ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION, &c, BILL—COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 25 July 1860)

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, he thought it right to state that the advanced period of the Session precluding any lengthened discussion on principles of wide extent that were likely to cause much controversy, he was prepared to withdraw those clauses of this measure which compelled the transfer of the property of a Chapter to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The clauses in question were Clauses 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 17, 18, 19, and 36. He would now move that the Speaker leave the Chair.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, he was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to omit the whole class of clauses to which he had alluded, which had provoked the strongest opposition; but he must appeal to him further to lighten the Bill, so as to give it some chance of becoming law this Session. It would be recollected that during the animated debate on the second reading of the measure there was one unanimous declaration, made by hon. Gentlemen representing every section of the House, that they had no confidence in the management of the Ecclesiastical Commission. He was not arguing whether this jealousy was well or ill-founded, but of the fact of its existence there could be no doubt; and he defied any one to look at the provisions of this Bill without seeing that it was an elaborate attempt to augment and perpetuate the powers of this obnoxious and distrusted Commission. The right hon. Gentleman had, therefore, exercised a wise discretion in abandoning an entire series of clauses to which the greatest possible objection would certainly have been taken. But on his own principle the right hon. Gentleman would do well to go further and strike out of the measure all those clauses which had for their direct tendency and effect the perpetuation of the Ecclesiastical Commission itself, and the enormous increase of its powers of interference. The right hon. Gentleman had given a schedule of the provisions which he intended to excise; but the clauses to which equal objection could be taken began with Clause 5, of which he intended to move the rejection, and which would bring about the interference of the Commission on every avoid- 153 ance of every See in England and Wales. The effect of Clause 13 was to place the whole mining and building leases of all the Episcopal and Chapter lands in the kingdom under these Commissioners. Clause 14 also gave them the right of incessant interference with every Bishop's estate in the country to the end of time. Clause 15 handed over to the Commissioners the entire management and arrangement of what were called permanent improvements on all Bishop's and Chapters' lands. All the foregoing provisions culminated in Clause 16, which disclosed what he took to he the real object of the Bill. It suggested to Bishops, Deans, and Chapters that they should hand over bodily the management of all the episcopal and capitular estates in the country to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. His objection to all these provisions was that they were intended to bring the interference of that Commission into every relation connected with episcopal and capitular estates, and that the unfortunate Bishops, Deans, and Chapters would be so worried and bullied as to be obliged to take refuge, in pure self-defence, in the 16th Clause. The result of this would be that, ultimately, the entire Church property of the kingdom, with the single exception of the livings—an exception which would, probably, by-and-by, be also attempted to be removed—would be placed in the exclusive management of this centralized Commission sitting in Whitehall Place. He, therefore, suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that a question so vast, and which would give rise to so much controversy, ought not to be discussed on the 25th of July, and in so thin a House. Should the right hon. Gentleman, however, seek to force on these clauses, having, as he believed, that one object in view, it would be his duty to take the part permitted to every hon. Gentleman in Committee, and to oppose their adoption with the whole strength which he could bring to bear against them. He, therefore, gave the right hon. Gentleman due notice that if he persevered with these obnoxious provisions at a period of the Session when it was impossible they could be fairly and impartially discussed, he must endeavour to resist the progress of the measure at every stage.

§ MR. ALDERMAN COPELAND
thought the best course would be to withdraw the Bill altogether. The expense of the Commission was enormous compared with the extent of the funds they administered. In 154 1853, the augmentations of livings and archdeaconries amounted to £85,000; in 1854, £86,000; 1855, £87,000; 1856, £87,000; 1857, £87,000; 1858, nearly £87,000; 1859, £89,000. The expenses in one branch of the account for architects and surveyors were in 1853, £6,600; in 1854, £6,900; 1855, £7,800; 1856, £8,950; 1857, £9,749; 1858, £12,171; 1859, £13,360. But then came other charges in another branch of the account, composed of surveyors and architects, legal expenses, and staff. The expenses of surveyors and architects for 1853, in this account, were £5,467; the legal expenses, £4,280—making together, upwards of £9,700. In 1854, surveyors, &c, £5,500; legal expenses, £5,296. In 1855, surveyors, &c, £6,294; legal expenses, £7,050. In 1856, surveyors, £6,300; legal expenses, £6,109. In 1857, surveyors, £9,100; legal expenses, £8,760. In 1858, surveyors, £10,230; legal expenses £10,177; and, in 1859, surveyors, £9,390; legal expenses, £11,269. So that, in fact, the disbursing of £810,000 cost £171,000. Anything more unsatisfactory than the slate of the accounts could not be imagined. They had not even been audited for three years. He had also to complain that during this discussion the Commission had raised the salary of the Secretary £200 a year, and he was informed that the clerks had been raised in a corresponding manner.

