§ Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [31st July], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
And which Amendment was,
To leave out from the word " That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words " in the opinion of this House, it is undesirable, so long as the Episcopal Church continues to be established by law, to increase the number of Bishops,"—(Mr. Joseph Cowen,)
§ Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ Debate resumed.
§ MR. HUTCHINSON
said, he should most decidedly oppose the Bill. In the part of the country which he represented —Halifax—there was no demand for a new Bishop, and he believed it was much the same in other parts of the country. Indeed, by many persons a Bishop was regarded as a useless functionary. By one-half of the religious Press, to which clergymen principally contributed, the Bishops were regarded in that light, while by the other half they were considered to be positively mischievous. In Yorkshire the Dissenting Bodies had made provision for the spiritual wants of those whom the Church had neglected, and in some instances had assisted in the repairs of the fabrics; but their efforts in that respect received but scant recognition, and were sometimes even ignored by the clergy and dignitaries of the Established Church. At the fag-end of the Session, when there was little time to spare for important Business, the Government were pushing forward with unnecessary and almost unbecoming vehemence that measure, which hardly anybody wanted. There were many Churchmen who did not think that an increase of the Episcopate would be useful; and if any special legislation was required for the Church they should rather begin at the other end of the scale, and redress the gross 1643 injustice which was done to a section of the clergy, who were very much harder worked and very much underpaid than the Bishops. He asked whether the four dioceses which it was sought to divide by that Bill, were the only dioceses the Bishops of which were hard-worked, or whether that Bill was to be the beginning of the creation of Bishops Session after Session, which would open up by no means a cheerful prospect. The Bill was not needed for purely spiritual purposes, and still less for the sake of political influence of the Bishops. That legislation appeared to be part of the policy of making things pleasant to every interest which had been adopted by the Government ever since they had been in Office. The Established Church was to have its turn, and that Bill was presented as a kind of compensation or antidote for the Public Worship Regulation Act, which a few years ago gave considerable umbrage to certain sections of the clergy. That was a reactionary measure, because it was a piece of legislation contrary to the general drift of public opinion, which was moving in another direction than that of the connection between the Church and the State'; and with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman opposite he ventured to think that it would not be one of those measures which the country at large would approve.
said, that the remark of the hon. Member that Dissenters had subscribed towards the restoration of parish churches was quite correct, and this showed that there was no antagonism to the Church on the part of Dissenters. Especially was this the case in Yorkshire, where none had been shown to the Bishopric of "Wakefield, and very little to that of Halifax. The Bishop of Ripon was known to be a hard-working Prelate, and one who had given no offence to the Dissenting Bodies, and he desired simply to be relieved of a portion of his work. It was to effect that desired end that a sum of £20,000 had already been raised in the district for the formation of a fresh diocese. The money had been obtained by voluntary means, and the position of Church and State not being altered by the Bill, he should vote for going into Committee. He trusted hon. Members would not further oppose the Bill.
§ MR. DILLWYN
denied that there was any desire either on the part of the public generally, or Churchmen in particular, for that Bill. He himself, as a member of the Church of England, would oppose the creation of more Bishops. Of course, in all parts there were people who wanted a new Bishop, but the feeling was by no means general. There was a Low Church Party and a High Church. Party, who did not love each other much, and who had each their feelings in respect of the selection of Bishops. The public prints professing to represent the different sections of the Church gave utterance to diverse views. The Record, representing the Low Church, said Bishops were by no means popular, and that the present Bill would introduce a sacerdotal and Romanizing element into the Church. This showed that that Party were not very anxious for more Bishops. The Church Times, which represented the High Church, said the Bishops were not loved in the Church, nor respected by one party in the Church. In our day, they said, the Bishops had never laboured for the good of the Church, either in or out of Parliament. On these grounds he trusted the Government would not press the Bill at this late period of the Session. He deemed it a great mistake to suppose that the desire for more Bishops was by any means general. In the present state of dissension in the Church it surely was not wise to increase the number of the higher officers of that Establishment. It was fraught with danger to the public at large, and would not be conducive to the interests of the Church itself. He trusted, therefore, that his right hon. Friend would not pursue the Bishopric question to the bitter end, and so prolong the Session, as it would undoubtedly do.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT
said, he was surprised at the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), who considered himself a Churchman, doing everything in his power to injure the Church to which he professed to belong.
§ MR. DILLWYN
said, he had never desired to injure the Church; but the Church itself, and the connection between Church and State, were two very different things.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT
said, he was not quite sure that a man who proceeded on the lines which the hon. 1645 Gentleman followed was not doing what in him lay to injure the Church in the great work which it was doing in this country. As for himself, he had opposed the Bill of the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope), because he thought that so long as there was a connection between Church and State, which he hoped would long continue, any Bill affecting the Church should be brought in by a Minister of the Crown. He was not himself in favour of a great increase of Bishops; but as to the Bill before the House, it would only carry into effect that which his right hon. Friend said he would do. It should be borne in mind that Bishops were the heads of the Church, and that, originally, only a certain number were appointed; but since then the population had increased so enormously that their work had become more than double that which it was in former days. Nobody, he might add, could fairly say that the Bishops of the present day did not to the best of their ability perform the work which they were appointed to discharge. He regretted, however, that the Bill could not have been brought forward at an earlier period, of the Session. If these four additional Bishops were made, he believed no more would be required for many years to come. It was very natural that the large towns should require to have more Bishops. It had been said that throughout the country there was indifference on this subject He was bound to admit that there was apathy and indifference; and he was exceedingly sorry to say that that apathy and indifference had been largely occasioned by practices within the Church which he, for one, could not too emphatically condemn, although they were, he rejoiced to think, diminishing. He had also read with the deepest pain and regret a judgment which was given on Thursday in a Court of Law; but he had also read —and with great satisfaction—the lucid, clear, and common-sense judgment of Mr. Justice Lush on the same occasion. In conclusion, he would express his hope that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, while bringing in a Bill to increase the number of Bishops, would take care to introduce any Amendments which experience might show to be required for the amendment of the Public Worship Re- 1646 gulation Act, which had been passed a year or two ago; because everything should, he thought, be done to put a stop to practices which were undermining a Church to which we owed so many blessings in the past. If it was necessary, amendments should be made, in order that there might be no doubt that the offenders against the law would be brought to justice.
§ MR. HOPWOOD
trusted the Opposition would be as determined as were the supporters of the Bill. Why was this unhappy Church bound to come to such a sectarian Assembly as the House of Commons, in order to appoint its officers? If he did not protest on every opportunity against a State Church, he should not be doing his duty. If it was severed from the State he believed it would receive more popular support, and would be stronger than at present. If, instead of bringing in this Bill, those who supported it had proceeded to remedy glaring defects, they would have been much more usefully employed. The Public Worship Regulation Act, for example, required much re-consideration, as was shown by the upsetting of the dictum of the Ecclesiastical Courts by the Courts of Common Law. He suggested that the best way of proceeding in favour of the Church would have been to amend the Public Worship Regulation Act and the ceremony of congé d'élire. He could not but contrast the zeal of the Government in passing this Bill, about which nobody cared, and their neglect in not passing the Magistrates (Summary Jurisdiction) Bill. Had the latter Bill passed—and it would not have taken a third of the time to pass it that this Bill would have taken—30,000 persons last year, and 30,000 persons this, would not have been sent to gaol, and an amount of misery and corruption would have been prevented which it was shocking to contemplate. He was very sorry to see the Bill being pressed forward as it was.
§ MR. P. A. TAYLOR
thought the general opinion among Churchmen and Dissenters alike was that the Bill was not wanted. With regard to what his constituents would say, he knew that if the matter were discussed in the workshops of Leicester, and it was asked— "What have our Representatives been doing on that Friday afternoon, the 9th. August?" and the answer was, ''Making more Bishops"—the statement would be 1647 received with a roar of inextinguishable laughter. He should vote against the Bill.
§ MR. COURTNEY,
in opposing the Bill, said, his experience led him to believe that the proposal to create new Bishoprics did not meet with anything like unanimous approval among the lay members of the Church of England themselves. It certainly did not at Cambridge, and he felt sure that any proposal to make it the See of a Bishop would meet with universal dissatisfaction. The new Bishopric of Truro had created in that neighbourhood anything but a feeling of enthusiasm; and a Cornish clergyman had informed him that they looked with regret upon the severance of the diocese from Exeter. He could not help thinking that a morbid activity among the Bishops had created a degeneracy among the parsons, who were continually running to their Bishops, like a child ran to its nurse, and their spiritual fathers, instead of teaching them to look after their own business, encouraged them in it. He felt sure that if the Bishops would stick to their business as in former days, there would be no necessity for increasing their number. It was true that the population in the dioceses had increased; but so had the means of communication between the cathedral cities and the most remote parts of the dioceses, so that a Bishop could now place himself in communication with any of his clergy in a much more rapid manner than he could when his diocese was less populous. Bishops were now making themselves as common in England as they were in the Colonies, till by-and-bye we should have no respect for them whatever. He objected to the creation of more Bishops for precisely the same reason as operated with him in disliking the disestablishment of the Church. The more Bishops they created, the more would the influence of the Bishops be increased, and it was an influence which he could not look upon with any favour. He also objected to the Bill on the ground that it would give the Ecclesiastical element too great a preponderance in the Church in the event of its being disestablished.
