ECCLESIASTICAL DUTIES AND REVENUES.

HL Deb 27 July 1840 vol 55 cc982-1023

The Order of the day for the second reading of the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill having been read,

Viscount Melbourne

never felt himself oppressed with his own weakness and want of ability more than on the present occasion, when he had to bring before their Lordships a question which, without doubt, was of very great magnitude, and of very great importance; which not only involved important general principles connected with Church government, but also many questions of common and of ecclesiastical law, with which he must necessarily be very imperfectly acquainted. He felt, under these circumstances, great satisfaction, support, and consolation, in being supported and assisted by those who had complete and thorough knowledge of the whole of this subject, and who were well acquainted with the present system, and also with that system which was sought to be established, and who would be able to correct any error he might commit, and supply any deficiency in his statement. Upon the present occasion, the second reading of the bill, although there were many details which were of very great importance, and which required their Lordships' careful attention, he should confine himself entirely to the general principle of the bill; which was this—whether their Lordships consented or not to a reduction of the present cathedral establishments, and an application of the fund which would be raised by that reduction to remedy a crying evil, which had been brought before their Lordships in so strong and cogent a manner, and which had a powerful claim upon their Lordships' justice and feelings, namely, the unhappy destitution of spiritual instruction which unquestionably, from various causes, prevailed throughout a great part of this country. These were the general principles that he asked their Lordships to consent to on the present occasion. He must be allowed to remark, before he proceeded further, that there was an error into which the learned counsel who had addressed their Lordships had, no doubt, unintentionally been betrayed in the heat and hurry of their speaking, and in the warmth of their argument. Both these learned gentlemen had staled, throughout the whole of their speeches, that what their Lordships were now called on to decide was, not whether certain reductions should be made in the cathedral establishment, but whether they should be completely suppressed; they had addressed their Lordships as if their Lordships had been called on to abolish them; whereas, all that their Lordships were called on to do was, to make some reductions, and at the same time to leave them amply sufficient for all the purposes for which they were instituted, applying the funds to be raised by the present measure, to remedy that deficiency in the parochial system against which it was one of the first duties of the House of Lords and the House of Commons to provide. In 1835 the Government of which the right hon. Baronet, Sir R. Peel, was the head, advised his late Majesty to make such a recommendation in his speech to Parliament, in the following terms:— I have appointed a commission for considering the state of the several dioceses in England and Wales, with reference to the amount of their revenues, and to the more equal distribution of episcopal duties; the state of the several cathedral and collegiate churches, with a view to the suggestion of such measures as may render them most conducive to the efficiency of the Established Church, and for devising the best mode of providing for the cure of souls with reference to the residence of the clergy in their respective benefices. The especial object which I have in view in the appointment of this commission is to extend more widely the means of religious worship, according to the doctrines of the Established Church, and to confirm its hold upon the veneration and affections of my people. Commissioners were then appointed, and when a new Government succeeded the commissioners were continued, the only alterations made being such as were rendered absolutely necessary by the change which had taken place. The commissioners pursued their labours, and their reports contained all the main suggestions proposed to be carried into effect by the present bill, the principles of which had been already stated to their Lordships. The recommendation of these commissioners respecting the episcopal revenues had been carried into effect—their recommendations in regard to pluralities and sinecures had also been carried into effect, and now their Lordships were called upon to carry out the recommendations contained in the second and fourth report—recommendations which had the authority of both governments, and of the commissioners from whom they had emanated. It had been stated, and strongly impressed on their Lordships by the learned counsel, that these recommendations had been made at a time of difficulty and turmoil, and under fear and apprehension—that they were intended merely to meet the difficulties and exigencies of that occasion, and now that the danger had passed away, they might be disregarded, and that they were not called on to make that sacrifice which in a time of trouble they were prepared to make. He was informed, and believed, that the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) and his colleagues completely denied that imputation; they denied that the commission was formed under the influence of apprehension and fear. When I appointed that commission," said the right hon. Baronet, "I did not do so from any temporary motive, or under any apprehension of danger, but from a desire to provide for the religious destitution which existed in some of the largest manufacturing towns in this country, and which I felt it could not be for the interests of the Church of England to allow to exist without making some vigorous effort to remedy it. On the part of himself and his colleagues he now made the same declaration. He begged to disclaim their acting from those motives. Indeed, they could not very well act from such motives, because they had always contended there was no danger, and that neither the church, nor any of our great institutions of the state, was subject to any great peril or difficulty. But, even if it had been so, he had always held there could be no course on the part of Governments or Parliaments which led more certainly to ruin and destruction than to withhold that concession in a moment of returning security which they were ready to make when under the pressure of danger. He utterly denied, however, that there was on the part of himself and his colleagues any fear on apprehension, or any metus other than that metus qui caderit in constantem virum. They felt unquestionably it was wise to apply a remedy to acknowledged evils and grievances, and which they could not say did not exist; but that was not fear; it was prudence, it was wisdom. It was under that impression. they had acted; and he would say, those measures which it was then wise to adopt on account of this necessity, it was wise for their Lordships now to carry into effect, even though there might be less clamour and noise than prevailed on that occasion. It was almost unnecessary for him to restate that which had been stated before, and which was very clearly and distinctly stated in the reports of the commission; and that was the amount of destitution of spiritual instruction which existed in this country. That had been admitted on all hands, and lamented by all; and, considering the morality of the country, the policy of the country, and the general interests of the country, it was an evil to which it was most incumbent on Parliament to apply a remedy. The commissioners in their report said, in order to give increased efficacy to the establishment of the Church, it was obviously necessary they should attempt to equalize the number of persons attached to different churches, and to add to the number of the churches. They then stated the number of livings in the country, and the population, and the impossibility of providing for that population sufficient means of religious instruction under the present system. And afterwards the commissioners said, the most prominent of those defects which existed in the Established Church was the want of churches and the small number of ministers in the large towns and manufacturing districts of the country, as the present establishment was wholly insufficient for the population, even after every allowance was made for the number of places of worship and ministers in connexion with the Established Church. He thought it was quite unnecessary to argue as to the absolute necessity which lay upon them for doing this. It was hardly necessary for him to argue, that the Church ought to set an example in this respect, or how fitting it was that the Church ought to take the lead in making such an apportionment of the funds at her