§ MR. EDWIN JAMES
hoped the Government—although they were naturally anxious to pass one Bill this year—would withdraw this Bill. A petition which had been presented to the House stated that in the populous parish of St. Panoras, where the Secretary to the Commission declared in his evidence before the House of Lords that the spiritual destitution was an opprobrium to the country, the rector, by a public subscription, had a temporary place of worship provided for those left without spiritual care. He applied to the Ecclesiastical Commission, who subscribed a sum of £30. He (Mr. Edwin James) understood that since then the property in that parish had been sold by the Ecclesiastical Commission to the railway company for a sum of £46,000. Now the effect of the present Bill would be that that money would be expended for ecclesiastical purposes away from that district.

§ MR. MOWBRAY
hoped the House would at once go into Committee on the Bill. Clauses might be inserted which 155 would provide for the recognition of local claims, which the existing law did not permit, and the Bill might he made effective for many of the purposes of the Church.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, nothing could be more unsatisfactory and grossly unjust than the manner in which the Metropolis had been dealt with. To apply the proceeds of Church property in the Metropolis to the augmentation of livings in the country was most unjust. The object of going into Committee was to remedy those abuses, and unless the House went into Committee, he did not see how any redress could possibly be obtained for them.

§ MR. FREELAND
said, he regretted that the Home Secretary had not consented to adopt that course which he (Mr. Free-land) had ventured to recommend. He had suggested that there should be a preliminary meeting between the Home Secretary and those Members who had given notices of Amendments, with a view to shorten the discussion of matters of detail in Committee. He had known that course followed with advantage in other cases, and thought it should have been adopted in the present instance. Although his Amendments were somewhat numerous, he had framed them not obstructively but with a sincere desire to improve the Bill. He should do his best to aid in the accomplishment of that object, and hoped that the House would go at once into Committee.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, that one of the objects of the Bill was to remedy the very evils which had been pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners had been very severely attacked. It was, no doubt, very easy to array figures and make heavy charges; but the House ought to remember what had been the practical effect of the operations of the Commissioners during the last twenty-five years. He defied any one to say that the expense of managing episcopal estates, under the Commissioners, was greater than it was before; and he would remind the House that the very effect of the creation of the Commission had so improved the tenure of Church property, and so diminished the expense of its administration, that no less a sum than £700,000 had been secured for the Common Fund. The Bill, which had resulted from the labours of a Select Committee on which some of the most eminent Members of the House served, had four principal objects. The first was that fixed 156 incomes, regulated and settled by Parliament, should be secured to the Bishops, and that as soon as the tenure was converted from an objectionable into a good tenure, estates should be restored to the episcopal Sees, equivalent to such fixed incomes. Secondly, the Bill would place capitular estates on the same footing as episcopal estates, securing to the capitular bodies the full amount of income from those estates to which, by the decision of Parliament, they were entitled. Two or three of those bodies had taken alarm and pressed for the omission of the clauses effecting that object. He would not oppose their wishes, but he warned them that they could not do anything worse for themselves or the Church than Hoy succeeding in getting the' clauses left out of the Bill. The third object was to extend what was called the local claim clause, to which the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone had adverted. Church property might be divided into two parts; one derived from tithes, the other from property of a different description. The Legislature had determined, in the first instance, that local claims should be recognized in the case of tithes, because they were given for the spiritual wants of the locality from which they were derived, and that was the law at the present moment. These clauses enabled the Commissioners, in the distribution of Church funds, to pay more attention to the claims of those localities in which the property from which those funds arose was situated than they were able to do under the existing law. The hon. and learned Member for Finsbury complained that the money paid by Finsbury for prebendal stalls at St. Paul's was not applied for the benefit of that district; and his answer to him was, that the present Bill did extend the application of property derived from local sources. He had been always in favour of attention to local claims, but it should be carried out with the greatest circumspection and caution, and without forgetting the great object of the Commission, which was to provide generally for the spiritual destitution of the country. If they once admitted the principle of local claims, they must give a discretionary power to the Commissioners as to the application of the surplus property. The fourth object was that which the hon. Member for Shields (Mr. Ingham) had always been so anxious to effect, namely, to adopt the recommendation of the Committee by means of which 157 the leases of Church property were to be dealt with by the Commission. Already the Commissioners had boâ fide carried out that recommendation, but they ought to have an Act of Parliament to justify them in the course they had taken. Those were the great objects of the Bill, and he trusted that so useful a piece of legislation would not be delayed on the ground that further inquiry was necessary. But for the Commission, the £100,000 a year now received by the poorer incumbents would have gone into the hands of less active members of the Church: how then could it be said that the Commission had not worked well. He asked the House to continue that process first proposed by Sir Robert Peel, and since approved of by every Minister who had applied his mind to the subject, and which had produced beneficial results for the Church and the whole community far greater than could have been obtained in any other way. He did not deny that the Ecclesiastical Commission, like every other public body, had made errors and mistakes; but it must be admitted, on a retrospect of the whole of its operations, that it had conferred immense advantages on the country, and he was desirous of going into Committee in order that those advantages might be made oven greater.

§ MR. INGHAM
reminded the House that in calculating the cost of the Commission, it should be borne in mind that the sum of £700,000 received by the Commission by no means represented the value of the property, the surveying and other expenses attendant on the transfer of which amounted to £171,000. The whole value of the property surveyed amounted to about nine millions of money.