SIR JAMES M'GAEEL-HOGG
said, that if he had been of opinion that this Bill was not a wise one, his view with regard to it would have been altogether changed by what he had seen of the 1648 earnestness and the zeal of the Bishop of Truro, which had had the effect of improving the whole spiritual life of his district. The new cathedral would be a credit to the city of Truro and to the country. He protested against those who were members of the Church raising their voices against people putting their hands in their pockets to support the Church. £50,000 had already been subscribed towards the expense of building it, but £20,000 more was required; and he should be glad if the hon. Member for Liskeard would put his hand in his pocket and give a handsome sum towards the fund. He thought the Cornish clergyman alluded to by the hon. Member as objecting to the establishment of the diocese must indeed be a unique specimen of the order.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 38: Majority 37.—(Div. List, No. 255.)
§ Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed, to.
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 1 (Short title); and Clause 2 (Public contribution to endowment fund), agreed to.
§ Clause 3 (Contribution to endowment fund from existing Bishopric).
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL,
in moving the omission of the clause, said, that his Amendment was one of a series placed upon the Paper with a view to a compromise. He had not the slightest objection to the principle of the Bill, and was willing that the Church itself should have as many new Bishops as it was willing to pay for. The Government had not shown any inclination to accept his Amendment, and he had therefore voted against the Bill. He strongly objected to the application of public funds to the creation of new Bishoprics, and the money would be wanted for other purposes by the Church, whether disestablished or not. He especially objected to one argument used by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, who defended the Bill on the principle of "pity the poor Bishops," saying that they were overworked, and that, in mercy and fairness, they ought to pass the Bill. He (Sir George Campbell) was affected by hear- 1649 ing of the amount of work which, they had to get through; but he was also much struck by the fact that while it was proposed to relieve them of a large proportion of their work, they were to continue to receive the whole of their pay, with the exception of the small amount to be contributed towards the endowment of the new Bishoprics. This seemed to him an absolutely monstrous position to assume with regard to the Bishops. He was not aware that there had been any popular excitement, or wish expressed, in favour of the Bill; and, therefore, for the reasons he had given, he begged leave to move the omission of the clause. He trusted the Government would accept that Amendment, in order to prevent, at that period of the Session, the opposition which was threatened to the Bill.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be omitted from the Bill."—(Sir George Campbell)
MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, with respect to a remark that had been made, to the effect that the Bishops were not only to lose a part of their duties, but to keep the whole of their salaries, he must remind the Committee that, although it was not thought proper formally to take away by the Act, from the Bishops concerned, a portion of their income for the support of the new Sees, they had always shown themselves ready to contribute considerable sums annually for that purpose. In one case the Bishop of St. Albans gave up £500 a-year, and the Bishop of Exeter gave up £800 a-year; while the Bishop of Winchester gave up £500 a-year, besides his house in London. These facts, at all events, showed that the Bishops recently appointed had not followed the course pointed out by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy. In the present instance, the Bishop of Durham had offered to give up £1,500 a-year, but that was not accepted, and he was to give up £1,000 annually. The monies derived from the various sources were all to be invested upon trust for the particular benefit of the respective dioceses.
MR. J. COWEN
said, the objection taken to the clause by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) was a most substantial one, and had not been met by any sufficient explanation on the part of the Home Secretary. He (Mr. J. Cowen) repeated the argument, 1650 that the clause was a proposal to deal with public money to a considerable amount, and as such a proper subject for discussion.
§ MR. CHILDERS
confessed that he should have preferred to see Church reform commenced at the opposite end— that was to say, not by the creation of fresh Bishops, much as they were wanted, but by getting rid of the anomalies existing in the Church with regard to livings and the stipends of the poorer clergy. But he thought the clause was valuable, for the very reason that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had objected to it— namely, that it embodied the principle of allowing the stipends of the clergy to be increased or diminished at its will by Parliament, which might hereafter be usefully applied on a larger scale in matters of Church reform. He was, therefore, in favour of the clause, and trusted the Amendment would not be pressed.
§ MR. E. JENKINS
thought the objection to the clause which had been raised by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) was one that could not be met; and if hon. Members on the other side felt annoyed that objection should be taken to the disposal of national funds in the manner proposed by the Bill, hon. Members who opposed it could, of course, reply that they were simply exercising a right inherent in them, and one which was admitted by the Bill itself. They had no objection whatever that the laity of the Church of England, in conjunction with the Ecclesiastical authorities and clergy, should agree to the creation of new Bishops, provided that there was no attempt in doing so to deal with the existing funds of the Church, and provided that the funds required were obtained simply and solely by voluntary contribution. He ventured to suggest, with reference to the clause, a great improvement, and one which he thought the Home Secretary would be willing to accept. The wording of the clause was—There shall be transferred to the endowment of any new bishopric mentioned in the schedule to this Act such portion of the endowment or income of the existing bishopric mentioned in the schedule to this Act in connection with that new bishopric, (which existing bishopric is in this Act referred to as a contributory bishopric,) as is in the said schedule in that behalf mentioned.1651 He would suggest that, instead of saying that the sum mentioned " shall be transferred to the endowment of any new Bishopric," they should take the latter words of the previous clause, and say—There shall be transferred to the Governors of the Bounty of Queen Anne, for the benefit of the poorer clergy, such portion of the endowment or income of the existing Bishopric mentioned in the Schedule to this Act, &c.He judged from the smile of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Assheton Cross) that the proposal was one with which he cordially agreed, and one upon which hon. Members opposite, who entertained strong views, would be willing to forego their objections for the benefit of the poorer clergy. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether his suggestion would not be better than the proposal to deal with the funds of the Bishoprics for the purpose of creating new Bishops? He ventured to move, after line 25, page 1, to insert a new clause, worded in accordance with his suggestion.
The hon. Member is not in Order in proposing to amend the clause after the clause has been put to the Committee.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
would be extremely happy to withdraw his Amendment in favour of the proposal of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) if the Government were willing to accept the latter Amendment. He had no doubt that the proposal would meet both his wish and that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), who was desirous to make provision for the poor clergy. He could not take the view of the right hon. Gentleman, however, because his proposal was to do evil in order that good might come; for, in effect, he said —"Let us submit to an iniquity, because the clause establishes the principle of dealing with public funds, which may be usefully applied hereafter." He (Sir George Campbell) held that beyond all doubt Parliament could deal with the Ecclesiastical funds. Far be it from him to suggest that the Bishops were not extremely respectable men; but unless the Government were willing to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dundee, he should be compelled to persevere in his opposition to the clause.
§ MR. HOPWOOD
was pleased to hear from so high an authority as the right 1652 hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract that the clause went in a direction in which many hon. Members might like to go at a future period. Prom the instances of distinguished men who had already shown their willingness to give up a portion of their incomes for the purpose of carrying out the objects of the Bill, he had no doubt that those who had not yet done so would be ready to testify their assent by giving up the amount required by this clause. But that was not the point of the opposition which had been raised. The clause would always remain as evidence, to be referred to in case of need, that a Conservative Government had brought in this principle of dealing with the national funds. He considered that the income might be applied very properly to the removal of scandals existing within the Church fabric; and, surely, some of the funds could be devoted to these purposes, while the new Bishoprics might be allowed to depend on what, after all, was their great strength—the affections of those who desired to contribute towards them? He could not support the clause, which, in his opinion, would have the mischievous effect of considerably increasing the number of the Bishops, who, when disestablishment arrived, would make that appeal on behalf of vested interests which had been so powerful in the case of another Church.
§ MR. COURTNEY
pointed out that the principle of dealing with Ecclesiastical funds had long since been sanctioned, and that the whole organization of the Ecclesiastical Commission depended upon it, the Commissioners having to take in hand the endowments of Bishoprics and distribute the funds, after paying certain stipends to the Bishops, among the inferior clergy. He would rather have to deal with six Bishops having £5,000 a year each, than with 10 Bishops having £3,000 a-year. He did not want an increased number of Bishops, but a better article; or, in other words, better work in exchange for better pay. He objected to the principle of applying a portion of the endowments of the present Bishoprics to the multiplication of Bishops, and should support the Amendment.