disposal, as would show her readiness and zeal to emulate and assist them. It was unnecessary for him to detain their Lordships with further argument on this subject, but he would beg them to recollect, that they had heard strong objections to the course they proposed to take by the counsel at their Lordships' bar, to which, if he did not make some allusion, he did not think he should perform his duty, because the general argument of these learned gentlemen went to the root of the question. Their Lordships had been told by counsel, that they had no moral right to interfere; that the case wanted all the grounds and all the foundation which other cases had. Counsel admitted that the same thing had been done on former occasions—that the funds of an institution like the Church had been transferred from one body to another; but then, said these learned gentlemen, this had always been done on grounds distinctly stated, and which had not in the present case been alleged. But the learned counsel must have forgotten, that in making this admission he had cut from under his feet the whole ground of his own argument. Were they to be excluded from all interference with institutions, however circumstances might have changed, or however much their funds might exceed those originally vested in them? The learned counsel said, that they must prove some delinquency in those public bodies before they could properly interfere, as in the case of the Knights Templars. But if institutions were sound, and supported by the spirit of the times, delinquency was not a sufficient ground to interfere. If a bishop committed a crime, he might be punished, but it was no ground of interference with bishoprics. The only case in which delinquency was a reason for attacking an institution, was where, from some defect or vice in its original formation, it could not produce good. Therefore it was, that perpetual delinquency gave them a right to proceed against an institution which produced such fruits; but if the institution was good in itself, an occasional delinquency was no reason for their interfering with it. The other point touched on by the learned counsel was that relating to a surrender; but this brought them back to the original matter, whether an institution was good in itself, and whether it was so under present circumstances. He admitted, that all institutions of this character, those ancient institutions in particular which had been devoted to religious purposes, should be considered with the greatest respect and caution—that they ought not to be intermeddled with rashly, but he could not agree with those who thought they were to remain inviolate, however cogent the reasons which might urge the Legislature to look upon them in a different light. He thought, that such a doctrine was absurd. The learned counsel had also referred to the period of the Reformation. He looked upon that event as the greatest gift that had ever been conferred on this country, but it was not carried by the most justifiable means, and the proceedings that then took place, ought to be looked to very closely before they were adopted as a precedent. By the Act 21st Henry 8th, there were seized 276 religious houses, having an income of 30,000l., and personal property worth 100,000l.; a large sum for those times. That Act proceeded entirely on the delinquency of those houses. In the second Act touching this matter in Elizabeth's reign—the grounds on which that Act proceeded being surrender and not delinquency—if the Teamed counsel wanted a precedent, he had one at his hands. He ought to have looked at the 32d Henry 8th, c. 24, and he would there find, that by that Act, the possessions of the knights of St. John of Jerusalem were seized because they refused to surrender, and because they adhered to the Roman Catholic religion. This was the sole cause. Their possessions were seized not from any surrender, or any allegation of delinquency on their part, but because they adhered to the Pope. The learned counsel had gone on to state why he thought this measure inexpedient, by stating a great many duties which he said the chapters ought to perform, and which they might be still called on to perform, with great advantage to the country. He could not agree with the learned counsel—he thought the present bill better than his. Some said it was necessary to maintain the chapters for the purpose of divine worship, but more particularly for the study of theology. This latter point might be a very good thing, but he did not think that it was a thing which they wanted; and as to education and almsgiving, he did not see how the chapters were peculiarly fitted for such purposes; but counsel, besides pleading for a general ecclesiastical council, that the Church might manage its own affairs, wished the chapters to take upon themselves their former duties as a council to the bishop. He was not for that; he was not for limiting the power of the bishop by any body which might fetter him when right and shield him when wrong; he was an advocate of the monarchical principle in the Church as in the State, and for the discretion of one man responsible either in himself or by his advisers. The bishops, he knew, had great power, which it was possible they might use for the purpose of oppression, but it was one great advantage of their sitting in Parliament, that they were responsible and liable to be called to account. The few complaints which had been made in respect of the exercise of that power, was a sure proof that they had exercised it with moderation, prudence, and justice. He did not think there was any sufficient ground for keeping up the chapters either for those purposes which they once fulfilled, or for any duties which they might be hereafter called on to undertake. It had also been urged as an argument against the bill by a right rev. Prelate, on presenting a petition against it, that it was opposed by all the deans and chapters, and the great body of the parochial clergy. He had not had the means of ascertaining the extent of that opposition, but he felt quite certain, that those opposed to the bill were not actuated by any selfish or unworthy motive. He did not believe that self interest is, or ever had been, a characteristic of the clergy of England. He had a high respect for the Church of England, he agreed in the doctrines of that Church; he meant her religious and not her political doctrines. [Laughter] He saw a rev. Prelate had doubts on this point, but ever since the Reformation more than half the political questions agitated in the country had been connected with the religion of the Church of England. He did not agree with those divines who gave up the benefits of the Uniformity Act, or with those who refused the oath to King William and Mary, and continued nonjurors at the time the family of her Majesty ascended the throne. He saw a great deal of violence and obstinacy in this, and a division on points of so little importance to justify it, yet still there was a great abnegation of self interest, and he therefore acquitted the clergy of acting from interested motives, although he might not approve of their conduct. But there were other reasons which might account for their opposition; there was the general spirit of the body. The deans and chapters looked on the measure as a sort of imputation on them that they had neg- lected their duty; but while this strong feeling against the bill existed on the part of the clergy, it at the same time rendered them not the best judges as to the matter in question. He did not think that the Church alone and by herself was celebrated for her legislation. She had not been happy in her efforts in that particular, and he therefore would not be deterred from proceeding with the bill from the disapprobation of the clergy, even if it was as great and as extensive as represented. One great argument for the bill was, that the Church was bound to provide for those who had the strongest claims upon her, and that it went to remove funds which were virtually lost, and applied them where they could produce the greatest benefit and advantage. The learned counsel said, that the Church was divided between its friends and its enemies. He did not know who the learned counsel called its enemies, but if he meant by this term the supporters of the present measure, all that he would say was, that it was not the first time that a body or an individual suffered evil from their friends, and derived some benefit from their enemies. He believed if its enemies proceeded with the bill, and the friends of the Church resisted it, that her enemies would be conferring a support and advantage to the Church which its friends were unwilling and unable to give. The learned counsel had also asked on what principle of common or statute law, they justified themselves for going on with this bill. The statute on which they rested was the religious destitution which prevailed, and the absolute necessity for applying a remedy.

