SEE OF SODOR AND MAN. (Hansard, 22 February 1838)

§ The Earl of Ripon
, in moving the Order of the Day for the second reading of this Bill, was happy to state, that in consequence of communications which had taken place between the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the authorities of the Isle of Man, the former had come to the determination to recommend not the union of the bishoprick with that of Carlisle, but its continuance as a separate see. He rejoiced at the determination adopted by the Commissioners, because it was right and just in itself—because it was agreeable to the general prevailing opinion throughout the country, and particularly among the clergy—and, above all, because it was unquestionably in conformity with the decided and deliberately expressed opinion of the people at large in the Isle of Man. There was one circumstance, however, which, in a certain degree, diminished the gratification he felt at the success of the Bill now before their Lordships, and that was, that, since its introduction, that excellent man, the late Bishop of the island, had ceased to exist. Their Lordships were aware of the zeal with which he pursued the object sought to be attained by the present Bill, and nothing could have given him greater satisfaction in his last moments than the certainty that the object he had so much at heart was about to be accomplished. When he last had the opportunity of addressing their Lordships on the provisions of the present Bill, he had stated what that rev. individual had done in the discharge of his duties for the promotion of religious education in the island in which he held his bishoprick. He then stated, that that right rev. person's exertions had not been confined to mere zeal and activity; but that he had contributed, from his own pecuniary resources, a sum not less than 1,200l., to be applied to the diffusion of religious education. From information he had since received, he was led to believe, that he should be under the mark if he were to say, that the sum so appropriated exceeded 2,000l. It was a fact worth mentioning to their Lordships, that, after holding the bishoprick for ten years, he died poorer than he was at the time the bishoprick was first bestowed on him; and the very last document he signed was one 5 making himself responsible for a subscription, having for its object the augmentation of the incomes of the poorer clergy. When he performed this act he was on the point of death—an event which he knew would remove his family from a state of comfort and affluence to comparative obscurity; but he felt that the duty which he owed his flock was superior even to that he owed his family. The noble Earl concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.

The Archbishop of Canterbury
had great pleasure in adding his testimony to all that the noble Lord who had just sat down had said, in favour of the piety, the zeal, the activity, in the management of his diocese of the deceased individual, and above all to his attention to the interests of education. If he was to attempt to specify his contributions, he was quite sure that they would certainly exceed those of his predecessors. Some days ago, he (the Archbishop of Canterbury) stated, that he had had a communication from the island, informing him that proceedings were going on which might lead to a satisfactory adjustment of the question. He had since received a communication from the council and legislature, stating their desire of retaining a bishop, which they felt, perhaps, the more strongly from their regard to the memory of the late prelate. They had proposed a commutation of tithes, which would enable them to effect the purposes they had in view with respect to certain alterations in the distribution of tithes between the bishop and clergy of the island. They would undoubtedly reduce the bishopric in value; but the arrangement would leave a very competent income to the bishop, and a competent maintenance for the clergy. To the general object of the commission it was indifferent whether the bishopric was retained or not, there was no part of the kingdom to be affected by it but the island alone; and there the eighteen parishes would have the superintendence of their bishop, who would, according to their ancient constitution, continue to take part in the proceedings of their legislature. But it was of the utmost importance that a better distribution of dioceses should be effected; and if the measures of the commission for that purpose should be infringed upon, their labours would be comparatively useless. He certainly should feel himself bound to resist any alteration 6 in the bill which was passed two Sessions ago that might interfere with its general principles; but as he did not think this bill could have that effect, he should certainly support it to the utmost.

The Bishop of Exeter
said, that he only rose to say one word with respect to the observation with which the most rev. Prelate had concluded. The most rev. Prelate had stated, that he should resist, to the utmost of his power, any attempt to make an alteration in the act passed two Sessions ago. Upon the present occasion it was not his intention to suggest any change; but there was one part of that statute which he considered most unconstitutional—most destructive to the best interests of the Church—most dangerous to the spiritual interests of the Church—and which he was most anxious to see repealed. He meant that part which related to the constitution of the commission. That, and the permanency of the commission, he should ever deplore as pregnant with consequences fatal to the security and dignity of the Church of England. He, therefore, trusted that the time would come when that provision would be removed from the statute-book, and that it would be as soon as the matters which had been recommended by the commissioners had been carried into effect.

The Bishop of London
said, that he had no right to complain that the right rev. Prelate had taken the present opportunity to express his sentiments; but he thought, he and the rest of the Commissioners had a right to complain of the gross, and he must say, obvious, misrepresentations made respecting the conduct of the Commissioners. The constitution of the commission the right rev. Prelate had stated to be dangerous to the welfare of the Established Church. It further had been said, by people who ought to have known better, that the commission formed a legislative body for the Church. But this was not the fact. By the act by which they were constituted, the Commissioners could not step beyond the line marked out for them. For the Commissioners, constituted as they were, to originate any measures affecting the Established Church would be impossible; all they could do was to carry into effect that which their Lordships had determined to be law. They were to devise some better distribution of the territories and 7 revenues of the sees, and, therefore, it was utterly impossible that they could originate any measure affecting the Church. In fact, they were only competent to act ministerially to carry into effect that which the wisdom of Parliament had determined should be the law.

The Bishop of Exeter
, in explanation, said, he thought the power conferred upon the Commissioners was most uncalled for by the circumstances of the case. He believed it to be one of the greatest blows that had ever been aimed at the independence of the Church.

§ Viscount Melbourne
said, that with respect to the subject of the present discussion, it was natural for the Commissioners to recommend, when the population was so small as that of Sodor and Man, that the bishopric should be no longer allowed; since that recommendation, however, reasons had been shown sufficient to stay that determination, and he himself saw only one objection to forego it entirely, which was, that it would break in upon what had been settled by the act of Parliament, and he thought, that in matters so great and so important as the distribution of the dioceses of the country, it was desirable for the settlement to be final, and to remain for ever undisturbed if possible. In the present instance, however, there were objections, local objections, (although, on the whole, the settlement was better, and it would be right, therefore, to maintain it as far as possible) but, in this case, on account of these objections, he concurred in what had been stated by the most rev. Prelates, though, at the same time, he must deprecate this being considered as a precedent for further alterations and changes, and as giving an impolitic countenance to any other variations from the settlement already made.