§ MR. E. JENKINS
said, as he could not at the present moment move his Amendment, he should do so on Report. 1653 He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to strike out the clause. If all was true that they had heard from hon. Members opposite, there was in the Church of England sufficient wealth, vitality, and vigour to induce it to provide whatever money might be necessary for the endowment of the new Bishoprics. On the other hand, if the Bishops had any money to spare, if they could part with a considerable portion of their incomes without being seriously affected by so doing, one could not help feeling that the money could be applied to much more useful purposes than the creation of more Ecclesiastics. There existed in the Church a very strong feeling with regard to the manner in which the present Ecclesiastics did their duty. It had been shown, by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), that there was not a shadow of doubt that the way in which the existing Bishops discharged their duties did not meet with general approval. The truth of the matter was, that the only opportunity possessed by the laity of taking a proper part in Church matters was in such discussion as they could have through their Representatives on the floor of the House. It was in that House only that the layman could have any influence upon the affairs of the Church; and he exhorted all present to exert their influence on that part of the Bill which dealt with the Ecclesiastical funds. The opportunity of doing so was a rare one. There was in the Church of England no such thing to be met with as what was often found in other Church organizations—namely, the proper representation of the laity in Church affairs. And the truth was, that doctrines were laid down, and were being supported by laymen—who ought to have been willing to stand by the old principles for which their fathers fought —that no one should attempt to interfere with Church concerns; that the Church consisted of Bishops and clergy only; and that laymen were simply to receive from them sermons, and to become the servants of the great sacerdotal class. While such doctrines were held in the Church the Committee, he thought, ought to hesitate before creating new Bishops, who might be instrumental in promulgating them. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would agree to the omission of the clause, and 1654 throw the whole scheme back upon the offerings of the laity of the proposed dioceses. That would be the best proof of the desire of the laity for new Bishoprics. If it was true that they were so anxious to have additional Bishoprics, he would say let them ask for them and pay for them. The evidence upon all hands, however, was that the laity looked upon this Bill with suspicion. That was also the feelings of some hon. Members opposite, who had spoken to him about the Bill, and who, if he mistook not, absented themselves from the divisions upon it because they could not support it. Once more he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to consent to this clause being struck out, and so allow the Bill to pass. If the clause was retained, he should feel it his duty to oppose the Bill by every means in his power.
§ MR. CHILDERS
said, he did not wish to continue the discussion on the point whether this was on all fours with the original substitution of fixed stipends for uncertain emoluments in the case of the Bishops. His reason for rising again was to point out to his hon. Friends that if the clause was left out simpliciter, the only effect would be to leave the Bishops of Chester, Lincoln, Lichfield, and Ripon in possession of their present salaries with much less work to do, which he did not suppose was the object in view. He would suggest, therefore, that the clause should not be struck out.
§ MR. HOPWOOD
observed, that the difficulty pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman was not insuperable, as the money might be dealt with by subsequent Amendments, and be applied to the increase of stipends, the reward of meritorious services, and so forth.
§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: — Ayes 80; Noes 28: Majority 52.—(Div. List, No. 256.)
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 4 (Establishment of Bishopric on provision of sufficient endowment).
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 9, to leave out "three," and insert "one." The proposal of the Bill, he observed, was to fix the salary of a Bishop at a 1655 minimum—£3,500 a-year. The Government, in other words, seemed to consider a Bishop an institution of so dignified a character that he could not exist on less than £3,500 a-year. Now, that was not his (Sir George Campbell's) view at all. He thought that if they wanted to get a certain amount of Episcopal work done they ought to go into the Bishop market, and ascertain at what price they could get a man to do it efficiently and trustworthily. Why should Bishops necessarily be few and. dignified? He, for his part, was in favour of having many Bishops and of getting them as cheap as possible. As a Presbyterian, he was not prepared to admit that the Apostles were Bishops at all; but admitting that they were, he was quite sure they did not receive anything like £3,500 a-year. There was no country in the world where Bishops were so highly paid as in England; yet the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church abroad were not usually supposed to be wanting in dignity. Instead of £3,500, it seemed to him that a minimum salary of £1,500 would be ample under the Bill. There were many excellent and well-qualified clergymen who would be very glad indeed to become Bishops on those terms. He begged, accordingly, to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice—that was to say, to reduce the minimum salary of the Bishops to be appointed under the Bill from £3,500 to £1,500 a-year.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 9, to leave out the word "three," in order to insert the word "one."— (Sir George Campbell.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'three' stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. HOPWOOD
quite agreed with his hon. Friend (Sir George Campbell) that the virtue of a Bishop did not consist in his salary being £3,500 a-year. He believed there were many excellent Suffragan Bishops who did their work admirably for much less—perhaps only one-third of that sum. In a letter to The Times, many years ago, a member of the Church of England pointed out how much religion suffered from the fine linen and purple of the Prelates of the day, and suggested that Parliament should create a certain number of what he called "gig Bishops"—that 1656 was to say, Bishops who, instead of keeping carriages, would drive about in gigs like travellers on business. The proposal of the writer had this bearing on the question now under discussion— that it seemed to point to the possibility of obtaining men of capacity, of goodness, and of true religious feeling, to do the work of Bishops at a less figure than £3,500 a-year. For that reason, he felt inclined to support the Amendment of his hon. Friend.
MR. ASSHETON CROSS
reminded the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) that they were living in the England of the present day, and that a great deal had to come out of the pockets of the Bishops, besides what was necessary for their own maintenance. They entertained the clergy, and contributed largely to good works in their dioceses, and had to attend in their places in the other House of Parliament. Having regard to all these circumstances, he did not think it practical to give them less than was proposed in the Bill.
§ MR. E. JENKINS,
having an Amendment on the Paper to reduce the minimum salary of the Bishops to £2,500 a-year, which he would probably move, in the event of his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) being defeated, explained that it would be proposed later on to relieve the new Bishops from the duty of sitting in the House of Lords—a duty which not a few very sincere members of the Church of England thought they ought not to have. There might be no objection raised to existing Bishops retaining in the House of Lords the seats which they had inherited from ancient times—at all events, no objection until the revolutionary feeling had taken greater hold of the country; but it was a very wrong thing, indeed, to invite new Bishops to leave their dioceses, where it was said there was so much work for them, and come up to spend the season in London, wasting their hours in the Athenæum Club, and worrying his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn). But, said the right hon. Gentleman opposite, Bishops had to spend a great deal of money in entertaining their clergy. Well, he would ask the Committee whether they remembered a certain Bishop who, in an epistle to some people amongst whom he had been working with great success, 1657 remarked that amongst them he had received nothing, and that he had been obliged to work with his own hands to maintain himself in his diocese? He was not aware whether certain hon. Members opposite were prepared to disapprove the manner in which that great Bishop, the Apostle Paul, carried out his work; but he thought it right to point out, in passing, that the Bishops of the present day had not succeeded to the spirit, if they had succeeded to the position, of the ancient Apostles. As for the entertainment which the Bishops offered to their clergy, he begged to call the attention of the Committee to a pamphlet, written, he believed, by a clergyman, complaining that in a particular parish, not in remote parts of Cornwall or Cumberland, but between two market towns and railway stations, no Bishop or Archdeacon had been known to set his foot since the consecration of the church, sometime in the reign of William the Conqueror. From this it would appear that there were Bishops who, at all events, did not travel over the whole of their dioceses. The writer also referred to the fact that Bishops wasted their time in London. He said they ought to live amongst the clergy; and that if they did so they would discover many a gem which now sparkled unseen, while men who had no other qualification than that of going gadding about the country, speaking here and there, were promoted by their Bishop, always supposing the latter had no relative, or son, more worthy. These sentiments might offend hon. Gentlemen opposite; but he begged them to observe that they were not his, but those of earnest reformers within the Church itself, anxious to see the Church made a really spiritual institution. A Bishop ought not to be able to absent himself from work, on the plea that he had to attend Parliament. When required to take part in any particular debate, said the writer already quoted, he could easily attend in these railway days. London, it was added, was not the place for an idle man, whether priest or layman. Well, he (Mr. E. Jenkins) ventured to point out that a Bishop had no right whatever to be an idle man, and that they should not give him a salary which would tempt him to be so. He, himself, would have the greatest difficulty in spending £3,500 a-year, except 1658 by indulging in an amount of state which certainly ought not to be expected of a Bishop. Why the right hon. Gentleman should imagine it necessary for Bishops—especially when he knew that temperance was spreading in their ranks —to give luxurious entertainment to the clergy, he confessed he could not conceive. Nothing could more seriously tend to diminish the respect due to a Bishop for his spiritual functions than the idea that he was a Lord of Parliament with a large salary, driving his carriage, and living like a well-to-do Peer rather than a simple servant of Christ. £600, £800, or £1,000 a-year, was quite enough to maintain a Bishop who simply wished to do his duty, and not to make a show and take his part in the legislation of the State. He hoped the Bishops of this Bill would be model Bishops, who would help to save the Church from destruction, and with that view he trusted the Amendment of his hon. Friend would be adopted.
