§ MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he rose to call attention to the correspondence relative to the Deanery of York recently laid upon the Table of the House, and to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what course Her Majesty's Government intend to adopt in the matter of the proposed increase of the Salary to that Deanery. From the correspondence before the House it appeared that very early in the history of the question reference had been made to the law officers of the Crown, both of the late and present Governments, as to the powers of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and the opinions both of Sir Richard Bethell and Sir FitzRoy Kelly were adverse to the course which the Commission ultimately took with regard to the salary of the Dean of York. The Estates Commissioners had given it as their decision that the salary of the Dean should be £1,000 a year; but at the Board of the Ecclesiastical Commission long and repeated discussions took place on the subject. At length the Board came to a very extraordinary resolution, in which, after stating the salaries of the*Deans of Salisbury and Wells, the income of the Dean of York was left blank. Matters were left in this singular position with a view, probably, to a compromise at some future time; but the Estates Commissioners afterwards repeated their recommendation that the salary given to the Dean of York should be £1,000 per annum. Eventually the Report of the Estates Committee was confirmed by a Resolution of the Board, and one would have thought that here the matter would have ended. But a party at the Board were not satisfied, and at the very same 1820 meeting a Motion was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) to appoint a Committee to inquire into the arrangements with regard to the deaneries of cathedral churches. This was agreed to, and was evidently an attempt to overset the Resolution of the Board. The secretary wrote to the Dean of York, mentioning the appointment of the Committee and expressing a hope on the part of the Commissioners that he would not object to a little further delay in the settlement of the question. The Committee met, and came to a resolution recommending that an application should be made to the Government to take steps to raise the salary of the Dean of York to a level with that of the other Metropolitan Deans. A deputation subsequently waited on the Secretary for the Home Department, and it appeared from a minute of the Board that they had explained to him the views of the Committee, and submitted a scheme by which it was proposed to raise the Dean's salary to £2,000. At a Board meeting held on the 1st of February last the scheme was approved, and transmitted to the Clerk of Her Majesty's Council. It was not till three months after that an answer was obtained, and it was to be observed that during all this time the law officers of the Crown never changed their views, but expressed their entire disapproval of the course that had been taken. The sanction of the Council was ultimately given to the scheme, and thus was consummated this extraordinary proceeding. He thought it was high time that some change took place in the constitution of the Ecclesiastical Commission, leaving to Bishops to deal with matters of discipline, and placing the finances of the Church in the hands of the laity. The whole facts spoke so loudly and so flagrantly of the objectionable nature of the course the Commission had taken in the matter that he did not think it right to allow the Session to close without asking how the Government came to have given it their sanction.
SIR GEORGE LEWISThe Returns on the table give all the documentary evidence bearing on this question, and if any oral explanation with regard to the proceedings of the Commissioners is further required, it is desirable that that should be afforded by some member of the Commission who is more constantly in the habit of attending the meetings of that body than any member of the Government. I attend- 1821 ed a meeting of the Ecclesiastical Commission two days ago, when this matter was discussed, and I found that there was some difference of recollection as to the events that had taken place. It will he more convenient, therefore, that I should strictly confine myself to that which has come within my own experience. My share in the matter is extremely limited, and can be easily explained. In the course of last year, and soon after the formation of the present Government, a meeting of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners was held to discuss, as was announced, the question of the stipends of the Deans, and at that meeting the noble Lord at the head of the Government, the President of the Council, and myself as ex-officio members of the Board attended. It is now more than a year since the meeting took place, and I cannot undertake to give an accurate account of the debate. But there was a proposition for the augmentation of the stipends of certain Deans, and the debate, according to the best of my recollection, turned almost entirely upon the legal question—upon the power of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to increase those stipends. The view taken by the members of the Government was that even the letter of the law was extremely doubtful, but that its spirit was clearly adverse to such a power; and that, if the increase of these stipends was contemplated, it was expedient that Parliament should be consulted. That was the line of argument adopted by the three members of the Government who were present. A division then took place; I cannot remember the precise nature of the question, but I presume it