§ MR. T. S. DUNCOMBE
said, he very much regretted that the worthy Alderman (Alderman Copeland) had not concluded his observations by moving an Amendment to the Motion that the Speaker do leave the chair; for if he had, he should certainly have supported him. This was just the period of the Session that the greatest jobs were shoved through the House. When they came down that morning they found there were upon the paper between fifty and sixty proposed Amendments to the Bill, and the Secretary of State for the Home Department had just told them that he had been so fortunate as to arrange all those with the Gentlemen who had given notice of them. That was a very suspicious circumstance. He should like to 158 know how Amendments, the discussion of which would under ordinary circumstances have extended over two months, had been got rid of in such a silent manner. But the Bill would go up to the Lords within forty-eight hours, where it would, no doubt, be received by acclamation, especially by the bench of Bishops; but he doubted whether it would be equally acceptable to the people at large. By whom was the Bill now supported? By the two Members for Durham—a city which perfectly understood ecclesiastical matters, particularly those relating to stipends and money—and the hon. and learned Member for Shields (Mr. Ingham), who might be called an impersonation of lesseeship. He thought it would be much better if the £120,000 a year which was absorbed by the clerks belonging to the Commission, was distributed among clerks of another description, of whom they had heard so much—poor incumbents doing the hard work of the Church. He could not understand why the Bill should not be postponed until next Session, with a view to an inquiry being instituted. The House was indebted to the worthy Alderman for calling attention to the subject, and he thought he would have done well if he had moved that the House should go into Committee upon the Bill that day three months.

§ MR. LIDDELL
wished the House to go into Committee on this Bill, which for the first time recognized the local claims, and which would provide spiritual aid for such places as Clerkenwell and Marylebone, the present position of which he deeply deplored.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
expressed a hope that the noble Lord the Member for Leicestershire (Lord John Manners), notwithstanding the threat he had made, would not resort to any unusual means to prevent the clause passing. He did not wish to force the conscientious convictions of hon. Members, and he would, therefore, readily acquiesce in the decision of the Committee upon the clause after they had heard the reason on both sides. The clause provided, that upon the avoidance of any See, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should adapt the landed estate attached to it, whether by way of increase or reduction, to the amount of the fixed income allotted by 159 law to the Bishop. The estate would not be interfered with during the lifetime of any Prelate; but upon the occurrence of a vacancy, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would reduce or increase the property, as the case might be, to the amount of the fixed income. A fairer or more reasonable arrangement he could not conceive, and he trusted the Committee would be inclined to retain the clause, which, however, he did not consider to be absolutely necessary either to the existing system or to the operation of the present Bill.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
moved the omission of the clause. The Committee had already decided that the Bishops should be endowed with a landed estate. Now he could not at all understand such a course of proceeding as first to vest an estate in a Bishop, and then when he had succeeded by good management, extending over a series of years, in increasing his income by five or ten per cent, to introduce the cumbrous machinery of a central board in London for the purpose of investigating that management and cutting up the estate, so as to reduce the income to a fixed sum. He apprehended that the result of this and the two subsequent clauses would be disastrous in the extreme. If a Bishop improved his estate, he would undergo a post-mortem scarification, and his memory would be loaded with imputations of rapacity; while, on the other hand, if he took no pains to increase the value of the property, he would be called after his death a slothful and negligent steward of the patrimony of the Church. He believed, however, that the practical effect of the clause would be to reduce all Bishops to take advantage of the 16th Clause, and hand over at once the entire management of their estates to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. That was the practical result of the three clauses to which he had adverted, and he entertained no doubt that was the real object with which they were introduced. It was impossible to understand why the common incidents of landed property should not be enjoyed by the holders of Sees to which landed estates were attached, or why the Ecclesiastical Commission, with its large and costly staff of clerks, lawyers, surveyors, engineers, and architects, should get a perpetual lease of power, patronage and salaries. Year after year there was an increased indisposition on the part of the House of Commons to pass Votes for the maintenance of the Ecclesiastical Commis- 160 sion, and before long the whole charge would be placed upon the funds of the Church, when the money which ought to be appropriated to the augmentation of small livings would be used to perpetuate the Commission after its real objects had been attained. The proposition under discussion was directly in the teeth of the deliberate judgment of the Select Committee of 1856, and the inconvenience, expense, and disadvantages of it were obvious. He trusted, therefore, it would be rejected.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to the clause, and would not be induced to abandon it. He was no friend of the Ecclesiastical Commission. It was a very expensive Commission, and deserved a great deal of the censure which had been cast upon it; but the noble Lord seemed to think that he was dealing with the mediaeval clergy, who were bound by the law of celibacy, and would, therefore, administer the Church estates for the sole purpose of advancing the interests of religion. But recent history had shown that the Bishops had spent the income of their Sees for the benefit of their families, in amassing colossal fortunes, and in founding peerages. He hoped, therefore, that power would be retained to readjust the income of every See the revenues of which, from accidental circumstances, had become larger than were necessary for the maintenance of the Bishop. There might be some reason for allowing a prelate to enjoy the improved value of his See during his lifetime; but could any dependence ever be placed upon the good intentions of dignitaries whose constant practice had been to take large fines, and thus enrich themselves by impoverishing the Church in futurity? He hoped that the House would not consent to part with the Bill without reserving the power of review which would be retained by this clause; for if they did not take care they would have the dignitaries of the Church becoming a mere supplement to the peerage.