The Bishop of Winchester

had great difficulty in approaching the consideration of this subject, and he felt that that difficulty was in no small degree increased by the manner in which the noble Viscount had introduced it. He felt the kindness of his expressions towards the Church, and in common with all his brethren felt grateful for the justice the noble Viscount had done to the several orders of that Church, and for his admission, that no case of delinquency on their part had led to the bringing in of the present measure. He doubted whether he had the power to fix their Lordships' attention to a subject of this momentous nature, more especially when he considered the character that had been given to the bill. The noble Viscount had said, that the bill was intended to increase the efficiency of the Church, and to rivet her in the regard of the people. If he could bring his mind to believe, that such would be the effect of the measure now submitted to them, neither the opposition of the right rev. Prelates, nor that of the deans and chapters, nor that of the clergy generally would deter him from supporting it. He admitted, that the bill came recommended to their Lordships by high authority. It purported to be an Act to carry into effect, with certain modifications, the fourth report of the commission on Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues. That commission consisted of eight lay members and five ecclesiastical members. It was his firm persuasion and belief, that of all the persons who sat upon the commission—whether the first or that which succeeded it—there was not one who did not approach his duties with an earnest and serious desire to carry into full effect the wishes of his Majesty, by whom the commission was issued. Above all, he was satisfied, that the most rev. Primate and those of his right rev. Brethren who sat upon the commission, had entered upon their difficult and delicate task with the highest sense of the responsibility which attached to them, and with a most earnest desire to fulfil their duties in such a manner as should be most advantageous for the establishment and for the general welfare of religion throughout the country. Yielding to none in respect for the most rev. Primate, he was still bound to say that, after a most mature and painful consideration of all the provisions of the measure now proposed, he could not but lament that it should have come recommended to Parliament by such high authority in the Church. But whilst he lamented the high authority by which it was recommended on the one hand, he must not forget to remind their Lordships that some authority was still wanting in its favour. There were many of his right rev. Friends—he believed he might say a majority of them who strongly and decidedly objected to this bill. It wanted, likewise, the authority of the universities of the land, both of which had petitioned their Lordships earnestly, but respectfully, praying that they would, not suffer a measure of this description to pass into a law. Again, it wanted the authority of the great body of the clergy; and although the noble Viscount stated that, in his opinion, the clergy were not the best advisers in matters of this kind, yet, in affairs so peculiarly relating to themselves, he could not but think that their Lordships would attach some little weight to their respectfully expressed opinions. The measure wanted, too, the authority of the cathedral establishments. Twenty-two of these institutions had, in the first place, addressed the commissioners, in the next place his Majesty, and finally, both Houses of Parliament against the bill. He must further remind their Lordships, that although the measure came recommended to them by the report of the commissioners, yet it was not founded simply and solely upon that report. In addition to the propositions contained in the fourth report of the commissioners, the bill, also contained certain other provisions which were intended to be embodied in a fifth report from the ecclesiastical commissioners. Now, it was well known, that the draft of that fifth report contained very important additions, some of which had found their way into this bill, and which were much at variance with the principle of the recommendation contained in the fourth report. Under these circumstances, he could not but object to the measure which had been introduced to their Lordships. The noble Viscount did not advert to the character of our cathedral establishments. They were divided into what was popularly called the old and new foundations. The old foundations consisted of prebendaries, residential and non-residential. The new foundations established by Henry 8th, and remodelled by Charles the 1st, contained only prebendaries residential. The residentials in different cathedrals varied in point of number—in some they were as many as twelve, in others as few as four. The whole number of residentials amounted to rather more than 200—about 204, and their duties required a regular daily attendance in the cathedrals for various portions of the year. The non-residentials comprised a much larger body—about 340; and their duties consisted in little more than preaching one or two sermons occasionally in the course of the year. The property of these institutions consisted partly of what might be called property proper, that was to say, of houses or landed estates, and partly of parochial tithes or impropriations—the latter description of property having been given in exchange for real property. Such was a short description of the nature and character of these institutions. What, then, were the provisions of this bill? In the first place, it absolutely suppressed all prebends not requiring residence; and then it went on to reduce the prebends requiring residence to the number of four in each cathedral, with one or two exceptions only, in which five were allowed. Further than that, it dissolved all the corporations of minor canons. And he might observe in passing, that if there were any part of this measure which their Lordships could pass with greater safety than another, it was that part which related to the suppression of the corporations of minor canons. Those corporations were, he believed, the only bodies in the Church who had asked for their own suppression. As far, then, as they were concerned, their Lordships might legislate with perfect safety and propriety. But, to proceed beyond what he had stated: the bill proposed to alienate generally the separate estates belonging to deans, and the members of chapters. Further, it appropriated all property derived from reductions and alienations, and applied it to the augmentation of small livings, or to the endowment of new benefices. It then went on to transfer patronage in certain cases, and under certain conditions, from one body corporate to other bodies corporate, or from individuals to individuals; and, lastly, it provided for an alteration of the ancient statutes of these several institutions, in order to meet the changes which would be effected under its alterations. Such was a short summary of the various measures contained in this bill. The effect of them, if carried into a law, would be to abolish no fewer than 72 residential prebendaries, and 317 non-residential—reducing this class of church dignitaries from 540 in number to about 150. In short, its general effect would be, to take away little less than one-half of the revenues now attached to cathedral establishments. Such was the sweeping character of the measures embodied in this bill. He thought their Lordships would agree with him, that nothing short of the strongest necessity could justify them in acceding to such a measure. Had any such necessity been proved? Had any trial been made as to whether there were not other ways in which the same amount of means might be brought to bear upon the admitted destitution of the Church? This measure was advanced on the plea of expediency? but he did not think it expedient to take this mode of relieving the known and admitted destitution of the Church. At this particular crisis, when there was the most need for a learned and intelligent body of clergy, when the increase of population and the general diffusion of knowledge rendered it imperative that the appointed teachers of the people should take a high stand in the ranks of learning, was it at this particular moment that their Lordships would consent to weaken, impair, and well nigh destroy the nurseries of sound theological knowledge and pure divinity? He trusted that the noble Viscount would not suppose that he went so far as to say that this measure would totally annihilate cathedral establishments. He knew that it would not; but it would weaken and impair them to such an extent as to deprive them of nearly the whole of their usefulness. He believed, that if in an unhappy hour their Lordships should be induced to pass this bill, succeeding generations would have deep reason to regret the severe and injurious blow struck at those venerable institutions to which we owed our Hookers, our Porteuses, and all those learned and eminent divines who had shed a lustre upon our literature, and given an additional sanctity to our Church. He maintained that it was impossible, from the materials of which that bill consisted, to provide a fund sufficient to supply the destitution admitted to exist in the Church, and even if it were possible so to do, then he should maintain that the parochial clergy would not willingly exchange the fair prospect of advancement which they at present enjoyed for the small additional pittance which this bill would extend to them. Then came the question of right, which appeared to him to hinge upon this point—how far the State had a right to interfere with the property of the Church, in the way of redistribution, or whether it had the right to go beyond the point of superintendence? This point appeared to him to depend upon authorities, and he contended that the whole weight of authority went directly against a measure of the character now proposed. In this bill, he found an acknowledgment of the principle that it was right to resume free gifts made absolutely and for ever, and that not by the parties by whom the gifts were made, nor by their representatives, but by another party having no relation nor affinity to them. What right had the Legislature so to deal with property given for certain specific purposes—not by the State, but by individuals for ever? He could not think that their Lordships would sanction this principle. He admitted, that the poor diocese of Exeter, and the populous diocese of Chester should have their destitution relieved, and he was bound to say, that he thought there was no sacrifice that the Church should not make to effect that purpose. But it appeared to him that there was another party equally bound with the Church to make sacrifices to supply the deficiency of religious instruction which existed amongst the vastly increased population in many districts of the country. He maintained that the State itself should be called upon to take its part, and to do its duty in this matter. He complained, that previous to the introduction of a measure of this kind, no appeal had been made to the country. He begged to remind their Lordships of the words of one who was amongst the wisest as well as the most eloquent of statesmen, and who said, "if prescription be once taken away no species of property will be secure when it once becomes an object for indigent cupidity. I see that the confiscations began with the bishops, deans, and chapters, but I do not see them end there." So said Mr. Burke, when he looked back upon that page of history, when the Long Parliament passed a measure of the same description as that now proposed. There could be no greater mistake than to suppose that this was merely a question between deans and chapters on the one hand, and the ecclesiastical commissioners on the other. It was a question in which the interests of the whole Church and State were vitally and materially concerned. Strongly convinced that the bill, if carried, would operate most prejudicially to the establishment and to the general interests of religion, he begged in conclusion to move, as an amendment, that it be read a second time that day three months.