was upon the Motion recorded in this Minute. I think the question was carried by a majority of one, and that the three members of the Government voted in the minority. The next point to which I shall advert is the proceedings on the 8th of December last at a meeting which I happened to attend. The report of a previous meeting was read, and certainly I have no recollection of my taking any other part than merely assenting to the reception of the report. I do not remember concurring in it. I remember saying that if there was a recommendation that an application should be made to the Government upon a particular point, that was a resolution to which I should have no objection; but I also remarked that I must be understood as expressing no opinion upon the merits of the application. That is all that can 1822 be inferred from what passed to bear out the assertion that I assented to an increase of the salary. I was subsequently asked to receive the report adopted at the meeting at which I was present. The House will see that if I had assented to the report it would not have been necessary to have had any formal presentation to the Government. A day was appointed, and my noble Friend the President of the Council and myself were present at the Home Office when the report was received. I think the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Oxford, and Mr. Walpole presented it, and stated the grounds upon which they supported its prayer. The Lord President and myself listened to the arguments, but expressed no opinion, merely saying that the subject should receive the consideration of the Government. The House will observe that the chief portion of the report had for its object to recommend legislation upon the question of the stipends of the Deans, and what the Ecclesiastical Commissioners proposed was that a clause should be inserted in the Bill which I introduced and carried through the House this Session. I believe that I afterwards applied to Mr. Chalk, the Secretary of the Commission, to prepare a clause embodying the views of the Commissioners; but after considering that clause I did not think fit to introduce it in the Bill. With regard, therefore, to the first part of the application, the Government did not accede to it. Another part of the report related to the increase of the stipend of the Dean of York to a level with the stipends of the other Metropolitan Deaneries—that is to say, to £2,000 a year. The Commissioners prepared a scheme and sent it to the Council Office. I do not recollect that the scheme passed through the Home Office. Some examination of it took place, and it appears that the opinion of the law officers was taken by the President of the Council. I wish, however, to mention to the House that all schemes of any importance drawn up by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are transmitted to the Council Office for confirmation by Her Majesty in Council, and that the ordinary course is to ascertain whether they contain anything contrary to law—whether they come within the legal powers of the Commissioners: and in the event of the inquiry being satisfactory in that respect, they are passed, I believe, as a matter of course. It is obvious that if those schemes are not in general passed as a matter of course, the Council Office would 1823 constitute themselves, in point of fact, the Ecclesiastical Commission; that if the Council Office attempted to go into every act of the Commissioners, they would be really taking the Commissioners' power into their own hands. Therefore the practice is to consult the law officers upon any question of law, and if the law is clear they pass the scheme by an Order in Council. That is the course which the Council Office usually adopt with regard to other Government departments. For instance, the Queen in Council is empowered to close burial-grounds upon the recommendation of the Home Secretary. The Secretary of State has certain inspectors. He makes up his mind upon their report whether the burial-grounds ought to be closed or not. He transmits a recommendation to the Council Office on his own responsibility, accompanying this with a draught, and, unless there is something illegal upon the face of the order, it is made an Order in Council. The same course is necessarily adopted as a part of the ordinary routine in the case of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; and, as I said before, if it were not adopted the Council Office would really divest the Commissioners of their discretionary power, and would assume it themselves. In the present instance the opinion of the law officers was taken. They said that the legal power existed; but they also called attention to the fact that, although it was within the letter of the statute, they (bought the spirit of the Statute was against the exercise of such a power. At the time when this subject was under consideration my noble Friend the President of the Council was suffering under a severe domestic affliction. I believe that that circumstance prevented the consideration which the matter would otherwise have received, and that the officers of the department, not knowing that there was anything peculiar in the case, treated it in the ordinary course. That is the explanation I have to give. It was a special case, and ought to have been treated as a special case; and no doubt under ordinary circumstances it would have been so treated. Owing, however, to the unfortunate event to which I have adverted, the question was regarded as coming within the ordinary routine business of the Department. That is the origin of this scheme, so far as its sanction by an Order in Council is concerned. My special