COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 22 August 1860)

§ MR. VANCE,
referring to the several clauses and provisions of the Bill said, he had many objections to the measure. He considered it also a very objectionable feature that it gave to the Commissioners power to increase the income of the small livings at their pleasure, and it treated the augmentation of benefices as of the same importance as the maintenance of the fabrics of the Church. This was an innovation on the settlement that had been made, and which ought to be faithfully adhered to. But what he chiefly wished to direct the attention of the Committee to was the miserable stipends of the clerks to the Irish Ecclesiastical Commission, and the refusal of the ecclesiastical members to increase them, on the ground that many curates had less. He maintained that, as curates might become bishops, the parallel did not apply, and that the clerks were entitled to a gradual increase, according to the length of their service. The average income of first-class clerks in the public service was £374 a year; of the same class clerks in the English Ecclesiastical Commission, £350 to £500 a year; and of the same class clerks in the Irish Ecclesiastical Commission, only £J20 a year. There was the same disproportion in the other classes. He had, therefore, given notice of an Amendment which would enable their salaries to be regulated in the same way as the salaries of similar officers under the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in England.

§ Mr. CARDWELL
said, his hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Freeland) had given notice of his intention to propose 1718 Amendments which would effect changes in the constitution of the Commission materially different from those which were proposed in the Bill. He thought, however, that at so late a period of the Session the House would not be inclined to enter into a discussion on the best mode of re-organizing the Commission, and he had therefore made an arrangement with his hon. Friend that he should withdraw his plan for re-organizing the Commission, and that he (Mr. Cardwell) should propose to strike out Clauses 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8 in the Bill which he had himself introduced for a similar purpose.

§ MR. CARDWELL
said, that by the existing law the tenant of a Corporation sole in Ireland was enabled to obtain a renewal on certain terms, but not when the estate had been transferred to the Ecclesiastical Commission, which was a corporation aggregate. The 31st Clause had been intended to give the same statutory right of renewal in the latter case, but as some parties interested in it had petitioned against the change, it did not appear desirable to persist in it now.

§ MR. LEFROY
said, he thought he should fail in his duty if he opposed the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.

§ MR. VANCE
proposed a clause providing that the amount of the salaries of the secretary, treasurer, and other subordinate officer or officers should from time to time be regulated by the Lord High Treasurer, or the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, or any three or more of them.

§ MR. CARDWELL
said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persevere in his Motion, as it was intended that in parishes where Protestants were few they might be at liberty to hire other buildings for the celebration of Divine service. In that way the Commissioners would have a larger fund at their disposal for the augmentation of small livings.

COLONEL DUNNE
said, he felt satisfied that the clerks of the Commission were 1719 underpaid, but he preferred that the question should be left in the hands of the Commissioners.

§ SIR EDWARD GROGAN
strongly urged the inadequacy of the clerks' salaries, which he believed would only be remedied by this House taking the matter into their own hands. Complaints had been made to the Lord Lieutenant and the Commissioners, but entirely without success.

§ MR. CARDWELL
said, he quite admitted that the worst possible policy was to underpay their servants, but he hoped it would be left in the hands of the Commissioners.

§ MR. LEFROY
also urged that the matter should be left in the hands of the Commissioners, who, he bad no doubt, would be stimulated by this discussion.

MR. HENLEY
said, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were the most unfortunate persons in the world. A few nights ago there had been a run against the English Commissioners for paying too large salaries, and now, at the other side of the Channel, they were found fault with for underpaying their clerks. He thought it was a matter with which the House had as little to do as with the salaries of railway officials.

§ MR. FREELAND
said, that in assenting to the arrangement referred to by his right hon. Friend, that the clauses in the Bill and his (Mr. Freeland's) proposed Amendments for re-organizing the Commission should be withdrawn, he wished it to be understood that he did not thereby preclude himself from raising any questions as to the re-organization of the Commission at a future day. He wished also to state that in the proposals he had made he did not intend anything disrespectful to the Irish Prelates. He was acquainted with one of them—Dr. Knox, the Bishop of Down and Connor—and had often talked over with him matters relating to the English Ecclesiastical Commission. A more fair and impartial man he had never met. His only fear was, that if the proposals in the Bill were carried out and all the Bishops were placed on the Commission, the ecclesiastical element would unduly preponderate, and that the measure would not work satisfactorily. He then proposed the following clause, the object of which he said was to enable the Crown to appoint a second lay Commissioner without imposing the burthen of an additional salary on the funds which were now available for Church purposes. 1720 Of late years, much to the credit of several Governments, only one paid Commissioner had been appointed by the Crown, but he (Mr. Freeland) thought it important that the proportion of the lay element should be kept up, though not at the cost of an additional salary. The hon. Member then proposed the following clauses:— If after the passing of this Act Her Majesty or Her successors shall, under the powers of section two of the Act of the third and fourth years of King William the Fourth, chapter thirty-seven, appoint two Ecclesiastical Commissioners, one only of the said Commissioners shall be a paid Commissioner. The term Episcopal Commissioner, in section seven of the said Act of the third and fourth years of King William the Fourth, chapter thirty-seven, shall be held to include not only any Archbishop or Bishop acting as an Ecclesiastical Commissioner under the said Act or this Act, but also any Commissioner appointed by the said Lord Primate and Lord Archbishop of Dublin in manner in the said Act or herein provided. In any case in which the said Commissioners shall have under consideration matters specially affecting the interests or property of any Bishop, Dean, or Chapter of Ireland, such Commissioners may, if they think fit, request the attendance, at any meeting at which such matters are to be taken into consideration, of any Bishop, Dean, or member or members of a Chapter whose interests or property such matters shall or may affect, and he or they shall be at liberty to attend at any such meeting, and to assist the said Commissioners with information and advice, but shall not vote or, except as aforesaid, take any part in the proceedings of the said Commissioners— which were severally agreed to.