The Archbishop of Canterbury

agreed with his right rev. Friend, that this bill involved a question of the greatest importance both to the nation and to the Church; and although he could not but feel some difficulty in standing forward to justify the measure, after the very eloquent speech which their Lordships had just heard, yet he could not say that his opinion of it had been altered in the slightest degree by that speech. He thought on the contrary, that if their Lordships should come to the determination to throw out this bill, the results would be more or less disastrous to the Church, and a great opportunity of satisfying expectations which had been raised throughout the country would be lost. This bill was the completion of a system commenced by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, in obedience to the recommendation of the Crown. The first object they were directed to turn their attention to was the greater equalization of the revenues of bishops, making such arrangements in ecclesiastical property as should diminish the frequency of "translations," and entirely remove the necessity of commendams. That had been accomplished by a bill which their Lordships had passed, involving the principle of the present measure, and enacting the transfer of property from one bishop to another. He might say, therefore, that the principle of the bill had received the sanction of their Lordships. Another part of the measures of the commissioners was the restraint of pluralities, by which the undue accumulation of preferments upon individuals, which had so long been the disgrace of the Church, had been in a great degree removed, and the parishioners had recovered in many instances the right of having their clergyman resident on his benefice. The third point which the commissioners had been directed to consider was the state of the several cathedral and collegiate churches in England and Wales, with a view to the suggestion of such measures as might render them conducive to the efficiency of the Established Church, making provision for the cure of souls, with especial reference to the residence of the clergy in their respective benefices. The evil which this bill proposed to remedy was the great destitution of the benefits of religious instruction, public worship, and pastoral care, prevailing in many parts of the country. It might be proper for him to state to their Lordships the amount of this destitution in some districts, and the absolute necessity which existed of providing a remedy. Were no addition made," said the report, "to benefices having a population under 500 souls, 235,000l. a year would be required to raise ail the benefices between 500 and 1,000 in population to 300l. a year, and the others in proportion. What a miserable condition was this to which so many of the beneficed clergy were reduced! But the condition in which tire people who were to profit by the ministrations of the clergy were placed was still worse. In London there were four parishes with an aggregate population of 166,000, with church-room for only 8,208, and 11 clergymen. There was one parish containing 799,000 souls, with only 66,000 sittings. In London and Southwark there were 1,147,000 persons who had church-room in the proportion of 1 to 11, with only 75 ministers. The case was equally bad in the provincial dioceses. There were 816,000 inhabitants in 38 parishes in the diocese of Chester, with church-room for not 100,000. In some parishes of the diocese of York there was a population of 402,000 with church room for only 29,000. In part of the diocese of Chester there was a population of 235,000, with the same amount of church accommodation. Throughout all the country the amount of church accommodation varied from 1 to 8 to 1 in 30. What a miserable state was this! Was it not proper that some measure should be taken to provide an improved system of spiritual instruction, and a more adequate supply of church accommodation? What was the method by which the commissioners proposed to remedy this deficiency? The means they proposed to take were not to be found in the destruction of the cathedrals, but in the suppression of a certain number of canonries, amounting to 72, a sufficient number of canons being left for the due performance of the church services, and provision being made as adequate, if not more adequate than before, for the sustentation of those magnificent fabrics. It had been stated erroneously by the counsel at their Lordships' bar, that it was the intention of the commissioners absolutely to destroy those institutions; but there would be just the same means as before for the support of the fabrics, and also additional means in case the ordinary means should fail. This was what the bill proposed. Would their Lordships say, when the cathedrals were reduced to the care of a dean, of four canons, of a certain number of minor canons, with assistants, there being eight or nine clergymen for the performance of daily service throughout the year, that there would be any great fear of the service hot being properly carried on? With respect to non-residentiary canons, the number of them to be abolished was greater; but it was to be observed that many of the canonries were of small value. Some of them were of considerable value; but they must always be considered as sinecures. It could not be pretended that this character was taken away from them by attaching to them the duty of preaching one sermon in a cathedral church in the course of a year, where the holders of the canonry generally did not preach, leaving that duty to be discharged by the residentiary canons. It would really be an absurdity, in a case like this, to talk of a scarcity of clergymen to provide for the maintenance of public worship in cathedrals. He did riot mean in the slightest degree to depreciate the advantages derived by the church from the cathedral establishments, nor even the remuneration for services that was provided by the sinecures of the non-residentiary canons. If circumstances would admit of it, he should be inclined rather to increase than diminish the number of those benefices; but, on the other hand, if they were set against the destitution of religious instruction, which extended not only to populous cities, but to many parts of the agricultural districts, no one could doubt in which of these features of our ecclesiastical establishment an alteration should be made. The right of the state to deal with property set apart by the owners for ecclesiastical purposes, of a particular class, had been questioned. He admitted that such bequests might sometimes be made, not so much for the general good of the community, as for a particular object supposed to be connected with it; but they must consider in what times many of the donations of property to which he had alluded were made. The persons who had made them might, and probably would, if living in the present day, wish to see them applied in a very different manner. A great many of the bishops had founded benefices of the kind of which he was speaking, and were supposed to have done so with their own property, but that property really belonged to the church. Those bishops bestowed for this purpose property which they had confiscated. The endowment of cathedrals was no doubt a very proper application of the money, but still those who had profitted by those acts of spoliation had no right to come forward and say that this application of the money should never be altered. The State was not bound, like the Church, to adhere to the rules of existing law; it had the power of altering them. With respect to the precedents which the counsel at their bar had quoted, he thought their Lordships should be very cautious how they acted on them. Many of those precedents were bad, having been set in times when the true principles of government were not so well understood as now, and when the state of society was very different from that which now existed. But this he must say, that he did not think that enactments inconsistent with justice could be justified by any precedents, and that if a proposed enactment were consistent with justice, they had a good right to legislate on it whether precedents existed or not. He had endeavoured to convey to their Lordships an idea of the poverty of spiritual means which existed, and he would now proceed to state the sacrifices which would be required with respect to the cathedrals, in order to remedy the destitution. Nearly 3,000,000 of our fellow Christians in this country were utterly cut off from the advantages of religious worship and pastoral superintendence. In order to make provision for the supply of those blessings, a number of canonries to which some duty was attached would be suppressed, and a still greater number of non-residentiary canonries, which were in every sense of the word sinecures. There were something less than 400 clergymen, the value of whose benefices was set against the spiritual wants of millions. Now, he would not suppose that the duties of those canonries had been improperly or imperfectly discharged; he would suppose that they had been discharged in such a way as left no ground for complaint. He would also suppose that the appointments had been filled by men eminent for their piety and learning, and who devoted their learning to the good of the Church; and he would ask their Lordships to say whether the benefits so accruing to religion, were to be compared with the one which might be expected to flow from the scheme which the commissioners proposed. His right rev. Friend who spoke last said, that Hooker was an instance of the learning which was secured to the Church by canonries. Why, Hooker had never held such a preferment, or if he had, it must have been one of exceedingly small value. Hooker's exertions in such a cause as that to which his labours were devoted, were not prompted by so low a motive as the hope of obtaining a canonry. Where was the probability that a clergyman entering on the cure of a parish and discharging his duties faithfully would obtain any preferment of this nature? The most learned theologians who had adorned the Church of England, were not to be looked for among the holders of canonries. An objection had been made to this measure, that the sum to be obtained for the purpose of removing the destitution of which he had spoken would be small. The amount, undoubtedly, would be small in the beginning, but it would be something very considerable in the end. The force of example also would do much. Those who had the means of aiding the exertions of the Church would probably do so, when they saw the Church trying to help itself. The funds of Queen Anne's bounty, for the augmentation of small livings, were only 12,000l. a year, but considerable assistance in aid of that sum was derived from the Pastoral Aid Society, and the Supplementary Curates' Fund. It was said by the opponents of this bill, that it was the duty of the State to supply acknowledged deficiencies. He was of that opinion, but he could not forget that the State might say, and would say to the Church, "Set the example, do something for yourselves." That was the language held by an illustrious Duke whom he did not now see in his place, when he presented a petition on this subject the other evening from the University of Oxford: that was the language which the noble Duke had also held when he was in office twelve years ago. He said something must be done, but that something must come in the first place from the Church. That was also almost the expression of Earl Grey, with whom he had held many confidential conversations on the subject; and Earl Grey continually said, "We can do nothing for you, if you will do nothing for yourselves." That was also the opinion of Sir R. Peel. The motion lately made in the House of Commons on this question, had shown the good will of many persons to this object, having had more supporters than he believed was expected; but it had also elicited a strong declaration of opinion from that assembly, which he hoped they would be disposed to alter, when they saw that the Church was disposed to make exertions. It had been urged, that the confiscation of ecclesiastical property made in the time of the Long Parliament, and also in France during the revolution, had been ushered in by a proposal to take away only a part of it, and that if their Lordships agreed to this bill, it would form a precedent which those who were lying in wait for the subversion of the Church, would make use of to further their own designs. But when it was said, that this precedent would be ruinous, he would say in return, "Look at what will be the effects of the rejection of this bill." That was the point which he wished to call to the attention of those right rev. Prelates who were hostile to this bill. The first result arising from a rejection of it would be, that the present destitution of religious instruction which was in itself an intolerable evil would remain. Next, let them consider what would be the result to the Church itself. If so many persons remained at present in alienation from the Church, because they knew her not, because they were unacquainted with her doctrines, and because they did not profit by her ministration, the continuance of such a state of things would add greatly to the minority of those who now entertained sentiments hostile to the Church itself. It would increase the prejudices which at present existed against the Church, and which would be increased by giving parties ill affected towards her the opportunity of saying, that "the Church calls upon the country to do every thing for her, and yet the Church will do nothing for herself." He had reason to think, that the good effected by the passing of this bill would be extensive. It would prevent the revival of those prejudices against the Church, which had been removed by many late measures, particularly by the inquiries into the amount of the revenues of the Church, which had shown that those revenues fell far short of the amount stated in many pamphlets, and of what they were believed to be by many strenuous friends of the Church itself. The next measure in point of importance which had tended to the abatement of those prejudices was the appointment of the Ecclesiastical Commission, and its recommendation of a better distribution of the episcopal revenues and of the abolition of ecclesiastical sinecures. There had been no less a sum than 39,000l. a year held by bishops in commendam, all which had recently been set loose for the advantage of the subordinate clergy, who now could look for such preferment, and who were therefore so far indemnified for the loss of the other preferment which this bill might be supposed to take from them. The next measure in abatement of the prejudices against the Church was the reduction of pluralities. He