MR. J. COWEN,
in support of the Amendment, said, that in Roman Catholic countries the Roman Catholic Church was respected and trusted by the people, although its Bishops were not paid in anything like the same proportion as those of the Church of England. Indeed, he believed that one reason why the Church of England had so small a hold on the people was, that between its high functionaries and the people there existed so great a gulf. No Church in modern times had received stronger popular support than the Free Church of Scotland, yet the ministers of that Church had only an average income of £300 a-year and their manses. With the examples of the Roman Catholic Church and the Free Church of Scotland before his eyes, he could not help thinking that the excessive payment proposed to be given to these new Bishops would tend to diminish rather than increase their influence.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 71; Noes 22: Majority 49.—(Div. List, No. 257.)
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
said., that his remaining Amendments upon this clause were consequential upon that which had just been negatived, and 1659 therefore he did not intend to press them upon the Committee.
§ MR. E. JENKINS
moved, in page 2, line 18, after the word "Commissioners," to insert the following words:—When it shall have been certified to Her Majesty's Secretary of State by the archbishop of the province in which the intended bishopric is situated, that a majority of the clergy and parishioners, within the area comprised in either of the proposed dioceses in the Schedules of this Act respectively, have applied for separation from their existing dioceses, and are desirous of the founding of a new bishopric within and over such area.This Amendment contained a very important principle, and he did not see why the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, after what he had said with reference to the desirability of consulting the views of the members of the Church of England upon this subject, should object to accept it. It would be seen, on looking at the terms of the Amendment, that its object was to ascertain, first of all, from, those people who would be most interested in these proposed changes, whether or not they really desired them to be made. As he could not see any reason for objecting to the Amendment, he should not advance all the arguments he might use in its support, because perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary intended to adopt it. At all events, he should leave the matter where it stood for the present; and he would be content to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be possible to insert in the Bill some words which would make it sure that those people who did not wish to be Bishoped upon might have an opportunity of expressing their dissent from the proposed change before it was carried into effect? He should, therefore, now merely move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
§ MR. HOPWOOD
said, that in seconding the Amendment, he wished to say a few words in favour of the view of the hon. Member who had moved it. In Clause 3, which had just been agreed to, Her Majesty's Government had shown an anxiety to protect the rights of the property which was to be dealt with under the provisions of the Bill, and the clause was drawn so as to protect the rights of all persons interested. That was just what the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) proposed 1660 by his Amendment to do with regard to the feelings, in place of the purses, of those interested in these changes—persons having spiritual souls—which were to be dealt with under the terms of this Bill. In dealing with livings, souls were bought at so much per head. He would refer those hon. Members, who differed from him upon this point, to a series of letters touching upon this subject which had recently been published; and he had the authority of their author for saying that there was a good deal in the connection between Church and State which treated souls as a commodity which could be bought and sold. This Amendment was proposed in order to prevent souls being disposed of under the provisions of this Bill, without the individuals being consulted on the matter, and its language was intended to form some guarantee that those who, by affection and love for their diocese, and for its historical antecedents, were not desirous of being spiritually separated from it, should be enabled to express their view on the subject, and their desire to remain under the spiritual guidance and the fostering care of the Bishop who had hitherto watched over them. That such a desire on the part of those who resided in a diocese was not a mere visionary one, had been shown by what had occurred when the Bishopric of Winchester was divided. A considerable amount of feeling had been evoked on that occasion on the part of those who were transferred to the new diocese without their having been consulted on the matter. The people living on the other side of the water felt that a very heavy grievance had been inflicted upon them by the Act of Parliament. If he might judge by what had passed at public meetings about the time, and what had appeared in the public prints, a very large number of the persons so dealt with had remonstrated strongly against what had been done. He must enter his protest against this arbitrary mode of dealing with the religious attachments of people to any particular See, or to a cathedral, and he should support the Amendment with his vote if necessary.
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 18, after the word "Commissioners," to insert the words—
When it shall have been certified to Her Majesty's Secretary of State by the archbishop
of the province in which the intended bishopric is situated, that a majority of the clergy and parishioners, within the area comprised in either of the proposed dioceses in the Schedules of this Act respectively, have applied for separation from their existing dioceses, and are desirous of the founding of a new bishopric within and over such area."—(Mr. Edward Jenkins.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he could not assent to the proposed Amendment, which, in his opinion, would be unworkable, there being no machinery in existence by which it could be carried into practical effect. There was no more reason for consulting parishioners on this subject than for consulting them in reference to the formation of a new parish or district. The parishioners had no vested right in their Bishop, who might be removed by the Queen without their assent. What happened at the division of the See of Winchester was that the people of Surrey manifested great anxiety to secure a Bishop for that county; but there were reasons which made it absolutely impossible to gratify the wish. He sincerely hoped the Committee would not adopt the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment.
§ MR. E. JENKINS
said, that the way in which the right hon. Gentleman had answered his remarks showed how great was the necessity for adopting his Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted, and indeed had founded his main argument upon, the fact that Her Majesty had the power to appoint and to remove Bishops without the assent of the people of the diocese.
MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, that what he did say was that the Queen had power to remove a Bishop from a particular diocese without consulting the parishioners.
§ MR. E. JENKINS
said, that was precisely the same thing that he had asserted—namely, that the people of a diocese had, under the existing law, no power to enforce their objection to the removal of their Bishop. In the original constitution of the Christian Church Kings and Queens had no power to remove any of the Ecclesiastical officers, and it was an extraordinary thing that the Committee should be asked to give its assent at the present day to principles so Erastian as those contained in this 1662 Bill, and which were opposed to common sense. It was true, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, that parishes were constantly being divided without the consent of the parishioners being obtained; but that was exactly what he complained of. Were the higher clergy and the State so intimately connected that the rights of the lower clergy and the laity were to be wholly ignored? They had been told that this Bill was to be passed for the benefit of the laity; but he had yet to learn that any man had a right to force a benefit down his throat. If he were content with things as they were, why should some new Bishop be forced into the diocese in which he lived whether he liked it or not. The more hon. Members opposite explained what was the exact nature of their views in forcing this Bill through the House the more would the country see what it was intended to effect, and what were the consequences that flowed from this connection between Church and State. Hon. Members opposite had indulged in a very cheap sneer at those who opposed that Bill, and he was sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex should have resorted to it. The hon. and gallant Member seemed to hint that the hon. Member below him (Mr. Dillwyn) was not a very trustworthy member of the Church of England. The hon. Member held very Liberal opinions, and his Christianity was far purer than that which rested upon Episcopacy and Erastianism. The Church of the hon. Member was not composed of the Bishops and clergy merely, but of the laity, the Bishops and clergy being merely the ministers to the laity of God's truth. It was this distinction between the principles of the two Churches that was raised by this Amendment. The Committee were asked to consider whether they were prepared to force down the spiritual throats of the people the spiritual superintendence of an exclusively Episcopalian character. He did not think that Parliament ought to sanction such a course as that being taken. Some hon. Members knew well enough what were the spiritual aspects of this question. He did not think that this was a question which could well be discussed in that House with anything like decency or propriety; because in countenancing that discussion the Committee would be exercising a sort of spiritual jurisdiction 1663 over the affairs of the Church. It was said that the Queen, the Lords, and the Commons were going to create new dioceses; but could anything be more monstrous than that in a State like this Parliament should be asked to create new Bishoprics in the Church of Christ? Was this what hon. Members opposite, who professed to be sincere Churchmen, and upheld the strictest doctrines of the Church, and supported the authority of a sacerdotal class, and believed in the efficacy of Apostolic succession, ought to approve? Ought they to admit the right of the Queen, of a number of Lords, and of the House containing, as it did, Members of the High and of the Low Church, and Jews, Turks, and Infidels, to interfere in purely Ecclesiastical matters? ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members did not appear to assent to his view—that the House contained Jews, Turks, and Infidels; but a large number of hon. Members might well be called Turks, because they had been very anxious to carry out a Turkish policy in this country. He intended to press this Amendment to a division, because he believed that it involved a great principle. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out that it would be difficult to devise adequate machinery for ascertaining the views of the parishioners on the question of the proposed sub-division of their diocese; but he did not think that that difficulty was by any means insuperable. He presumed that the first difficulty would be to ascertain who were and who were not the laity of the Church of England. That was a very important matter; because Mr. Matthew Arnold, who was a very sincere Churchman, had declared that every single citizen of this country was a member of the Church of England. If that were so, there would be no difficulty in ascertaining the feeling of the laity of any particular parish on the question whether or not another Bishop was required. On the other hand, however, it might be contended that the general body of the laity were spiritually disabled from taking part in the question, and that only those who were communicants of the Church of England were entitled to have a voice in the matter. That, no doubt, was a difficulty; but it was one that ought to be faced, because it showed the anomalous character of this Bill. But supposing even that it was ad- 1664 mitted that only communicants of the Church of England were to be allowed to determine the question, there could be no difficulty in finding out who they were, and the clergy of each parish might hold a poll in the parish church, and make a return to the Archbishop, setting forth what the opinion of their parishioners on the subject was. No inconvenience would result from postponing this Bill until next year, to enable the right hon. Gentleman to draw up some scheme of the kind. There was no hurry in the matter, because these counties appeared to have got on very well under the existing state of things, and their spiritual condition did not seem to have deteriorated in consequence of the want of this additional Bishop. He felt that there was something almost like indecent haste in the way in which the Government were endeavouring to force forward this Bill, at the fag-end of a weary Session, and that there was something behind all this which had not come to light. In these circumstances, therefore, he should certainly press his Amendment to a division.