§ MR. MOWBRAY
said, the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets were applicable, not to the present day, but to a state of things which had ceased to exist. According to the Bill, the estates of the Bishops were to be leased for twenty-one years at the highest rack rent which could be got; no premiums or fines were to be taken; and the estates themselves were such as not to admit of any great increase of value for a 161 considerable period. Considering, however, that the 5th Clause would perpetuate the existence and increase the power of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; that it was condemned by the Committee of 1856; and that, as stated by the Home Secretary himself, it was not necessary for the good working of the Bill, he hoped it would be expunged.

§ MR. DEEDES
said, that though he did rot attach much importance to the clause, yet he could not vote with the noble Lord for its rejection, as he thought it might as well remain in the Bill. He repudiated the statement of the noble Lord that there was a desire on the part of the Commissioners to get the management of the property which was assigned to the Bishops. At the same time, if the Bishops desired it, the Commissioners were ready to take the management of the property, as they had done in reference to the See of Durham, at the instance of the right rev-Prelate who now occupied that See.

§ SIR JAMES GRAHAM
said, that Clauses 14 and 15 afforded ample security against episcopal property in the hands of a Bishop holding the property for life being exhausted for the purpose of increasing the income of the life-tenant; and likewise provided for the improvement of the property, and the re-payment with interest of the money advanced for that purpose: and for these reasons he had voted against Clause 16, when it was discussed in the Select Committee. He thought that it was generally acknowledged that the Bishops should not be mere stipendiaries, but owners of landed property. There had been, undoubtedly, in the enjoyment of this species of property flagrant abuses; but against their recurrence ample legislative precautions were now taken. He did not think there was much prospect of any great increase in the value of ecclesiastical property within short periods; but he would suggest that the clause, instead of making it compulsory on the Commissioners to revise, on the avoidance of any See, the arrangement made in relation to the endowment, should convey to them a discretionary power, which might be used in the event of a great increase in the value of the property.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
was rather inclined to think that unless this clause was retained, there would be no power at any time to change the disposition of the estates; though a great increase or decrease in the value of a particular property might 162 arise. The present clause provided that, if the income should be found to be either above or below the settled amount, then that measures must be taken to reduce or increase it. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) in thinking the clause, as it stood at present, too stringent and mandatory; and, therefore, he proposed to amend it by substituting for the words "an arrangement shall be made," &c, the words "the Commissioners may, if they think fit, make an arrangement," &c.

§ SIR JAMES GRAHAM
said, the word "may" had in some cases been held to be mandatory; but he had no objection to it if the words "if they think fit," were also introduced.

MR. RIDLEY
said, he was not satisfied that the words proposed would be sufficient; because the clause, as it stood, was the necessary supplement of Clause 3. That clause gave the Bishop a statutory income; and the present clause was therefore essential to secure that income at the amount at which it was fixed. The clause was not entirely against the Bishops; it was, in reality, quite as much in their favour.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, that all he wanted was to put the Bishops on the same footing as other landed proprietors as respected the fluctuations in the value of landed property. If the Committee agreed to the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, the Foreign Secretary (Lord John Russell), or the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlisle, he (Lord John Manners) would not press his Amendment for the omission of the clause.

§ MR. AYRTON
suggested that the words should be, "may, if they think just and necessary."

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, the expression proposed by his noble Friend was the usual one; and, indeed, he doubted whether even the words "if they think fit" were necessary.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
observed that this was the first of the clauses relating to Chapters, which he proposed to omit; not that he entertained any doubt of their propriety or expediency; for he believed that 163 the Church, in the aggregate, would benefit by them, but because it might be thought inconvenient, at the present period of the Session, to discuss them.

§ MR. FREELAND
proposed an Amendment to prevent any reservation of Game being inserted in Ecclesiastical Leases. He made the proposal, he said, in accordance with the recommendation of the Episcopal and Capitular Revenues Commissioners in 1850. He had no wish unduly to restrict the rights and privileges of Ecclesiastical persons, but Came questions were questions with which it was essential to their spiritual efficiency that they should not be mixed up.

§ MR. WALTER
trusted the Committee would pause before agreeing to the Amendment just proposed. He was no great advocate of game preserving, but if no power of reserving the game were given to the landlord in this ease, the tenant might sublet, and if the property were in the neighbourhood of London, bring persons of a not very creditable kind upon the estate. He did not see why the Bishops, as landowners, should he deprived of the powers which belonged to all other owners of landed property.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, that if the Bishop was allowed to make leases he must be regarded during his incumbency as having the ordinary rights of a landlord; and the proposed Amendment savoured of petty legislation. Though Bishops might not be addicted to sporting, they might have sons or friends fond of it.