had been informed by a gentleman very well affected to the Church of the very beneficial change which that measure had worked in the opinions of the great mercantile body of this metropolis. As a result of that change, he anticipated that a similar effect would be produced on the opinions of the great body of the people of England. Whilst he expected that great good would be accomplished by the passing of the bill, he would not conceal from their Lordships that he anticipated that all these prejudices would revive, not only in full force, but also with tenfold vigour, in case it were rejected. The people of England would say to the heads of the Church, "You held out to us such and such expectations, and now that the pressure upon you is over, you make no scruple to disappoint them." Whilst upon that point he must be permitted to make a passing remark on an observation which had fallen from both the learned counsel who had appeared at their Lordships' bar. He had heard so much to admire in the learning and eloquence of those distinguished gentlemen, and had observed with so much delight the great delicacy with which they had conducted their general argument on this important subject, that he could not but entertain deep regret when he heard them use the expression—"The storm has now blown over." Could any of their Lordships, after hearing what had been said on that subject by the noble Viscount who had that evening spoken first upon it, be insensible to the force and efficacy of his arguments? How could such an idea be entertained by the learned counsel at the bar, that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had made a capitulation, and were now to break it because the danger was over! But the fact was, that the commissioners had made no capitulation. This was a measure which the commissioners had resolved on, taking everything into consi- deration—yes; taking into consideration the necessities of the Church, and finding that this sacrifice was the only means by which those necessities could be relieved. It had been supposed that the commissioners acted under the influence of terror. Undoubtedly they had seen danger, and had felt it to be their duty, if they could, to remove it. They saw danger, not in the excitement of the moment, not in the passions of the hour, not in transient causes, but in causes which had taken deep root in the public mind, which were then powerfully operating upon it, and which would always, to a certain degree, continue to operate upon it, but in a greater or smaller degree as proper concessions were made or refused by the Church. They sought to remedy the destitution which prevailed, and at the same time to secure the Church, and all the establishments connected with the Church, which would undoubtedly fall along with the Church if by any fatality it should be overthrown. They saw that a mere nominal reform would be at once unsafe and unsatisfactory. They therefore looked at the permanency of what they were about to do. They had therefore consented to reduce the cathedral establishments of the Church to the lowest condition they could bear consistently with the objects which they had in mind—namely, the performance of her duties by the canons, and the sustentation of her venerable fabrics. He believed that the measure which they had framed for that purpose was good in itself, and further he believed that, as the first reforms recommended by the commissioners had already obtained the approbation of the public, the time would come, and that shortly, when the prudence of the commissioners would also be extolled for having recommended this measure to the notice of Parliament. It had been said, that the deans and chapters throughout the country were opposed to it. Nobody could contradict that assertion. But he had said on a former occasion, and he repeated the assertion now, that he did not think that the clergy generally were really adverse to it. He knew that their Lordships had had many petitions presented to them against the measure, but then the question involved in it had never been fairly brought under the consideration of the clergy. The commissioners had been attacked on every side. They had been assailed by argu- ment, by ridicule, by misrepresentation, and by mis-statement, of facts—in a word, by every artifice which learning and ingenuity could resort to. But the clergy had never heard the case of the commissioners fairly stated, except in the charges of one or two prelates, which had, nevertheless, not met that general perusal which their contents deserved. He had stated the other day that he did not believe that the clergy of his diocese were adverse to this measure. His statement of the opinions of his clergy had since been contradicted. He again repeated it. He had come to that conclusion from the conversations which he had held with a variety of clergymen in his diocese, and he had no reason to suppose that it was erroneous. There had been petitions signed by some of his clergy against this measure, and that from the influence of one individual who was adverse to it, and who had great weight with the clergy in the neighbourhood of his residence. A rural dean had recently called upon him and told him that a great number of petitions against this measure had been sent to him for signature and for distribution among the clergy of his deanery. He said, I have every respect for my archdeacon, but nevertheless, I did not choose to sign the petitions, and therefore I told the clergy of my deanery that I would not circulate the petitions, and they told me in return that I did quite right. He would just state to their Lordships a specimen of the manner in which the petitions against this measure had been got up. A clergyman who was very much opposed to the bill had sent his curate round among his parishioners to procure their signaturess to petitions against it. Twelve clergymen in his diocese had said that they would sign a petition against it if Dr. Such-a-thing would sign it; but Dr. Such-a-thing refused to sign it, and then these clergymen also refused. Had he not then a right to say that the clergy of his diocese were not adverse to the bill? If they had come to him and had asked him whether they should petition in favour of it, he should have said to them, "No; don't petition, leave it to the wisdom of Parliament." On the other hand if they had asked him whether they should petition against it, he should have said to them, 'Do as you please." if it were necessary, he could point out one clergyman in his diocese who had influenced many persons to petition against this bill. He did not wish to undervalue the petitions of the clergy, but this he must say, that petitions were only valuable in proportion as they were dictated by intelligence. He must likewise observe that the clergy had never had this question fairly before them. They had seen it misrepresented in newspapers and pamphlets, and some of them had become excessively alarmed at what; they conceived it erroneously to be. He; had received from some of his clergy letters of remonstrance as to the violation of his oath as Archbishop of Canterbury, of which they asserted that he would be guilty in supporting a measure which would deprive the cathedral of Canterbury of its rights of property in its stalls and in their revenues. Now, he believed that the oaths taken by the clergy on entering office were taken in subordination to their higher duties, and to their obligations to the laws of their country. He believed that it was provided that oaths of that kind left every one at liberty to do his duty, and to speak his mind as a subject of the realm, and to deliver his sentiments as a Peer of Parliament, and to advise his Sovereign, if he happened to be a Privy Councillor. He believed that such an oath as he had taken as Archbishop of Canterbury did not interfere with any of the duties which he had just mentioned; nor could he believe that an oath was taken either by himself as Archbishop or by others as prebendaries in any other sense save in accordance with these duties. As for himself, he did not think that because he was visitor of the cathedral of Canterbury he was on that account precluded from giving his vote in behalf of a measure which was necessary to the support and preservation of the church and of that establishment of which, under God, he was one of the heads. He could not suppose that any rational person would think him so precluded. Their Lordships should hear the oath. In his case it had been taken by proxy, which he considered to be equally binding upon him as if he had taken it himself— You swear in the name of William Howley to maintain the rights, liberties, and privileges of this Church, and to observe all the approved customs thereof, and to cause them to be observed by others, so far as such customs are not repugnant to God's holy word, to the laws of this realm, and to his Majesty's prerogative. That was the oath which he had taken. Now, all the rights, liberties, and privileges of the Church of Canterbury were era-bodied in the statute, and it was to the observance of their statutes that he was bound; those statutes involved a number of canons. By that oath he was bound to defend the rights, liberties, and privileges of the Church of Canterbury against all unlawful obligations. But that oath, according to the statutes themselves, did not prevent him from either proposing or supporting an alteration in them. Those statutes of the Church of Canterbury were of very recent date. They were drawn up in the time of Charles 1st, by one of the most illustrious of his predecessors, Archbishop Laud. The statutes and customs at that time differed from each other, and Archbishop Laud and the Church proposed to the King an alteration in the statutes to reconcile those differences. Their request was granted, and the present statutes were in consequence drawn up. But was there any such peculiar sanctity in Archbishop Laud's statutes that they were never to be altered? Those who drew them up thought that they might be altered, and a right was absolutely reserved to the Crown to alter the statutes, or to make new ones, if new ones should be required. It might appear to some that a question then arose, whether the visitor was precluded by his oath from advising his Sovereign to make such an alteration. Was he to be considered guilty of perjury, if he gave such advice to her Majesty? And if the statutes were altered, was he to be reduced to the distressing alternative, either of disobeying his Sovereign or of breaking his oath? If he disobeyed the Queen, he clearly broke his oath, because the statues so altered were to be as binding as the old statutes, and obedience was to be transferred to the new statutes. He had intended to have said this on a former occasion, in order to show that he had a right to advocate this measure, even though its tendency were to alter the Statutes of the Church of Canterbury. He repeated that he felt confident, if this measure were passed into a law, in future times it would not be a blot on the history of Parliament, but that the proceedings of the commissioners and the propriety of their recommendations would be universally admitted. They had sacrificed their time and labour and patronage in bringing about this measure. Looking at the amount of patronage (always a desirable thing) which had been sacrificed by her Majesty's Government in order to carry this measure—looking at the sacrifices which had been made by the Archbishop of York and the Bishops of London and Lincoln, to an immense annual extent, in giving up their smaller prebends, he reiterated the opinion which he had already expressed. Was it that they had no friends to serve, no clergy to remunerate? No; but because they knew that the good of the Church required it—that in sacrificing their own immediate feelings and interest, they were securing permanency to the establishment, and performing a duty for which they could consider no sacrifice too great. He felt quite sure that neither the Government nor the Prelates would have any reason to regret these sacrifices. While he maintained the general expediency of the bill now before their Lordships, he thought that there were certain parts of it which might require amendment, and certain improvements which it would be desirable to introduce. He had presented several petitions praying for the maintenance of these spiritual offices, even though the property should be alienated. What he would propose was, that every bishop should have the power of appointing a certain number of honorary canons, and of giving them places in the choir, but without any share of emoluments, and that he might bestow those places upon those who had given him important assistance in regulating the affairs of his diocese. Perhaps it might be all the better that they should hold these places without emolument. It was important that another provision should be introduced into the bill, but he was not prepared at this moment to state how, for the distribution of the money received. It must never be lost sight of that the great object in appropriating these monies, was to relieve the great destitution which prevailed; yet at the same time they must have reference to the local wants. There were large agricultural parishes which were very inadequately provided with the ministration of the Church, and these it was but proper that they should consider. It was almost impossible for the commissioners themselves to determine the relation which the local claims should bear to the general fund. All the bishops would be members of the commission, and each would very naturally be anxious for his own particular district. In his opinion it would be better if a certain proportion were allotted to the general fund, and a certain proportion to local wants. The wants of the agricultural parishes could never stand in competition with those places in which destitution of a far more lamentable character prevailed. With regard to sinecures, which were abolished by a clause in this bill, this abolition would probably in many cases give rise to great discontent in the country. Many of these sinecures were held in conjunction with vicarages, where the addition was needed; and the abolition would in such cases give rise to great inconvenience. It was so also in the case of curacies to which sinecures were annexed. His advice would be, that where a bonâ fide surplus was found to exist, it should form part of the fund to be distributed for local purposes. There were some remaining points upon which he must consult before forming any determination. He had nothing more to offer to their Lordships at present, but to repeat his conviction that the commissioners had acted under a deep sense of duty, and had done all in their power for the real benefit of these institutions.