MR. J. COWEN
supported the Amendment, because he thought that it would simply give the laity an opportunity of expressing their opinion as to which King they should wish to reign over them. That was a principle which had been generally accepted, not only in this country, but throughout Europe. They were going to allow Bulgaria to elect her own Prince, and when a Province had been annexed to Prance some years ago the same principle was allowed to prevail, and the consent of the people was obtained before the annexation was assented to. The House of Commons and Her Majesty's Government had also acted upon that principle, in the Session of 1875, in passing the Bill which gave to the Scotch people the power of appointing their own ministers. It would be a most wise and judicious course to pursue to give the lay members of the Church of England a voice in this matter of the division of their dioceses, and thus to apply to the Church of England the same principle which had been applied to that of Scotland. Under the Bill the spiritual connection between Northumberland and Durham would be severed, without the people of either county being asked to give their consent 1665 to that step being taken, and thus a connection would be dissolved which they had every desire to perpetuate. He submitted that the principle of the Amendment was one that had been recognized by Europe in modern politics, and by the House of Commons and the Government in the Bill about the Scotch Church, and that, therefore, it should be acted upon in the present measure.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 71: Majority 52. — (Div. List, No. 258.)
§ MR. HOPWOOD
moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, to leave out from "If," in line 33, to "And," in line 36, remarking that the Bishop's house was very often called a palace, and therefore the idea got abroad that it was necessary to have a larger establishment and a grander house than he thought should be tolerated, if Parliament was to retain any control over a State Church. He observed that the clause, as it stood, made mention of a "fitting Episcopal residence;" but no mention was made of stables. When the See of Ripon was erected, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners sanctioned an expenditure of as much as £10,000 on stables for the use of the Bishop. Without intending any disrespect to the present Ecclesiastical Commissioners, he ventured to say that that was a most extravagant expenditure. In the clause now before the Committee, those who desired the erection of the new dioceses were called upon to provide a "fitting Episcopal residence" to the satisfaction of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and a large scope was thus left to the Commissioners, who might think nothing was fitting unless it was a really grand place. The sum put down as the required value of the residence was £500 a-year, and it seemed to him that that was an enormous sum for a house in the country. As he understood it, a residence was to be provided the value of which was to be reckoned at £500 a-year. This operated in a vicious way for the Church, giving people the idea that nobody could preside over the administration of its doctrines and work without he lived in a very grand place, and was supported in very grand style.
MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, the hon. and learned Member for Stockport 1666 (Mr. Hopwood) had put a wrong construction on the words. Their object was to diminish the amount of contribution which might be necessary on the formation of the new see. A fitting house was to be provided, and the object of these words was that if it was so provided, its value should be taken at £500 a-year, even though it might not be worth so much. There was not the slightest intention of providing "palaces" or anything of the kind; and he was quite sure that, in the present mind of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the hon. and learned Member need not disturb himself on that point. It was felt that there would be some difficulty in assessing the value of the house which was provided, and therefore it had been thought best to take its value at the fixed sum of £500 a-year. As to the necessity of providing a "fitting Episcopal residence," it was thought that it was best to require that before the erection of the see, as otherwise a Bishop might find it very inconvenient to find such a house as he might require.
MR. J. COWEN
thought this was hardly a straightforward way of doing business. If the value of the house was taken at £500 a-year, the Bishop's salary would only be £3,000, and yet the house might not be worth more than £100 a-year.
MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he was quite willing to trust the Ecclesiastical Commissioners on the point.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
said, it struck him that if a house could be found for £300 a-year, the Bishop would be discontented to have his salary "docked" to the extent of £500.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 5 (The number of bishops sitting in Parliament not to be increased).
MR. J. COWEN (for Mr. RYLANDS)
moved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 15, after "Act," to leave out to end of clause. The object of this Amendment, he said, was to prevent the Bishops created by the Bill from having seats in the House of Lords. He did not hope that any number of new arguments or facts adduced on his own side of the House would have the effect of converting the Government or hon. Mem- 1667 bers opposite. It was quite clear that the Government had bound themselves to pass the Bill, and that being the case at that period of the Session, there was no likelihood of its being altered, because any Amendment that might be made would go up to the House of Lords too late to admit of their re-consideration by the House of Commons. He did not hope, therefore, to induce the House to accept the Amendment; but he desired that those who agreed with him should have the opportunity of expressing their opinion upon the principle involved. After the Reformed Parliament met in 1833, a Bill was introduced year after year by the late Mr. Rippon, then Member for Gates-head, with whom it was his (Mr. Cowen's) pleasure to be acquainted, having for its object the removal of the Bishops from the House of Lords. Mr. Rippon got very little countenance from the Whigs of that day; but he (Mr. Cowen) observed that it elicited very little explanation of the reasons why they should continue to sit there, and the only justification which Lord Allthorpe could offer was that they were there for the purpose of defending and upholding the interests of the Church. He believed that was the case now, because the Bishops only attended the House of Lords when some attack was to be made on the Church; they took no special interest in the general legislation of the country, and if they did, their vote was always given for re-action, or in opposition to political, social, and commercial progress. He was not saying this in a Party sense; for he was well aware that some measures proposed by Conservatives were liberal, and others proposed by Liberals wore in their effect illiberal —he spoke in the broad sense applicable to Liberal principles — and in regard to these, the Representatives of the Church of England in the upper branch of the Legislature had invariably been the defenders of taxing the bread of the people, and of refusing to grant the liberties to the people which this House had agreed should be given. They voted against Free Trade, in favour of Slavery, and against a Reformed Parliament. That had been the universal policy of their votes. They were, however, very active when the interests of the Church of England were concerned; but when the disestablish- 1668 ment of the Church of Ireland came under consideration, anything more cowardly than the conduct of the Archbishops of England could not well be conceived. He did not imagine that anything he could say would convince the Home Secretary, and he simply moved the Amendment of the hon. Member for Burnley for the purpose of recording the opinion on his side of the House against the continuance of this clerical legislation.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "Act," in page 3, line 15, to the end of the Clause. — (Mr. Joseph Cowen.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. CHARLEY
said, the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen), was generally so fair that he felt sorry to find that whenever the Bishops were mentioned he always flew into a passion. The hon. Member had made the extraordinary statement that the Bishops were always opposed to legislation which favoured the freedom of the people; he had said they voted in favour of Slavery; but he (Mr. Charley) would remind the Committee that they had voted against White Slavery — the slavery of women and children in mines—at a time when the Radical Party were upholding that system. This was an historical fact, which could be proved by reference to Hansard. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the conduct of the two English Archbishops in walking out of the House when a division was called in the House of Lords on the Irish Church Bill; but it ought to be remembered that those two Archbishops were Whigs; if they had been Conservatives, he was quite certain they would not have done so. There were reasons why the Bishops should sit in the House of Lords. It was of enormous advantage both to the clergy and laity, because it made the Bishops amenable to public opinion. The Bishops exercised extensive authority. In their seats in the House of Lords they could be questioned in the same way as a Secretary of State; it was of the greatest importance that they should not be allowed to hide themselves away in their dioceses, but be made amenable to public opinion. There was strong ground for 1669 retaining the Bishops in the House of Lords, and he thought it was unfortunate that the Bill made no provision for an increase in their number. It was undesirable that the stereotyped number of 26 should be retained for all time. Before the Reformation, the number of Lords Spiritual greatly exceeded the number of Lay Peers, and he could see no reason why the number of Bishops sitting in the Upper House should not be raised to the number at which it stood before the passing of the Irish Church Act. Why should not the four seats then lost to the Church be now restored? He objected to the adoption of the principle that the number of the Bishops should not be increased. The effect of the clause as it stood was that the junior Bishops who were in the prime of life could not sit in the House of Lords; while the older members of the Episcopate, who might from age and infirmity be not so well able to perform their legislative functions, retained their places.