§ LORD HARRY VANE
hoped that his hon. Friend would not persevere with his Amendment, for he conceived that the objection urged to it by the hon. Member for Berkshire was perfectly valid.

§ MR. FREELAND
said, he thought that the Commissioners were right in 1850, and that he was right now, but as he perceived that the feeling of the Committee was opposed to his Amendment he would ask leave to withdraw it.

MR. RIDLEY
proposed an Amendment 164 to leave out the words "and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners may advance out of the common fund," and to substitute words empowering the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty to advance the money instead. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners made it a rule to increase small livings by gifts of capital sums, and not by annual grants; but if they were to make advances to Bishops out of the Common Fund, it was evident that the grants in the way of capital to increase small livings must be greatly diminished. Various benefactors had offered to assist in the augmentation of small livings, if the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would advance equal sums with them; but the Commissioners had been obliged to refuse, because they had not the means in their possession; and the words in the clause to which he objected would increase the difficulty under which they laboured.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, it was not the case that the Common Fund would suffer by these loans, and if the loans were to be made the mode proposed by the clause was the simplest and most economical way of making them. It might be the fact that Queen Anne's Bounty was sufficiently rich to make the advances; but if they were made from that source, it would be necessary to have a set of surveyors and inspectors distinct from the Ecclesiastical Commission. There would be a great addition of trouble and expense, and he did not see any advantage, but the reverse, in the Amendment.

§ MR. LIDDELL
conceived that the clause as it stood was at variance with the whole principle of the Common Fund, which was to make provision for the spiritual destitution of populous places.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, that the effect of the clause was simply this, that out of the large funds which the Commissioners had got, consisting partly of property coming from episcopal and capitular estates, those Commissioners would be enabled, instead of driving the owners of Sees into the market to borrow money elsewhere, to lend the money, for which they would get interest, on the security of the estates. The income of the Ecclesiastical Commission would not be diminished by this process.

MR. HENLEY
said, he thought some inconvenience would result unless a provision were made that the leases should be granted for periods co-extensive with that in which the borrowed money was to be 165 repaid. In fact, unless this were done the estates in many eases would not be improved at all.

§ LORD HARRY VANE
recommended his hon. Friend (Mr. Ridley) to withdraw his Amendment, as the opinion of the Committee appeared to be adverse to it, and as there did not seeem to be any danger of the object he had in view being lost sight of.

MR. RIDLEY
said, he had heard nothing to induce him to withdraw his Amendment, which he thought a most reasonable one.

§ MR. AYRTON
pointed out that the Commissioners would always have at their command a considerable sum of money, and they might just as well invest it in the improvement of the Church estates as in the funds.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
regretted exceedingly that all these clauses were not postponed until another Session. He was convinced that it was impossible to hope now for satisfactory legislation upon the points which they comprised. If the Amendment were pressed to a division he should feel inclined to support it, as inconvenience might arise if the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were locked up in the way proposed by this clause.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said the arrangement proposed had been recommended by a Committee of the House, and if there was to be any such power this was the proper way of creating it. Of course, if it were thought that the Bishops ought not to borrow money for permanent improvements, the clause ought not to pass; but otherwise the plan proposed was the right plan, instead of a loan from Queen Anne's Bounty. As to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley), the arrangement made in the case of permanent improvements would be such that all parties could protect themselves, and he did not see that any other precaution was needed.

MR. RIDLEY
said, that seeing that he should not receive any considerable amount of support from the Committee, he would not trouble them to divide.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
opposed the clause, which would perpetuate the interference of the Ecclesiastical Commis- 166 sioners in the most objectionable manner from one end of the kingdom to the other. If all the episcopal property in the country were managed by a Commission sitting in Whitehall, which would be the necessary effect of this proposal, was such an arrangement likely to be satisfactory in the localities where this property was situate? In a social point of view, and having regard to those charitable interests which ought not to be lost sight of on this occasion, the management of this property in London would not be so desirable as if it were left in the hands of the Bishop. The hon. Member for East Kent (Mr. Deedes) had said that the Commissioners did not want to manage these estates. Then why not expunge the clause from the Bill? Again, it had been stated to-day that one Bishop had availed himself of the power which he already possessed, and had handed over his estates to the Commissioners. If that were so, and the Bishops had this power at present, that clause could not be wanted. As the Home Secretary had already withdrawn that "portion" of the measure which referred to Deans and Chapters, he hoped he would also withdraw this proposal. If not, it would be thrown in the teeth of the House next Session, when the question of the Deans and Chapters came to be considered, that the Legislature had already sanctioned the principle in connection with episcopal estates, and that it was too late to object to its application in the case of capitular estates. He moved the omission of the clause.