attention was not called to the matter until after the Council had given to the scheme the effect 1824 of law; and it did not then seem desirable that Her Majesty should be advised to rescind the order which had thus passed, even if it were in the power of the Executive Government to do so. So much for the share which the Executive Government have had in this transaction. With regard to the constitution of the Ecclesiastical Commission, and the manner in which its business is conducted, these are questions which may properly exercise the attention of Parliament in a future Session, but I think it is hardly desirable that I should proceed to discuss them on the present occasion. I understood that the object of my hon. Friend was to call attention to this particular case, and he will therefore forgive me if I go no further into the subject. I will only say that if the constitution of the Commission be examined, t think it will be found that there is no great difference between the number of ecclesiastical and of lay Commissioners. The uncertainty and the fluctuating nature of the attendance is a point of more importance. Members who attend on one day do not attend on another day; and if the matter is inquired into I think it will be found that at least as grave objections arise to the Commission on the ground of the fluctuating attendance as on the ground of the supposed preponderance of the ecclesiastical element. In the case of all those large and somewhat loosely constituted bodies the House will observe that, when certain irregularities are discovered in the working of the system, there is a tendency to make the Executive Government more responsible, and to treat them more as a department of the executive. I do not complain of that tendency, but the House must remember that whenever a Bill is introduced for the amendment of the Ecclesiastical Commission objections are raised against centralization, and it is said that all the powers are being brought into a small centre. The Government are mindful of these observations, and do not think it their duty, beyond what is strictly necessary, to interfere with the working of the Ecclesiastical Commission, which is more or less an independent body. I hope that the House will bear in mind that if they impose responsibility upon the Government they must also confer power, and that the bestowal of greater power will be a step in the direction of that centralization to which many hon. Gentlemen object. I mention these facts in order to show that the question is not so clear and decided as 1825 some hon. Members appear to think, but I do not conceive it necessary at present to enlarge further upon the subject.
§ MR. BROWN WESTHEADreminded the House that two years previously he proposed to introduce a clause into a Bill before the House that the deanery of York should be raised 1o £2,000 a year. The Bill was. however, withdrawn; and he was surprised to learn that in the course of this year the Ecclesiastical Commission had raised the salary of the Dean to that amount. His Motion had reference to a future, and not to the present Dean, whose appointment was understood to be made on the understanding that his private fortune enabled him to dispense with any increase. He was glad to see that the Dean himself stood quite clear of any application for an augmentation of his salary. Having, however, examined the question, he was quite satisfied that it was within the power of the Commission to raise the salary of the Dean to £2,000 a year. It had never been reduced by Act of Parliament. Originally it was £2,400, and a share of the revenue of the Chapter, amounting to £700 per annum, in addition, so that the late Dean received upwards of £3,000 a year. The intention of the Act of Parliament was to reduce the incomes of all deaneries then exceeding £2,000 a year to that amount, and to raise the incomes of all deaneries below £1,000 a year to the amount of £1,000. Therefore he did not think it was competent to the Commissioners (regard being had to the 52nd section of the 3 & 4 Vict., c. 113, and to the spirit of the 11th section of the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 108) to reduce the income of the Dean of York below £2,000 per annum. As to the Dean himself, he felt it his duty to say that he had acted, not only in this question but in all others, in such a way as to secure the respect and admiration of all the district. He might not be a great man, but he was undoubtedly a good man; and his liberality had gone to this extent, that every farthing of the income given to him had already been expended in and about the cathedral of York. He had subscribed £2,000 for the purpose of enabling the choir to be competently kept up, and had given £1,000 towards the restoration of the chapter house, and £1,000 for the removal of some unsightly buildings in the neighbourhood of the cathedral. He held that the Dean of York, with a magnificent house and in a wealthy county, ought not to have less than £2,000 a year; it would, in fact, be 1826 cruelty to appoint a man with less, he believed that if the matter had been brought before the House of Commons the increase would have been sanctioned at once. He regretted it was not so. He thought the Ecclesiastical Commission had acted in a very unbusinesslike manner; as old Fuller says in his history, "All Church work is slow." But he hoped the House would not visit the faults of the Commission on the Dean, who had acted throughout in the most honourable manner. He felt it due to the Dean of York to say this, who was no political supporter of his, and was never likely to be, but who had secured the respect of all in the neighbourhood of York.