§ MR. E. JENKINS
thought the argument advanced by his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Charley) was a convincing proof that there were political dissensions among Bishops. He desired to call attention to the fact, as demonstrated by his hon. and learned Friend, that Bishops could possibly have their views operated upon by political considerations. There could be no doubt whatever that those Ecclesiastics who sat in the House of Lords guided their conduct-just as they had been appointed by this or that Minister of the day. He could conceive nothing more disgraceful, or nothing more dishonouring to the Church of Christ, than such a state of things; and he protested against the House, by this Act, once more registering the degradation of the Christian Bishopric. Questions of money they might get over; questions whether these Bishops were to ride in carriages and to live in handsome palaces might be looked upon as trifling by the side of the consideration, whether or not the Church of England was entitled to stand up as a Spiritual Church, with a Head which was the Head of the State, and governed by Bishops who were appointed as the political representatives of those who happened to sit on the front Benches of that House, or of the House of Lords? This led to an organized system of Eras- 1670 tianism. He would ask the House whether it was any longer possible to maintain such an absolute anomaly, which was un-Christian in its conception, and which, in its working, tended to degrade the Christian Church in the eyes of the people? It was not any Party feeling or jealousy of the Church which had prompted these observations; but a conviction, on his part, that a Church which was governed by political functionaries thus appointed could not do its spiritual duty either to the State or the people. These observations had been called forth by the remarks of his hon. and learned Friend opposite, that the Archbishops walked out of the House of Lords when a division was called on the Irish Church Bill because they were Whigs. Then his hon. and learned Friend had said that one reason why the Bishops should remain in the House of Lords was in order that they might be amenable to public opinion. But hon. Members on the other side of the House objected to the introduction into this discussion of the views of men who were not members of the Church; therefore, what became of his argument? What formed public opinion? No one would admit sooner than his hon. and learned Friend that public opinion was only half formed by the Churchmen of this country; to an enormous extent it was influenced by those who were Dissenters and protesters against the Church in its political aspect. Did his hon. and learned Friend mean that the Bishops of the Church of England, who put forward large claims of sanctity and of Apostolical succession, should be made amenable to the opinions of all the Atheists and Nonconformists of the country? The position of a Bishop, then, had come to this—that he was asked to sit in the House of Lords in order that he might be made amenable to public opinion. But he wished further to point out that attendance of the Bishops in the House of Lords absolutely precluded them from doing their duty. If there was any good reason why a Bishop should sit in the House of Lords, he ought to exercise his judgment on every question which came before the House, in the same way as other Peers did, and be prepared, at the same time, to bring his influence to bear upon the legislation of the country. But he was saying that they did not do their 1671 duty, and he could show the Committee that Bishop after Bishop had failed to put in force those powers which had been placed in his hands by the Public Worship Regulation Bill. They found that in all legislation that would really go to the root of the reformation of the Church, the Bishops were afraid to touch it, because they feared they would have the Church about their ears. He could understand a Bishop saying— "Let right be done, though the Church come about our ears; " or, in the words of the Latin proverb—"Fiat justitia; ruat cœlum." But it was the reverse. If one Bishop tried to lay his hands on that monstrosity, the sale of livings, none of the others were willing to help him; and with regard to those Acts which it was necessary to pass in order to stop the illegalities and want of discipline in the Church among the clergy, he was bound to say that they would have the greatest difficulty in inducing anything like a proper number of Bishops to unite in introducing and carrying that healthy legislation, and they knew that the reason of that was that they were tainted with the very principles that they were asked to excise and exclude from the Church. There wore other arguments which could be used; but he preferred letting people see that they on his side of the House were simply weighed down by a mechanical majority. He preferred that the country should mark the method in which that legislation had been brought in. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to read that article in the leading journal of that morning, if he wanted to get a significant idea of what the opinion of the country was. They, taking their stand upon principles which they believed to be true and right, must leave it to posterity to judge of their actions.
MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he did not question the right of any hon. Member to interfere in the debates in that House in every possible way. He had not the slightest objection to it. But he did not think that, at the present moment he ought to follow the Mover of the Amendment into the question of whether the Bishops ought to have seats in the House of Lords or not. That was not the question before the House; but he promised that he would be prepared to meet the hon. Member 1672 upon the point whenever the proper opportunity should arise. The simple question now was, what was to become of these four Bishops? Were they to be admitted to the House of Lords, in addition to the number already there? To that he must confess that he did not think they should. He thought that the number of Bishops in the House of Lords ought not to be increased for some time at least. They had settled that practically in the Manchester see, and that precedent had been followed in the case of St. Alban's and Truro. They were only following the same precedent now. Well, that disposed of that part of the question. Then, on the other hand, were they to be shut out of Parliament altogether? Were they never to have seats in the House of Lords? He thought that would be a state of things that would neither be wise nor proper; for there would, undoubtedly, be a feeling raised in the country that there were two classes of Bishops, and one class might be looked upon as being in a different position from the other. Under those circumstances, why should they not follow the precedents they had established in the cases of Manchester, St. Alban's, and Truro? They were not then discussing the question of whether Bishops should have seats in the House of Lords or not. That was a question which he hoped the Committee would not be led into. He was not at all certain that it was not a good thing that the younger Bishops should not be in the House of Lords for the first year or so of their office, because they would be able to gain a most intimate knowledge of their dioceses before they went there. As to what had been said about the House of Lords taking the Bishops away from their dioceses, he did not think that was the case by any means. He hoped the Committee would not wander into the wider question; but simply consider the mode in which these four Bishops were to be dealt with.
§ MR. HUTCHINSON
said, he should be very much astonished if he heard any hon. Gentleman rising to charge a Dissenter with impropriety in opposing that Bill. The very name of the Church implied that every citizen born within the State was a member of it. The clergy had been called the ecclesiastical side of the Civil Service, 1673 and it was because that definition had a certain degree of propriety in it, that they had a right to discuss the question as if it affected them all, individually and separately. Now, hon. Gentlemen opposite had complained a short time ago that some personal feeling had been shown in the debate. It was impossible that a Bill of that kind should be introduced, running counter to the views and feelings of so many persons, without some acrimony being introduced into the discussion. He considered that the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) had shown great fairness and moderation in the observations he had made, and he thought they ought rather to be approved than blamed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Now, there was a very easy way out of the difficulty with regard to the Bishops. If they were too hard worked to attend to their dioceses, and to their Parliamentary duties, surely their obvious course would be to relieve them of a portion of their duty. Let them be relieved of their political functions, and devote themselves to high ecclesiastical matters. They would have plenty to do to conduct affairs in their own dioceses, and they might leave Parliament to manage political matters which were infinitely beneath their notice. The right hon. Gentleman had mentioned the difficulty which would arise if there should be two sets of Bishops. But that difficulty was in existence at that moment. There were Prelates outside the House of Lords at that moment engaged in the not very dignified office of waiting for dead men's shoes. The Bill proposed to increase the number of those Bishops who were in that position. The speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Charley), had been a very good comment upon the observations he (Mr. Hutchinson) had made some time ago—namely, that this Bill might be the prelude to an annual batch of Bishops. They had heard the hon. and learned Gentleman say that all Bishops ought to have seats in the House of Lords, and in proportion as the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary increased the number of Bishops, he made the comparison of those outside the House with those in much greater and more offensive.
§ MR. HOPWOOD
said, the Government seemed determined to pass the Bill. He thought that they who opposed 1674 the Bill were not doing bad service to the Government and to those hon. Gentlemen who stayed to hear the debate out, in the sense of educating them. Some home truths had been pronounced that evening, and he dared say they would not all be received with disbelief, but would sink deep into their hearer's minds. The reason he objected to the clause before them was that it formed a process of argument in a circle. A while ago, when they were discussing another clause, it was said—"You will have these Bishops in the House of Lords, and you must support them by much larger incomes." It had occurred to him that it might be well to wait till they reached the present clause, and see whether the good sense of Parliament would not determine to take away the incentive to luxurious livings and large incomes. But when the Home Secretary said that they should not wander at large into the whole question, he would ask, how could they help going into the question of the Bishops in the House of Lords? They had had an account given of them by one hon. Member, and he was sure that history would bear him out in saying that in past generations the Bishops had not been very particular as to the principle on which they gave their votes, and even some of the present generation were determined to vote according to Party instincts. He belonged to a body of men who might be demoralized in the same way. If they were to put all the Judges into the House of Lords, simply by virtue of their appointment as Judges, they would have the scandal of political connections influencing their votes. But how much greater was the scandal when it was applied to those who, by the very office they filled, were supposed to be superior to all such inferior considerations. He felt bound, on these grounds, to support his hon. Friend in his Amendment, and he did so in the fear that if the clause were carried there would be two sorts or kinds of Bishops, besides those who, as his hon. Friend had pointed out, were already waiting outside the House of Lords for admission within its doors. There were the Suffragan Bishops, and so far as their ordination was concerned, and the sanctity of their office, he supposed they stood on a footing of equality with those to whom were assigned the Par- 1675 liamentary distinction. Well, if they found that such men could perform their high office to the satisfaction of those over whom they were placed, why should they fear if those Bishops were kept out of the House of Lords? They would never feel the want, which it was supposed they might feel, if the prospect were once held out to them and then taken away. He could only suppose that if a fresh batch of Bishops was to be created from time to time, they would be forced to resort to some such imitation of the congé d 'élire as the election among the Bishops of a man to represent them in the House of Lords. That was the tendency the Bill would create.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 62; Noes 22: Majority 40. — (Div. List, No. 259.)
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Supplemental Provisions.
§ Clause 6 (Appointment of bishop of new bishopric).