§ MR. FREELAND
had the [strongest possible objection to this clause. It would tend to annihilate the local management of these estates, and to vest the management of them in one or two great London Arms, to the detriment of all the local lawyers and surveyors. He hoped that the noble Lord would divide the Committee on this clause, and should have great pleasure in going into the lobby with him.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, the clause was a permissive one, and merely enabled the Estates Committee to undertake the management of episcopal estates if the Bishop were not minded to become a manager of landed property—for example, if he were promoted to his See at an advanced period of life, or if his previous habits rendered him unwilling to take upon himself this laborious duty. If, therefore, the Bishop were disposed to employ the Ecclesiastica Commissioners in the man- 167 agement of his estates, he remaining in possession of them, there could be no reason why this power should not be expressly-conferred, although it appeared to exist under the present law. There was therefore no peculiar danger to the interests of local lawyers and surveyors. No sufficient case had been made out against the clause. The noble Lord appeared to think that he was doing an acceptable service to the Bishops in objecting to it, and that he was representing their opinions on this occasion; but he was really ipsis Hibernis Hibernior—he was more prelatical than the very Bishops, for, unless he (Sir George Lewis) was greatly deceived, the clause was not objected to by any portion of the right rev. Bench.

§ MR. MOWBRAY
said, this was another instance of a clause adopted at the instance of Whitehall-place against the distinct recommendation of a Parliamentary Committee. In the Committee of 1856 two divisions took place on this question. It was decided first, by a majority of nine to five, that the management of the estates should remain in the hands of the Bishops; and next day, it having been proposed that in case any Bishop should decline the management the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should be at liberty to undertake it, the Motion was negatived by six to three. It was quite clear now that no legislation was necessary; If Bishops were desirous of putting the management of their estates into the hands of the Commissioners let them do so as individuals, by private arrangement; but he hoped the House would adhere to a decision which had been pronounced by the Committee after much consideration and discussion.

§ MR. INGHAM
supported the clause on the ground that many Bishops might think it undesirable that their time should be engrossed by the duties of managing their estates.

§ MR. WALTER
said, that if the House rejected this clause it would reject the most valuable provision in the whole Bill. He could conceive no greater boon to landowners generally than the option of doing that which the Bishops were now to be permitted to do. Many Bishops, if even they felt disposed to manage their own estates when they were first appointed, might, as they grew older, find their Spiritual duties quite sufficient to engross their attention, and might then wish to be released from this secular charge. Indeed, he should be very much disposed to judge 168 of the widom of the Episcopal Bench by their readiness to avail themselves of the power given by this clause. Let the Committee consider the course which had been taken with regard to the whole question. "When the Ecclesiastical Commission first took possession of the property of the Church, and very properly, as he thought, determined to limit their incomes to a fixed sum, they adopted the worst possible machinery for effecting their object. Instead of themselves becoming trustees for the Church, they made the Bishops trustees for them in respect of their estates, and gave them every possible temptation to abuse that trust, by requiring them to hand over a fixed sum to the Commissioners, and allowing them to pocket the rest. Now, however, for the first time, the common-sense principle was to be adopted, and the relations between the Commissioners and the Bishops would be placed on a proper footing. In his opinion, the logical conclusion was, that the Ecclesiastical Commission should manage the episcopal estates, and secure to the Bishops a fixed income, instead of allowing them to continue this laborious and troublesome superintendence. The clause now before the Committee would furnish the means of accomplishing this object, and, if it should be found that the Bishops were generally willing to avail themselves of such a pro vision, he thought it would become Parliament to consider whether the interests of the Church would not be best served by giving the Bishops fixed salaries, with out the trouble of managing these estates, instead of allowing them to continue in the somewhat ambiguous position of great landed proprietors.

§ MR. BRISCOE
said, he had not heard a single objection to this clause upon its merits, and reminded the Committee that if these estates were placed in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, those gentlemen would be responsible to this House for their management of the property.

§ SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE
said, that his noble Friend (Lord John Manners) was fighting in this matter, not the cause of the Bishops but the cause of the public. If the estates of Bishops were placed in the hands of this Commission, which the clause intended, it would place in the hands of a corporation in London, which had no favour in the eyes of the public, the management of a large portion of the lands of the country. It was clearly for 169 the interest of the public that this should be resisted.

§ MR. DEEDES
said, he was willing to admit that if the clause were compulsory, there might be much in the objections which had been urged against it; but, inasmuch as it was open to any Bishop or Archbishop to avail himself of it or not, as he thought proper, it was difficult to account for this opposition. He repeated that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners did not want the management of these estates, and if every member of the Episcopal Bench were to administer his own estates, the Commissioners individually would be very thankful.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, that if the Ecclesiastical Commissioners did not want the clause, why did not the right hon. Gentleman agree to expunge it? He was content to rest this case on the evidence of a gentleman of practical experience, who was one of the witnesses examined before the Committee of 1856 (Mr. Baxter), and who said that, as a permanent arrangement, the keeping of great national property in the hands of a central board was fraught with the gravest possible objection; that it was always better to let the endowments of each church be in the management of its incumbent; that it was safer there from any political convulsion, and was more satisfactory in its general results, as leaving no ground of grievance on the part of the Church against the management of its revenues. There was sound philosophy in that answer.