Lord Lyttleton

rose to protest against the bill. He readily admitted that the question was one of great extent and difficulty. He would take no exception to the composition of the ecclesiastical commission, nor at all object to the right of the Legislature to deal with this revenue. He would take narrower ground, and show that these chapters had functions, vested in them by various statutes, essential at all times to be exercised, and most essential at the present time. What he held to be necessary was to revive and enforce these duties upon them. This was an argument which might be urged even on expediency alone. The powers to which he referred were inherent in these bodies, they were implied in their statutes, and, though dormant for a considerable period, they were plainly imbued with a spirit of vitality. This was the ground which had been taken in a very able pamphlet by Mr. George Selwyn, and it was strongly confirmed by many of the views put forth in the Rev. Sydney Smith's writings. In the statutes of the cathedral of Ely, he found the canons existing as an independent body—Statuimus canonicos, cum aliis, constitui in ecclesiâ cathedrali. In earlier times, before the Reformation, the canons were responsible for the superintendence of the clergy. This portion of their duty was performed by the archdeacons. Let it not be said in reply, that there were archdeacons still. Those of earlier times were very different from the archdeacons of the present period. The number was proportioned to the size of the diocese, and they were always members of the chapter—two very material differences. Besides being made responsible for the government of the diocese, an appeal from the whole diocese was vested in them. He held that these duties ought to be enforced at the present time. He was not now pleading for the sinecures of the Church, but for the fitting discharge of substantial and important duties. It had been observed by Mr. Sydney Smith that the canons had been made by the bishops to appear as counsel for the delinquent clergy. This was to a great extent true, and a learned civilian had so stated before the Long Parliament. He held, that with proper regulations, the chapters would constitute a very fitting body to assist the bishop in the exercise of his ecclesiastical jurisdiction. This was one of the very points which had been most contested by the Puritans; and had the answer of Charles 2nd been adhered to by that monarch, very many of them would have returned to the bosom of the Church. That answer was, that "no bishop shall inflict any censure without the assistance of his presbytery." The only chance of approaching to union between the Church of England and the Church of Scotland would, in his opinion, be by restoring the original powers of the bodies with which this bill proposed to deal. In regard to education, those bodies had exercised a most beneficial influence; and in respect to education, there was one particular point to which he wished particularly to call the attention of their Lordships—namely, the education of the clergy. The education of the clergy had ever been one of the main objects of those bodies, and he thought they might still be made conducive to the attainment of that purpose. He would submit to their Lordships that the superintendence of education generally ought rather to be vested in those bodies than in local boards. Their Lordships would also bear in mind that those bodies were instituted for the purpose of keeping up daily worship in the cathedrals; and they would consider whether the decrease in the number of the chapters would not tend seriously to impair their efficiency as regarded this particular duty. The cathedrals had also been considered as retreats for learned men, and it was well known that persons remained for a long time in the universities as tutors, in expectation of obtaining cathedral preferment. It was said, in justification of this measure, that there were great wants in the Church; what were they? The great want was, that the Church should be felt as a living power, and that she should be in a state of complete organization in all her parts; and that unity and organization could not be obtained unless these bodies to which he had been alluding were restored and rendered efficient for the purposes for which they were originally intended. He contended that the number of canons in each diocese ought to be in proportion to its extent. The noble Viscount near him had said, that the duties to be performed were worthless and unfit for those bodies; but he submitted to their Lordships that the duties performed now were not those originally intended to be performed; and what he contended for was, that the cathedral establishments should be made efficient for the objects for which they were at first established. The most rev. Prelate thought that this bill would be advantageous as setting a good example, but he could not imagine that a measure of confiscation like this could have any good effect. If this bill was to be passed, there was one further consideration which he was anxious to press upon their Lordships. Parliament might have the right of dealing with the revenues of the Church, but he must utterly deny the right of Parliament to destroy the offices themselves to which those revenues were attached. He should certainly, therefore, endeavour during the progress of this bill to have it altered so as to preserve the offices, even if the revenues were taken away. The measure had been introduced by those for whom it was impossible not to feel the greatest respect, and to whom the sincerest gratitude was due; but, looking at the measure itself, it was little consolation to know that it had been recommended by those who were to be considered as the natural defenders of the Church. For himself, when he saw this base act of confiscation, he would not tremble for the Church, but for those who did the wrong, and for the age which could sanction it.

The Earl of Harrowby

, having been personally alluded to by the noble Lord who had just sat down, felt called upon to address a few observations to their Lordships in reference to the opinions which he had formerly entertained on this important subject. It was true that he had published a pamphlet, thirty years ago upon this subject, which then engaged very little attention, either on the part of Parliament or the country. This pamphlet, however, was a strictly private communication, addressed to Mr. Percival, with whom he happened to be politically connected, and whose friendship he regarded as a great honour. So little did he consider this slight sketch to be worthy of public notice, that he was only induced to consent to its being published in an anonymous form. Great exertions had been made by Mr. Percival to devise a scheme for the provision of sufficient funds for the erection of places of public worship, and for increasing the incomes of poor ministers; and, at his request, he devoted his particular attention to this subject. He found the task a very appalling one when he came to appreciate the amount of money that would be required adequately to supply the want, and he was very anxious to see this burthen press as lightly as possible upon the public. In looking to the means which the Church itself possessed, he had no intention generally to abolish the chapters; but to make use of the power possessed by the Crown of enforcing the useful employment of the livings belonging to them, With regard to the right of Parliament to interfere in the matter, that was a point which he would not debate at the present moment. He could not help remarking, however, that it appeared to him that the learned counsel who had displayed so much ingenuity and research on this subject at the bar, had confounded the judicial functions and powers of the House with those which were of a legislative nature, and which were wholly distinct, and unfettered by the same rules and restrictions. He believed it was generally admitted that the rights of property of every kind subsisted entirely by virtue of a convention of society, and ought to exist only for the benefit of society. Parliament, in abundant instances, had exercised a right not of alienating or confiscating the property of the Church, but of disposing of it under such restrictions as were considered better adapted to fulfil the objects with which that property was originally given to the Church. It was only last year that a hill was passed, almost without opposition, altering the disposition of the revenues of the Church, in a Planner which it was conceived would conduce to the advantage of the Church, and the better fulfilment of the objects with which it was endowed. Now, it might be asked, what right had Parliament to call upon the Bishop of Durham to contribute to a fund out of which the Bishop of Exeter was to be supplied with an addition to his revenues? But the fight of Parliament being admitted and acknowledged to apportion the revenues of the Church in such a manner as they considered most conducive to the strength And efficiency of the establishment, and most consistent with justice and sound policy, in what, he would ask, did the present measure exceed the principle which had so been admitted in the measure of last year. Was it conducive to the interests of the Church to allow a great number of parishes to remain in a state of spiritual deficiency? Was it not, on the contrary, a great incentive to that dissent and alienation of feeling which was so much lamented? Before the Church called upon Parliament for any additional funds, he thought that it should be made clear that the Church, by a proper distribution of the property already belonging to it, had done as much as it could to remedy the destitution and evils of which it complained. With respect to the provisions of the first measure, he thought that after the reductions which it proposed to effect in the dignitaries of the Church, there would still remain sufficient to fulfil the objects for which they were established- There would be twenty-six bishops at 4,000l. and 5,000l, a-year; twenty-six deans at A minimum of 1,000l, a-year; 104 canonries, at a minimum of 500l. a-year; and 1,600 livings, exceeding 500l.; whilst there wag a great and undue number of poorer livings, diminishing to 80l. and 70l. a-year. Let any one compare these endowments with any other liberal profession, and it would be found that the Church did pot at all suffer by the comparison. Taking the army, for instance, he found that amongst a hundred regiments there was not distributed more than 200,000l. to the officers. There had recently been 133 officers promoted by brevet at a cost of 47,000l, And whilst considering these accounts, it should be borne in mind that these officers had paid 210,000l. for their commissions. Compared with the army, therefore, he did not think that Church dignitaries could complain of being ill-paid.