§ MR. MONK,
regretting the absence of the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Assheton), moved the Amendment which stood in his name, which was in page 3, lines 29 and 30, to leave out the words—So long as there is not a dean and chapter of any new bishopric founded in pursuance of this Act.The clause involved the re-enactment of the congé d'élire. In the case of the Bishops of St. Albans and Truro, who were appointed by Letters Patent from the Crown, the Government and Parliament had entirely given up the principle of the congé d'élire in this country in the same way that it had been given up in Ireland ever since the second year of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, and as the Government had acknowledged that there was no principle involved in the congé d'élire, he could not see why they should place in the Bill any machinery for re-enacting it. When the first of these Bills—that for creating the Bishopric of St. Albans—was before the House, he had raised this very question, and his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had said that this was a very proper subject to bring before the House; but he thought it would be done much better in the shape of a Bill, instead of an Amendment to a clause. Well, he per- 1676 fectly agreed with his right hon. Friend, and he had on three separate occasions brought in a Bill for abolishing the congé d'élire; but he had met with such persistent opposition from his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope), that he had not been able to make way with it. He believed that if it had not been for his hon. Friend, his Bill would have become law. He should now, at all events, give the Committee the opportunity of showing their opinion of this obsolete custom called the congé d'élire. But what he wanted seriously to ask the Home Secretary was this — Was it worth while, when they had practically abolished a sham election—for congé d'élire was a sham election—to put into that Bill machinery for re-enacting that custom? What he objected to was that the Dean and Chapter should be compelled to take part in the election of a person who had been selected and appointed by the Crown. The Crown alone had the power of appointing the Bishops. The Crown appointed them by the advice of the responsible Ministers of State, and the Chapter might just as well object to the appointment of their Dean as the Dean and Chapter object to the appointment of the Bishop. In point of fact, they could not object to it. By law they were obliged to elect the person named in the letters missive; and whether they objected or not, the election was subsequently confirmed in spite of all opposition in Bow Church. If the law gave the laity the power of rejecting a Bishop, there might be something to be said in favour of such a course; but the law did not even give the laity any voice in regard to the appointment of the clergy who were placed over them. He thought it unfortunate that the hon. Member for Cambridge University had not allowed the sense of the House to be taken on the Bill which went to the extent of abolishing the congé d'élire in the case of the older bishoprics. He felt it his duty, however, to press this Amendment to a division.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 29, to leave out from the word "so," to the word "Act," inline 30, inclusive. —(Mr. Monk.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed be left out stand part of the Clause."1677
MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment. It was easy to argue in favour of it, for a great deal was certainly to be said in support of it. But a great deal was also to be said on the other side, and a great deal as to whether some middle term could not be found that would meet all the requirements of the case. He should, therefore, be sorry to see such a principle affirmed in such a discussion as it could receive then on a mere Amendment, seeing that it would affect every existing bishopric in England and Wales. He could only give his opinion on the subject, which would not, of course, bind the Committee; but thought it would be better to await the Bill to be brought in next Session by the hon. Member. And when the hon. Member did bring in his Bill, which he promised he would do very early in the ensuing Session, he promised to give the subject every consideration, and he should be prepared to argue it fully with him.
§ MR. HOPWOOD
was sure no one supposed the right hon. Gentleman would shirk this question when submitted fairly to the House. What he would argue upon it he was not going now to anticipate; but he did argue now that the Government position was given up. His hon. Friend was so much better informed on the point than he was that he would only now say that, as he understood it, that position was given up. It was possible, certainly, that it had only been given up, provisionally, in the same way as this point was; but if it was given up in that way, his hon. Friend argued that it should be given up until a state of things arose that should require it. The Bishopric of Truro was not yet gifted with a Dean and Chapter, and Chapters were not so plentiful as to spring up at the nod of a Minister. He thought his hon. Friend had made out a strong case for saying that this was the time for coming to a decision. The question had been very fully debated—it lay in a nutshell, and that which they were now considering was not a mere ceremony. He warned the Committee that they were dealing with something sacred; but if anyone inquired into the previous proceedings on the subject, bearing in mind that the Church was subject to a Civil Head, he could not be satisfied with its present 1678 state, and should not be content to submit to a caricature of what should be a holy and venerable right. He felt that, in this argument, his hon. Friend had right on his side. What he urged had long been needed to do away with a terrible scandal, and he should, therefore, support him.
MR. ASSHETON CROSS
explained that they had followed the same precedent in this Bill as in the case of St. Albans.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 26: Majority 37.—(Div. List, No. 260.)
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 7 (Scheme of Ecclesiastical Commissioners approved by Order in Council as to courts, offices of archdeaconries, and other incidental arrangements for constituting new bishopric).
§ MR. E. JENKINS
moved to strike out Sub-section 3. The effect of his Amendment, if agreed to, he said, was to raise the question whether, since the creation of the new bishoprics, it was advisable to transfer to them the patronage of any livings within their dioceses, or, in fact, of any livings at all. He ventured to submit to the Committee that it was a most unhealthy thing that the Bishops should be allowed to exercise this patronage in the Church. Of course, it was not a pleasant thing to be obliged to give reasons for taking exception to the transfer of patronage to the Bishops of the Church, and the increase of that which they already exercised. He would point out that there might be, after all, some propriety in it, and some justification for it, if it were spiritual dignities only that were concerned, and the persons interested in having over them a suitable incumbent, those to whom he should be the spiritual guide might have something to say to it. But it was not only to the spiritual dignity, but to the beneficial interest in a certain part of the property of the State, that the 1679 appointment was made; and he was sorry to say that, looking at the manner in which the Bishops had exercised their patronage in times past, there could be nothing more dangerous than to place a temptation of this kind in their way by giving them an opportunity of appointing persons who might not be the most fitted for the duties to be performed. He held in his hand a Statement by Members of the Church of England who had looked into its clauses, and published them to the world, in order that they might be remedied. There were people who liked taxes, and did their best to maintain them, and it was in that way that the congé d'élire— which his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Monk) had done so much to get rid of— had been supported by his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope). He had found him, also, going into the Lobby against the healthy proposal now before the Committee. Looking at the Statement to which he referred, what did he find? He found a painful statement to the effect that the Archbishop of Canterbury had, in the course of seven years, distributed among his relatives a number of livings ranging in value from £320 to £1,348 per annum, and averaging £660, with house and glebe. Yet the Archbishop, in 1866, declared in the House of Lords that he regarded all patronage as a public trust. The Times, in a leading article on this subject some years ago, dwelt on these and other similar facts as significant, and contended that it would be pernicious to leave appointments in the hands of the Bishops. One could not but feel that it was a most terrible thing that the temptation to exercise so much patronage should be vested in one who ought to have nothing further to do with the Church than to exercise a spiritual supervision in and over the diocese to which he was appointed. He therefore asked the Committee to act upon what he thought was a very sound principle—namely, that they should take away from, or, speaking more correctly, not grant to, these new Bishops the right of exercising patronage, but that it should be vested in the Crown. The Crown appointed the Bishops, why should it not also appoint the incumbents, and, indeed, the whole of the clergy and officials? He saw no reason why the 1680 whole machinery should not be worked as a sort of branch of the Civil Service of the country—which, in fact, it really was—instead of the patronage being delegated to the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church, the patronage having originated in the somewhat remote past in the exercise of Royal right and favour. He found that the Archbishops and Bishops had the patronage of about 2,100 offices of sub-deans and other officials connected with the cathedrals of the State Church; and they, therefore, stood in a somewhat anomalous position in relation to a somewhat anomalous institution. The State Church was made up of all sorts of religions; and its Archbishops and Bishops bore the hybrid character of being, on the one hand, spiritual dignitaries and ministers of Christ; and, on the other, servants of the State, appointees of the Crown, and the political Representatives in the Church of the Government of the day under whose régime they were elected. ["Oh, oh!"] One of his hon. Friends opposite seemed shocked at this way of putting the case; but why should he be? There was nothing like bringing a man face to face with the naked facts of any question which he had to decide for himself. He saw no reason why they should, like ostriches, bury their heads in the sand and refuse to see the real circumstances of any case that might be laid before them. He therefore moved that certain words of the clause be struck out, in order that, at a later stage, provision might be made for vesting all Church patronage in the Crown, which alone ought to have the power, as the Head of the Church and the Defender of the Faith. His Amendment was, in page 4, line 1, to leave out all the words down to the word "situate," in line 27, inclusive.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 20, to leave out from the word "and," to the word " and," in line 33, inclusive. —(Mr. Edward Jenkins.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. DILLWYN
appealed to the Secretary of State for the Home Department to assent to this Amendment. He was sure his right hon. Friend wished the new Bishops whom it was proposed 1681 to appoint should command the respect of the public, and should be as little liable to scandal as possible; but could he be unaware of the facts which had been stated by his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins), as to the grave scandals which had been occasioned in times past by the nepotism and favouritism shown by the Bishops in the appointments of the clergy within their dioceses? It was perfectly well-known that if a clergyman wanted to get on in the Church he must marry the daughter of a Bishop, or take some step to curry favour with his Suffragan. This was perfectly well known, and it could not fail to act prejudicially as far as the influence for good which a Bishop should possess was concerned. The Bishops were continually urging that patronage ought to be regarded as a public trust, and they were just as continually using it themselves for the advantage of their own relatives and friends.
