[BILL 197.] SECOND READING. (Hansard, 8 July 1878)

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was under consideration last year; but there was not sufficient 1027 time to admit of progress being made with regard to it. He was bound to say that, in his opinion, and with a full knowledge of the work of the Bishops, that no body of men worked harder or did more good. In some cases they were so much overworked that they were justly entitled to material assistance. He did not think that the House for one moment would sanction, nor was he in favour of, any large increase of the Episcopate; but he did, nevertheless, think that some limited increase such as the Bill proposed was absolutely necessary. He was glad to say that no money was asked for by the Bill, inasmuch as sufficient endowments had been voluntarily subscribed. No one, he believed, objected to the provisions of the Bill, and all, so far as the See of Liverpool was concerned, would agree with him as to the utility of the proposal, and the adequacy of the endowments that had been given. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.

§ MR. DILLWYN
, in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day three months, said, he did so because he considered the existing connection between Church and State was one which conduced to the good of neither. He should not at that time trouble the House with any long statement, as all the objections he had to urge had been brought forward on former occasions. He could not, however, tell what new circumstances might arise to induce his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Assheton Cross) still further to increase the Episcopate; and he must therefore oppose the addition now proposed to be made. Holding, as he did, the view that the connection between Church and State was prejudicial to both, he was in favour of disendowment, and had no wish to see the Establishment increased. Particularly he objected to an increase, not in the working, but in what he might call the non-effective part of the Establishment. As a member of the Church of England, he desired to see it do as much good during its life in connection with the State as it could; but he did not believe that the extension of the 1028 non-effective part of the Clergy would at all conduce to that end. If it were wished to increase the utility of the Church, the Establishment of working Clergy should be extended. For his own part, as a Churchman, he did not like the creation of this inferior order of Bishops. He preferred a high class of Bishops, and did not think it desirable that the number should be increased; for, if largely augmented, they would be likely to interfere unduly in the affairs of their Dioceses. In his opinion, the less interference there was with the religious matters of the people the better; and for that reason he did not wish, by an increased Episcopate, to give greater facilities for interference. He would rather see the Bishops remain an Appellate Body, than take a more active part. But it was not only on this ground that he objected to the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had stated that there could be no objection to the Bill, because no public money was asked for, the necessary funds having been raised by subscription. That was one ground of his objection. He did not like to see the begging-box sent round for these purposes, nor weak women and others induced by priests to give money for the creation of new Bishoprics, while the money ought to be better bestowed on their own relations. Cases had come to his knowledge of money having been given for these endowments, which would have been much better applied for the benefit of the families of the donors. These arguments had, no doubt, been urged over and over again; but he should always oppose an extension of the Episcopate, and the more that he saw the present Government so inclined to increase it. He would conclude by moving the rejection of the Bill.

§ SIR ANDREW LUSK
thought the Home Secretary ought to give the House a fair opportunity of discussing this measure. The Church was a Department of the State for the management 1029 of which the House was responsible, because it helped to make the laws which governed the Church. To ask for more Bishops, therefore, was the same as asking for a change in the number and constitution of the Army or Navy. The House should consider that in extending the Episcopate it was increasing the number of officers of a Department of the State. This was not a question of money, but one of expediency as to whether or not more officers were required. Remembering that the Church was a Department of the State and that they were responsible for it, he should say that if more officers were needed they should be volunteers. ["Oh, oh!" and confusion.] If the House would not hear him, he should move that the debate be adjourned.

§ MR. BIGGAR
seconded the Motion. He did not think that there was any doubt that a considerable number of hon. Members of the House were in favour of the disendowment of the English Church. For that reason, it would be well for the supporters of the Church to give a little more time for the consideration and discussion of the measure, and not to expect to push it on without giving hon. Members an opportunity of expressing their views upon the subject.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
hoped the Motion for the adjournment of the debate would be withdrawn. With respect to the observations of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), the arguments used by him were brought forward two years ago, when the subject was fully discussed, and the House expressed its opinion.