The Earl of Devon

considered this to be a measure of deep importance, and he confessed, that his opinion of its grave and paramount importance had been greatly increased by the course which this debate had taken. Their Lordships had been distinctly told if the Government of the day happened to appoint a commission, and that commission expressed an opinion that a great and important change ought to be made in any of the ancient institutions of the country, by which a great mass of property would he taken away from a large body of men connected with that institution, it was one of the functions of the Government to act upon the opinion so expressed. Their Lordships had been told, that the recommendation of the commission was a sufficient ground for them to interfere, without having before them one tittle of evidence upon which that recommendation rested. If it were possible that he could yield to any authority his noble Friend near him (the Earl of Harrowby) and the most rev. Prelate and right rev. Prelates who were members of the commission might be assured that he should be as ready to yield to their authority as any man; but he could only act after seeing what the nature of their recommendations was, and after endeavouring to ascertain what were the grounds on which those recommendations were founded, and if he found that the evidence did not support the conclusions to which the commissioners had come, he felt it his duty to oppose the measure come from what quarter it might. He first looked at the report, and found nothing said as to the nature of the duties of the commissioners. He then looked at the commission itself, and he found, that the commissioners were "to consider the state of the several cathedrals and collegiate bodies, with a view to render them conducive to the efficiency of the Established Church." Having read these words, his first impression was, that he should find in the report some suggestion as to the manner in which these cathedrals and collegiate bodies could be made to contribute to the benefit of the Established Church, and the evidence supporting that suggestion. The commissioners were required to make a minute and searching inquiry. Had they done so? If they had not, he did not think their Lordships would, upon the mere statement of the commissioners contained in their report, without any proof of their having made such a searching inquiry as was necessarily required in order to fulfil the intention manifestly contemplated by the commission, feel disposed to adopt one of the strongest measures ever proposed to Parliament. If they had made the inquiry, it was still more extraordinary that their Lordships should be called upon to legislate upon the subject without having any evidence whatever of the nature of that inquiry before them. Many commissions had of late years been appointed, and many important alterations in the law had proceeded from the recommendations of those commissioners; but in every one of those cases their Lordships had had distinctly laid before them the grounds and evidence upon which the commissioners founded their recommendations, and thus they had an opportunity of judging of the validity of those grounds. But in this case there was not a scintilla of evidence in support of a measure which dealt with a large mass of property. It had been observed, that "the power of the state was bound by moral considerations, and that the state must act according to justice." But who was to judge, in this case, of that which was considered by the commissioners as justice? He was quite aware that there might be circumstances in which this supreme power of the state to interfere with the rights of property might be justified, but it was the duty of the Legislature to inquire into the ground of that interference. The Legislature was bound, when dealing with cases of this description, to observe the rules and precedents that might be collected from analogous cases, and was not justified in setting itself up to make a precedent, except in extreme cases of state necessity; but this was not an extreme case, and did not justify the Legislature to interfere with a large mass of property in a manner so unprecedented and dangerous. The effect of this bill would be to deter men from ever again appropriating any portion of their property to the purposes of promoting the interests and the religion of the established church. He admitted that the evil which this bill was intended to remedy existed; he admitted also that it became the church to make a sacrifice to meet that evil; but this bill would deny them the opportunity of doing so. It undertook to do the thing for them. Every man who had read the report must feel that the commissioners had prejudged the question, and that circumstance alone entitled it to less respect as an authority. Those of their Lordships who voted for the second reading would assert as a fact that the endowments which were about to be suppressed were larger than necessary, and that the means thereby obtained could not be employed in any way connected with these cathedral establishments more consonant with the will of the founders, and this their Lordships were called upon to assert without any evidence whatever. Not one reason had been given why this government plan for the department of the endowments should be preferred to a different plan than had been suggested, except that the former would obtain a few thousand pounds more than the latter. He considered the good of religion required the preservation of cathedral endowments. He knew many clergymen who were encouraged to discharge their parochial duties by being connected with the cathedral establishments of the country; and he believed it would be advantageous to the character of parochial clergymen, and add to their efficiency, if these prebends were retained, even although the ordinary endowments were taken away. If their Lordships looked back, they would find that they were acting without precedent, and if they looked forward, they must feel that they were going to set a most dangerous precedent.

The Bishop of Gloucester

hoped their Lordships would allow him to endeavour to satisfy the noble Earl with respect to one particular ground of his complaint against the present measure—namely, that it proceeded without sufficient inquiry The noble Earl had said that the commissioners had not, so far as their Lordships were aware, made any inquiry or examination into the spiritual wants of the parishes, and into the circumstances of the chapters which this bill affected. This must be a misapprehension. The noble Earl would probably recollect that as long as five years ago there was a very ample statement made of the ecclesiastical revenues, including these chapters and every benefice, great and small, in the kingdom, accompanied also with a statement of the population of the respective parishes, and the patronage they were under, and other circumstances. The commissioners availed themselves of this and of many other particular inquiries which they made into the circumstances of the several cathedral bodies in the kingdom. The result of those inquiries had not only been placed before the House, but before the world, in various popular publications. Many of the almanacs had detailed circumstances of this description. Whatever other imputation, therefore, might be laid on this commission—and it had more than its share—an imputation could not be sustained, that they did not make sufficient inquiry into the matters that came within the duties of the commission. Their inquiries were long and laborious, and exceedingly minute. He was most anxious to clear himself from the charge brought against him as an episcopalian member of that commission. Their Lordships had already heard from the most reverend Prelate—that the episcopal commissioners had violated the solemn engagement they made when they took their respective sees—that they would maintain to the utmost the rights, liberties, and privileges of the cathedral churches as far as they were not inconsistent with the word of God, and with the laws and statutes of this realm. One part of this imputation had been sufficiently answered by the most rev. Prelate. It was made the subject of a publication, which abused the commissioners personally. He read it long ago; but it was mixed up with a multitude of calumnies, and came from a quarter he should hardly like to allude to. But it had shocked him to find in a publication which had been placed in his hand that day, that that accusation had been adopted in its severest form by one of their own order. To him and to all others he gave the fullest credit for their sincerity, but he repudiated the imputation that had been cast upon him. He felt the solemn engagement which he had entered into to maintain the rights and privileges of his own cathedral church; but he asserted that the present bill did not touch one of them. The property of that cathedral church would remain as it was intended, and on a much better footing, if the recommendations of the commissioners should pass into a law. It had been asked by a noble Earl why the commissioners had neglected that part of their duty which related to the ecclesiastical duties connected with the cathedrals. But they had not neglected that part of the inquiry; for in the present bill there were provisions which would place cathedrals on a better footing as to the chapter duties than they were before. Counsel had said, that the bill dissolved the minor corporations in the same way as Henry 8th did, accept that he alleged, while they gave no, reasons for doing so; but the fact was, many of those functionaries had petitioned their Lordships to pass the bill, and the commissioners had recommended that the minor canons should be merged into the larger ones, because in that case the minors would be better paid. He lamented that the circumstances of the Church and of the country required the suspension, or rather the suppression, of so many canonries. He knew very well that the learned counsel, to whom they had listened with so much pleasure, had said that the worst parts of the existing interests were preserved under the bill. They had said that Parliament had no right to suppress these bodies at all, or if they had the right they could exercise it at the present moment; but if they had not the right to suppress them, they had no right to prevent appointments being made to them in future. But suppose the commissioners had recommended that canonries should all be suppressed, what an outcry!—what lamentations would have been heard!—that they were depriving pious men, in the decline of their life, of their means of support. With regard to the commissioners, he begged to remind their Lordships that they were not self-appointed, and that from their minute inquiries their Lordships had learned the extent of spiritual destitution, which went far beyond what the imagination could have represented—so great, that they felt called on to recommend a measure to relieve it. Their Lordships would observe that the greatest wants of clergymen was in the manufacturing and great towns. Now, very few of the chapters were richly endowed in those districts where relief was most wanted; so that the plan proposed by the learned counsel, of limiting the operation of the surplus funds to the same district or parish as that in which the cathedral was situated, would not be able to relieve the pressing wants of those who were destitute of religion. The cathedrals of Chester and Ripon, were the worst endowed, yet they were in the districts where the greatest destitution prevailed. The cathedrals held property in various parts of the kingdom; that of his own diocese drew its revenue from as many sources as some of their Lordships did their rentals. It had seven or eight separate estates, and the whole income amounted to between 1,200l. and 1,300l. He was quite sure, that if the commissioners had neglected to recommend a substantial measure for the relief of the spiritual destitution, or had they allowed the property of the Church to remain as at present, he was perfectly persuaded that the strong feeling which had arisen in favour of the establishment would not have come into existence, and that their appeals to the country for support would have been utterly fruitless. However that might be, he felt that the commissioners had done their duty to their Sovereign to the Church and to their God.