MR. ASSHETON CROSS
could not assent to the proposition. He thought it much better that the patronage should, as at present, be in the hands of a variety of persons and agencies, than that it should be concentrated in the Crown. These varying systems of patronage gave a life and a variety to the work of the Church which it would not otherwise possess. He was not going to say that in some cases Bishops had not made appointments of relatives which had better not have been made; but he felt sure that the general feeling of the Bishops in the present day—and he had conversed with many of them on this very point—was in favour of the appointment of the very best men to the livings in their various dioceses. There were many cases in which he could conceive no greater good than that the Bishop should have the right of conferring preferment. Suppose the case of a clergyman who, in a poor parish, had shown extraordinary zeal and fitness for the work to which he had devoted himself. Was it not desirable, in such a case, that the Bishop should have the power of retaining the services and the influence of such a man within his diocese by giving him a suitable preferment rather than letting him be induced to remove to another and more remunerative field of labour in another and, perhaps, a distant diocese? Again, it 1682 must surely be to the advantage of the Church that Bishops should be able to introduce to their dioceses men previously unknown to them but distinguished for piety or learning, or both in combination, and able to exercise a wise and beneficial influence over the minds of the clergymen with whom they were brought in contract.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
said, although he admitted that many advantages, some of which had been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, would arise from the Bishops exercising patronage, if they would only regard such power as a public trust, he could not hide from himself the fact that, owing to some psychological grounds which he could not understand, ecclesiastical people did not seem to find themselves bound by the same moral restraint as other people. The appointment of County Court Judges rested with the Lord Chancellor; but if he were to appoint a number of his sons and nephews, there would be an enormous outcry in the country, and the appointments would probably have to be revoked. Ecclesiastical personages, on the other hand, seemed to think the patronage was not a trust, but a property which they might bestow on whomsoever they pleased. There was one objection to the various forms of patronage which were suggested—namely, that, as had been said by a wise man, the possessor of a large amount of patronage was like the owner of a large lake, which must be filled for his own purposes before its overflow could benefit the outside community. At the same time, he felt that the question of patronage was one with regard to which there were enormous difficulties. In Scotland they had a system of popular election, in which all the communicants, including women, voted; but considerable difficulties had arisen in connection with the elections, and he was far from thinking this the most perfect system that could be adopted. On the other hand, the accumulation of a large amount of patronage in political hands was an element of danger; but, on the whole, the question was one of so great difficulty that he thought, as far as this Bill was concerned, it would be better left alone.
§ MR. E. JENKINS
denied that there was any inconsistency in the course he 1683 had taken, and added that he should feel compelled to take a division on the Amendment he had proposed, as it involved a question of principle.
§ MR. DILLWYN
said, he had no doubt as to the desire of the Bishops to appoint as clergymen the best men they could find; but, as they all knew, the very best intentions were not always fulfilled. Human nature was weak, and when the temptation came, in the case of Bishops and patronage, it was often found impossible to resist it, owing to domestic and social influences which were brought to bear. It was said that under this Bill—and said as an excuse for it—the number of pieces of patronage in the hands of the Bishops would be small. This fact struck him as being a strong argument against this giving of patronage to the Bishops, because the temptation to nepotism would be the stronger in cases whore the number of livings in the patronage of the Bishops was few. He honestly believed that the Bill would be far more satisfactory to the general body of the community if this Amendment was adopted.
MR. J. COWEN
admitted that the principle of giving a large amount of patronage to Bishops was liable to objection; but, at the same time, it must not be forgotten that in some cases—as, for instance, in that of the new Bishop of Northumberland—the preferments at the disposal of the Bishops would be few in number and small in value. It was thought by many hon. Gentlemen that he had on many occasions spoken with considerable asperity in reference to Bishops, and he therefore wished to make a brief statement as the result of personal knowledge of one of the order. The late Bishop of Durham— Dr. Villiers—appointed the Rev. Mr. Cheese, his son-in-law, to a valuable living in the diocese. The appointment happened to be a very good one, and one which had since given universal satisfaction; but an outcry was raised at the time, and one of the comic journals, embodying the popular feeling, published a cartoon, in which was depicted a Bishop pouring port wine into a cheese. The Bishop of Durham received by post in one day no less than 250 copies of the offensive cartoon, and he (Mr. Cowen) had been told that the Bishop, who was an extremely sensitive man, owed his death to the attacks which were thus made 1684 upon him. He only mentioned this circumstance, as showing that a Bishop might give preferment to his own son-in-law, and still make the best appointment that was possible. He had said so much against Bishops that he felt bound, in justice to them, to mention this fact, which was within his own knowledge. Still, although exceptional cases of this kind might occur, he thought it would be better to remove temptation out of the way of the Bishops; and he should, therefore, support the proposal of his hon. Friend.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 74; Noes 18: Majority 56.—(Div. List, No. 261.)
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 8 (Trusts of bishopric endowment fund).
§ MR. E. JENKINS
said, the Committee had, at an earlier stage of the Bill, discussed and decided the question of what should be the minimum salary to be paid to the newly-created Bishops. He now wished to raise the question of the maximum salary to be paid. While a great many of the arguments adduced in the discussion of the minimum salary would apply in the present instance, he did not think the Home Secretary would be inclined to insist that the whole question was settled by the former division; while the right hon. Gentleman insisted upon a large minimum, he would not, perhaps, be disposed to defend with equal fervour a large maximum. The maximum proposed by the Bill was £4,200 a-year of salary, and a residence equal to another £500 a-year, or £4,700 in all. This involved a question of whether it was intended to encourage the Bishops to live in luxury; whether, in short, these ecclesiastical officers were to be raised to the position and income of territorial magnates? He could not conceive this to be necessary; and therefore suggested that the maximum amount of salary to be paid should be fixed at £3,200 per annum, with a residence valued at £500 a-year more, or a gross income of close on £4,000 annually. He could not but think that it would be an advantage if the salaries of all the Bishops could be cut down. If the Committee once more sanctioned such high salaries, it would be doing that which 1685 would tend to injure itself. That evening, hardly a single Member of the Church, on the other side of the House, had risen to speak on this subject, although he knew to a certainty that some of them were discontented. It was very remarkable, and ought to be noticed outside, that the efforts to improve the Bill, and to give it a proper spiritual and political shape, had come from the Opposition side of the House, the Members belonging to the Church of England being afraid that if they expressed any opinion, they would raise questions injurious to their Church.
pointed out that this would not be fixing the maximum salary, as was necessary, at a figure somewhat above the minimum.
§ MR. E. JENKINS
said, that the residence would bring up the value of the salary to £3,700, whereas the minimum was £3,200. Those who took the view he did with regard to Establishments were endeavouring to mould the Bill into something like a shape consistent with the relations between Church and State.
MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, that £4,300 was thought the lowest sum that it was wise to give to any see. He hoped the Committee would allow the clause to pass. It proposed merely to bring the new bishoprics up to the level of the existing ones, and he did not see that this could reasonably be objected to.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ On Question, "That the Schedules be agreed to?"
MR. J. COWEN
said, that the name, Bishop of Newcastle, might lead to some confusion, there being already a Bishopric of Newcastle in Australia. It would be better to give this Bishopric some other name—say, Northumberland or Lindisfarne. The strength of the Bishopric would not be very great if it had only 12 livings. He would not repeat his assurance that the people of the North of England did not want a bishopric; but he would urge the change of name.
MR. ASSHETON CROSS
did not think it desirable at that stage of the Bill to alter the name of the bishopric, and he did not think there would be any practical inconvenience if the name were left unchanged.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ House resumed.
§ On Question, "That the Bill be reported without Amendment to the House?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he might now state that it had been amply shown, by the contributions offered towards the new bishoprics, whether the Bill was wanted. A considerable sum had been bequeathed for the see of Newcastle, besides what the Bishop of Durham had intended to give. £20,000 had been raised for the see of Wake-field, in addition to sums raised by the Bishop of Lincoln and the late Bishop of Lichfield, which were likely to be increased by a Memorial to the late Bishop, in the See of Southwell. As to the see for the county he represented —Lancashire—he was told by one of the hon. Members for Liverpool the other day that he would place £50,000 in his hands to-morrow if he wished, as an earnest that that sum would be collected.
MR. J. COWEN
said, he knew the circumstances under which the money referred to by the Home Secretary was left in Newcastle. He thought the Home Secretary should not calculate upon it with too much certainty. It was likely he would get it, but not certain; for it was given under conditions which might not be found desirable.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.