§ MR. CAYLEY
said, his mind was not made up as to how he should vote, and, as he found the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham) four years ago voted, as a Member of a Committee, against the principle upon which the present clause was founded, he would be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would give the Committee his opinions now.

§ SIR JAMES GRAHAM
said, he was not responsible for the framing of the clause, but he would answer the appeal of the hon. Gentleman. He was quite aware of the vote which he gave four years ago, but, not being afraid of a charge of inconsistency, he should support the clause now, believing that upon the whole, after the clauses which the Committee had already sanctioned, this clause ought to be agreed to. He thought there were many reasons why, if a Bishop thought it would be more for the advantage of those over whom he held ecclesiastical authority 170 that he should devote himself entirely to his spiritual duties unembarrassed by temporal cares, he ought to have the opportunity of doing so, and therefore, and because the clause was merely permissive, he should support it.

§ MR. MOWBRAY
reminded the right hon. Baronet that he (Mr. Mowbray) had before the Committee proposed an alternative to the effect, that where a Bishop did not wish to manage his landed property, it might be vested in three lay trustees residing in the district.

§ MR. MOWBRAY
objected to the exception from local obligations of property that came into the possession of the Commissioners by purchase or exchange, and he also desired that the recognition of local claims should be made compulsory upon the Commissioners, instead of discretionary. He should move Amendments in accordance with those views.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, he could not consent to alter the exception, but he would agree to make the recognition of local claims compulsory.

§ MR. MOWBRAY
remarked that as the clause stood there was nothing to prevent the Commissioners from selling lands which were liable primarily to local claims, and with the proceeds of the sale purchasing other lands which would not be liable, and thus the locality from which the original funds came would lose the benefit of their prior claim. He should move a proviso to prevent the Commissioners from abusing that power.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he thought it was necessary both to retain the exception in the first part of the clause, and to add the proviso suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.

§ MR. MOWBRAY
was willing to take that course.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he objected to the word "places" as ambiguous. If it meant "parishes," then grievous injustice would be done to the Metropolis and other cities and towns where the parishes were not conterminous with the town or city. In London the property of the Church was generally in rich parishes, as at Bayswater 171 and Finsbury, and the effect of the clause would be that the revenue derived from the Metropolis would be expended in rural districts. In the course of a few years the revenue from property in the Metropolis would probably be about £80,000 a year, while the amount applied for the relief of spiritual destitution in the Metropolis, if continued at the present rate, would only be £10,000 a year. In common justice the remaining £70,000 ought to be applied to meet the pressing necessities of London. The Commissioners at present made grants to parishes where private subscriptions had been raised; consequently the rich parishes, which were alone able to obtain private subscriptions, had also the benefit of the ecclesiastical funds, while the poor parishes, whose inhabitants were not able to raise subscriptions, were wholly deprived of all participation in those funds. He should move, as an Amendment, that the word "places" be omitted and the words "metropolis, or any city, town, or place" be substituted.

§ MR. LIDDELL
opposed the Amendment, as the word "places" was used in other acts, and no difficulty had arisen as to its interpretation.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, the effect of the Amendment would be to defeat the primary object of the Commission, which was to distribute the funds for the benefit of the Church generally. He thought that any surplus from Church property should be applied for the benefit of those parts of the kingdom whore spiritual destitution was greatest. When it was said that the claims of the Metropolis were great, both on account of population and wealth, it ought also to be said that that wealth was bound in justice to relieve the spiritual distress in its neighbourhood.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, that wealth had increased and population had increased in the Metroplis, but the great increase of population was where there was not wealth.

§ MR. WALPOLE
thought that enormous difficulties would arise if they adopted any other definition than that laid down in the existing Act; If the proposal of the hon. Gentleman was accepted, the whole of the Metropolis would obtain exclusively the property obtained from any of its parishes, 172 and they would be bound to carry out the principle to the whole country. The property of Durham, for example, would have to go exclusively to Durham, and what would they do with Cheshire and other places where there was no available Church property, and where spiritual destitution was great? The effect would be that very soon, instead of having extensive funds for relieving spiritual destitution, they would have no funds at all, and the great objects of the Commission, which were being worked out with benefit to the country, would be crippled, if not defeated. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the funds going to rural parishes, but did he know how the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were applying the property intrusted to them at this moment? Did he not know that every grant made was given to the most populous and poorest parishes? The money did not go to rural parishes, but to the most populous and indigent places that could be found.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, the object of the clause was to extend to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners the power to deal with lands in the same way as tithes were already dealt with. There was some force in the argument drawn from the case of the Metropolis, but that would raise a number of ecclesiastical questions which it was impossible to deal with in such a measure as the present.

§ MR. EDWIN JAMES
maintained that the case of the Metropolis was exceptional. The parish, of St. Pancras contributed no less a sum than £47,000 to the Funds of the Commissioners, and his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets said this and other such sums ought to go to relieve the spiritual destitution of the Metropolis, which was greater than that of any other part of the kingdom. It was a scandal and a disgrace that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should be receiving such large sums from the Metropolis, and that the Bishop of London should be compelled to preach to persons in a stable-yard because they had no church to go to. They ought not, in such circumstances, to confine themselves to the narrow limitation of the word "parish," but should consider the whole Metropolis as a single area, and apply the funds raised within that area to the relief of spiritual destitution there.