The Bishop of Salisbury

trusted that this would not be made a party question, but that their Lordships would exercise their own judgment and discretion in dealing with the bill. Having witnessed the reformation of their civil institutions he was by no means ignorant that such a reform brought with it a like reform of the polity and outward frame-work of the Church as it stood connected with the State. Such a reformation of the ecclesiastical establishment he had always desired. Although the commission was not framed in such a manner as to preclude objection, yet it was composed of persons in whom the Church could place confidence, and whose recommendations they trusted would be for the benefit of the Church. He would not oppose the present measure on the ground that reform was less necessary in the cathedrals than in the other parts of the establishment; for, although there had been no charges brought against them, yet he admitted that it was but incidental to ancient establishments to deviate from the purposes of their founders. The present measure, however, had not for its object the removal of any abuse; but in professing to reform one part of the eccle- siastical constitution it disposed of much of its property, while in another part of the Church it conferred benefits altogether incommensurate. He could not help thinking, that it would have been a wiser course, instead of destroying to have reanimated those old institutions. He had had many opportunities of hearing the sentiments, not only of the clergy, but of the people generally on this subject, and his impression was, that if the commissioners had laid themselves as open to suggestion, or had been operated on as freely by circumstances as the community had been, their Lordships would have had a measure to which they could have given their unanimous consent. One of the great objects, if not the chief object, for which the royal commission was issued, was to ascertain the means by which the cathedral establishments could be rendered more conducive to the efficacy of the Established Church. Would that object be in any way achieved under the operation of this bill? The commissioners appeared to have limited the view which they took of the duties imposed upon them almost exclusively to two objects, first, the maintenance of the fabric of the Church, and secondly, the performance of divine worship. Without entering into details, which would be more suitable to the committee, he would merely observe, that the measure now introduced did not appear to him to be calculated to effect the two objects which the committee had in view. Confining himself to his own cathedral, he might remark, that as far as the support of the fabric was concerned, if the bill had been brought on in exact conformity with the recommendations of the commissioners, there could have been no alternative, but that that building should fall into immediate and rapid decay. Fortunately, however, some clauses had been inserted, which had the effect of mitigating in some degree the severe and rigid suggestions of the commission. Upon this point he must bear his testimony to the great fairness, candour, and courtesy with which the noble Viscount (Viscount Melbourne) had listened to all the representations that had been made to him. But even now the funds that would be provided for the repair of his cathedral would fall short of the very moderate means at present enjoyed by the establishment for that purpose. Then with respect to the performance of public wor- ship, he might observe, that it had been universally held by all those bodies, that the constant presence of some of the dignitaries of the cathedral establishments was essential to the due and suitable performance of the duties of public worship. But this bill proposed to cut down the number of canons residentiary in all cathedrals to such a minimum as would admit of one only being resident at the same time. It assumed that one would be sufficient. It limited the whole number of canons to each cathedral to four, and the chapter of Canterbury had said:— We have had at the same time four prebendaries, of whom two were more than seventy years of age, and two more than eighty, and one was such an invalid as to be incapable of duty. What would have been said if we had been limited to those four, with regard to the manner in which the service of the cathedral was performed. The bill insisted that one should at all tithes be in residence. But suppose that one should be sick—how then was the service to be performed? But independent of this reduction of the resident dignitaries, the effect of the bill would be to take off nearly the whole of those whose duty it was to preach the word of God. Surely, with such enactments as these, it was difficult to say, that the bill provided in any way for the better and more effectual performance of the services of the Church. But though the commissioners had limited their views to these two objects, were they in fact the very purposes for which cathedral establishments were instituted? He maintained, that the higher preferments afforded by these establishments supplied a material deficiency in our universities, by affording a stimulant to the acquirement of theological learning, similar to that which was found in the scholastic professorship of Other countries. The most valuable works in that section of literature had been composed and written by persons after they had been preferred to those offices which the bill proposed to reduce or to destroy. The Scotch Church could not bear a comparison with the Church of England in this respect, for whatever was valuable in theology and divinity in Scotland had emanated from persons connected with the universities, and not from divines holding ecclesiastical offices. It had long been a subject of complaint, that the theological course in our universities was defective. At Oxford he believed it consisted of only twelve lectures. Exertions were now being made to supply the defect of elementary instruction in theology. Schools of theology and pastoral training had been established in the dioceses of Bath and Wells, and Chichester. That was a reform entirely in accordance with the spirit of the institutions which the present bill proposed to deal with. The passing of the measure would abolish those schools, and make it impossible to carry into effect the original end of their institution. He could not consider any bill a sound measure that overlooked ah end so important as the establishment of efficient schools for the instruction of those who were to be called to the high duties of the ministry. When their Lordships were called on to abolish so many offices of emolument connected with the Church, they ought to look at the new places of emolument which were continually added to the profession of the law. During the last few years it was true, that a considerable number of places had been added to the Church, perhaps not fewer than to the law, bat they were not places of honour and emolument, but, on the contrary, were of small value, obscure note, and brought with them duties Of the most laborious character. He inferred, that if these establishments were reduced, the inducement to enter the service of the Church Would be materially diminished. When a measure, hardly more sweeping in its nature than that now proposed, was introduced into the Long Parliament, the number of students in divinity at the universities rapidly declined, and became at last comparatively insignificant. He feared that the same results would follow now. He was informed, indeed, that already, owing to the agitation and Uncertainty which for some years had prevailed upon this subject, the number of students in divinity at both universities had been considerably reduced. He did not oppose this bill from any wish to retain abuses, or to oppose useful reforms. Nor did he oppose it from any personal motive, for the bill as it now stood would largely increase his patronage, but it would be at the expense of those whom he could not consent to spoil. His motive for opposing it was based upon a conscientious desire to promote the good of the Church of which he was ah ordained minister, and the prosperity of an institution which he was bound by the most sacred duties to maintain and protect. Would to God that this measure might yet meet with the consideration which was due to it. Willingly, he was sure, would his right rev. Brethren join in consultation with the most rev. Primate and the members of the cathedral establishments themselves, in order to devise some sound and practical reform which, whilst it tended to preserve the integrity of these ancient and venerable institutions, should operate at the same time to render them more efficient for the purposes for which they were designed. If the most rev. Primate and the members of the commission would consent to enter into such a consultation, haply they might together devise a measure of reform really deserving of the name—a measure for each separate establishment, such as to each was most suited—a measure which would make these cathedral institutions not only the ornaments, but the strength and puissance of our establishment—which would make them instrumental in giving us an united and well-governed Church—a learned and pious ministry—a people educated to do their duty to God and man—a measure in passing which, with the unanimous consent of their Lordships, they might feel that they were indeed fulfilling the pious wish of their Sovereign, by making these establishments more conducive than they now were to the efficacy of the Established Church.

The Bishop of Lincoln

founded his support of the measure upon the grounds stated by his right rev. Friend who moved the amendment, and by the learned counsel who had addressed their Lordships in opposition to the bill, namely, upon the ground of necessity—the necessity of removing that spiritual destitution which was fraught with so much peril, not only to the Established Church, but to society in general. It was the duty of a Christian Government to remove the spiritual destitution of the people, and he would ask out of what funds was that object to be effected? Could it not be done without laying new taxes upon the country? He should recommend the abolition of all prebends which were not now devoted to the purposes for which they were originally intended.

The Bishop of Rochester

declared to their Lordships, that his oath as a Bishop would not allow him to support the bill.

Their Lordships divided:—Contents 99; Not-contents 48: Majority 51.

List of the CONTENTS.
ARCHBISHOP.	Scarborough
Canterbury.	Thanet.
BISHOPS.	VISCOUNTS
Durham	Canterbury
Gloucester	Duncannon
Lichfield	Gage
Lincoln	Hawarden
London	Melbourne
Ripon.	Middleton
DUKES.	Sydney.
Leinster	LORDS.
Wellington.	Bateman
MARQUESSSES.	Bolingbroke
Cholmondeley	Byron
Clanricarde	Camoys
Headfort	Colborne
Lansdowne	Cottenham
Normanby.	De Freyne
EARLS.	Foley
Cadogan	Gardner
Charlemont	Hatherton
Charlevile	Holland
Clarendon	Kinnaird
Clanwilliam	Lilford
Effingham	Lismore
Erroll.	Lurgan
Gosford	Methuen
Haddington	Montfort
Harrowby	Monteagle
Ilchester	Poltimore
Leitrim	Portman
Liverpool	Redesdale
Lovelace	Say and Seale
Minto	Seaford
Moray	Sudeley
Morley	Saltoun
Ripon	Wharncliffe.
Paired off.
MARQUESSES.
Bute	LORDS.
Westminster.	Brougham
EARLS.	Carrington
Albemarle	Stanley
De Grey.	Keane.
Proxies.
ARCHBISHOP.	Bruce
York.	Huntingdon
BISHOPS.	Derby
Bath and Wells	Leicester
Norwich.	Uxbridge
DUKES.	Durham
Norfolk	Shannon.
Devonshire	VISCOUNT.
Bedford	Falkland.
Hamilton	LORDS.
Northumberland.	Abercromby
EARLS.	Audley
Granville	Barham
Besborough	Dacre
Stamford	Dormer

Dunfermline	Howard de Walden
Ellenborough	Rossmore
Erskine	Segrave
Ebrington	Suffield,

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.
MARQUESS.	Carlisle
Ailesbury.	Oxford
EARLS.	Exeter
Devon	Chichester
Shaftesbury	Salisbury
Abingdon	Cork.
Aylesford
Warwick	LORDS.
Delawarr	Sondes
Enniskillen	Grantley
Manvers	Montagu
Verulam	Kenyon
Eldon	Lyttelton
Brecknock	Carbery
VISCOUNT.	Sandys
Strangford.	Ravensworth
BISHOPS.	Rayleigh
Winchester	Bexley
Rochester	Feversham
Bangor	De L'Isle.
Paired off.
EARLS.	Orford.
Digby	LORDS.
Glengall	Colville
Kinnoul	Forester
Mansfield	Tankerville.
Proxies.
BISHOPS.	Onslow
Ely	Plymouth
St. Asaph	Mayo.
Worcester.	VISCOUNT.
DUKE.	Sidmouth.
Newcastle.	LORDS.
MARQUESS	Bayning
Camden.	Rolle
EARLS.	Thurlow
Guildford	Wynford.

Bill read a second time.