERS.
Loch, J.	Stanley, hon. E. J.
Lushington, C.	Maule, hon. F.

Proviso rejected.

Bill passed.