§ MR. MOWBRAY
thought that the objects in view would be sufficiently met by the clause as it stood.

§ MR. CAYLEY
thought that the clause as it stood would not fully carry out the object for which it was framed. It would not empower the Commissioners to apply to local wants the funds they derived from particular districts. When the present Amendment was disposed of he would move the introduction of certain words to meet such cases.

§ LORD HARRY VANE
said, he thought it was a most valuable principle that they should recognize local claims; but it appeared to him that the word "place" would not afford sufficient means for giving effect to that principle. That word, in common language, had no very clearly defined meaning; and in law, it was, he believed, limited to a parish. If it were construed in that sense the clause would be defective.

§ MR. JOHN LOCKE
said, the point appeared to be, in what part of the United Kingdom souls were to be saved and spiritual destitution relieved. The question was where the greatest destitution existed; and of that there could be no doubt. There might be rich persons in Finsbury or Bayswater; but there were many parishes where there were no rich inhabitants at all; they had their places of business there, but they lived and built churches elsewhere. This was particularly true of the borough of Southwark. In many parishes the poor were actually rated for the support of the poor. And yet it was proposed to take the surplus ecclesiastical revenue of Finsbury, Pancras, and Padding-ton, and carry it off to some rural parish, while in the Metropolis it had been calculated that 50 per cent of the population had no religion at all. The funds derived from the wealthy parishes ought to be made available to meet these cases. He should support the Amendment with great pleasure.

§ MR. AYRTON
called on the Secretary for the Home Department to state what was the meaning of the word "place" in the clause.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, he could not give an authoritative interpretation to the term. The word was used in the Act of 1840, and he was not aware that any objection had been taken to the interpretation usually put upon it. He did not consider that the word "place" was identical with "parish;" but that it had a more extensive signification.

§ MR. MOWBRAY
thought that if some hon. Gentleman who represented the Ec- 174 clesiastical Commissioners in that House would confirm the view now given, and which had also been expressed elsewhere, the Committee would have no difficulty in accepting the clause.

§ MR. DEEDES
said, the question was whether the Metropolis was to be considered as one "place," so that any large sums raised in the Metropolis might be appropriated to all the parishes included in it, instead of being expended elsewhere. That opened up a very wide question. If such a definition were conceded, why was it not to be extended to other places? If any such decision were arrived at, it would sap the foundations of any fund applicable to the common purposes of relieving destitution throughout the country at large. As a Commissioner, he desired to make the application of the fund to the Metropolis and other destitute places as extensive as possible; but he could not give his consent to the Metropolis being regarded as one place.

§ MR. AYRTON,
on the ground that no definition of the word "place" had been given, moved that the Chairman report progress. The Home Secretary had told them what it did not mean; but the Committee had a right to know what it really did mean before they passed a clause to the right understanding of which the true definition was essential. The word, he believed, was introduced to deceive and mislead, and that it was not wished that anybody should understand the real meaning of the clause. He saw no use in proceeding with the consideration of a clause the true meaning of which was not understood by its promoters.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
observed, that the word was the same used in the Act of 1840, and to which no objection had ever been taken. It was a term purposely vague, in order that the Commissioners might be left in the settlement of particular cases to their own discretion and to the dictates of common sense. In other parts of the Act of 1840, the term "parish" was used—a proof that the two words were not considered synonymous. He thought the clause had better remain as it was.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, that the language of spiritual destitution which satisfied the wants of any country parish would not satisfy the wants of a Metropolitan parish. One parish might have in it nothing but the Bank of England, and a dock might exactly occupy the whole of another parish. 175 It would be very hard if the population J that created all this wealth received no advantage from the revenue. The income which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would derive from the increase of rents and population in the Metropolis would be enormous, and he was anxious it should be applied to the spiritual destitution of the Metropolis, instead of the surplus going to increase the value of private patronage. The Government had too much governed the Metropolis with the truncheon of the policeman, and could not too soon adopt other measures for preventing and repressing crime.

§ SIR MORTON PETO
assured the Committee that the whole of the northern portion of the Metropolis looked to the present discussion with the greatest anxiety. He trusted that the Government would show some sympathy with the wishes of the Metropolis, and would consent that the funds that arose within it should be devoted to its spiritual necessities.

§ MR. EDWIN JAMES
said, he wished that the law officers of the Crown had been in their seats to explain the meaning of the word "place."

§ MR. MOWBRAY
moved, in Line 28, to leave out all after "in" to "fixed," in Line 31, and insert "possession of estates which yield an annual income greater than the income which such corporation is entitled to retain for its own purposes."

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, that the question had better be raised when any future clause respecting the property of the chapters came under consideration. At present the discussion would be premature.

§ MR. MOWBRAY
said, the Amendment was intended to meet the case of the capitular estates of Durham, which would not be subject to local claims as the clause now stood, although the House was about to recognize all local claims.