HL Deb 23 May 1843 vol 69 cc756-804
The Earl of Powis,

after presenting petitions against the union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor, addressed the House as follows:*—I shall now, my Lords, proceed to move the second reading of " An act for preventing the union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor," As I have the misfortune to be under the necessity of introducing this bill, one of the greatest ecclesiastical importance to the principality of Wales and to the Established Church, under the avowed opposition of the most rev. Prelate, who so worthily presides over the English Church, and his right rev. brethren the original members of the ecclesiastical commission, I feel it a duty which I owe to your Lordships to endeavour to vindicate myself from the charge of presumption. It will not be sufficient for me, my Lords, to endeavour to extenuate or apologise for the step that I am taking upon this important Church question. I do not wish to diminish or underrate my own responsibility. I ought to justify my course; I trust and believe I shall be able to do so. Nothing, I can assure your Lordships, but a sense of public duty, of the duty which I owe to my countrymen and to the Church in Wales, would have induced me to undertake the task of submitting to your Lordships' notice the details of this very important and interesting case. The first point which I shall take the liberty of urging in vindication of the course which I am pursuing, is, that the inhabitants of the principality, although they have the misfortune to know that their prayers and petitions are objected to by the most rev, Prelate, and by some of his right rev. Brethren, the original members of the ecclesiastical commission, know also, and that fact should also be borne in mind by your Lordships, that in preparing this bill I have had the advantage of the advice, and experience, and countenance of both the respected Prelates of St. Asaph and of Bangor, and their full approbation of the course I am about to pursue. Your Lordships will be pleased to bear in mind, throughout the whole of this important discussion, that the great complaint in the principality is that there is a general non-acquaintance with the facts of this import ant case on the part of those with whom the final decision in respect of the interests of the Church in North Wales has rested My countrymen reside in a distant district; they have not the same facilities of communication which exist in other parts * From a corrected report. of the country; their country is an impracticable one, and consequently an acquaintance with the local and parochial difficulties of the Church in North Wales, and the steps necessary to maintain its interests, is limited, nay almost confined, to those who are immediately concerned in its administration. On the present occasion it is a satisfaction to me to know that the two right rev. Prelates who preside so worthily over the dioceses of North Wales are united in their testimony against the union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor. They are the best and most unexceptionable witnesses who can be produced; they are perfectly acquainted with what is due to the interests of the church in the principality, and their evidence is disinterested, the union of the two sees being deferred until both these rev. men shall have been removed from this sphere of their labours. If they had merely consulted their own ease, they might have left to posterity to deal with the anticipated evils when they should arise. They have pursued a very different line of conduct; they feel the duty they owe to the country which has been placed under their spiritual guidance; they feel the duty which they owe to the Church, of which they are distinguished members; and they have endeavoured to avert the consummation of those evils against which I am now contending. In addition to the evidence of these two right rev. Prelates, I must avail myself of the indirect testimony of unwilling witnesses—for so, I fear, notwithstanding their exalted station, I must describe the highly respected individuals I am about to name, as regards the act I have charge of—I mean the most rev. Prelate and his brethren, members of the Ecclesiastical Commission, who are also members of the Convocation. Your Lordships are aware that the assembly of the Church expresses its sentiments on some occasions in Convocation. The Convocation is composed of two houses, the upper and the lower, and the last time the Convocation met was in the year 1841. The Church is reported to have then declared in her public synod, and in a most unequivocal way, her objection to the proceedings of the commission with reference to the union of the two sees, which is now under the consideration of your Lordships. I will rend an extract from a letter addressed to his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury by a gentleman who signs himself R. W. Huntley, who was proctor from the diocese to which he belongs, to the Convocation, and present during the occurrences which he relates. He says:— On the last meeting of Convocation, early in the autumn of 1841, it seemed good to the upper House to send down to the representatives of the clergy an address to the Queen, to be passed by them, and to be presented to her Majesty, It was understood that this would be the only business proposed to their notice. The address, however, was found to contain a clause, recognizing and assenting to the commission and its acts, and making them express matter of congratulation. Now this clause, without any attempt either at modification or abatement of terms, was absolutely and entirely thrown out. The curtailed address was accepted by the upper House, and so was laid before the Queen, and by her Majesty was graciously received. Now this short history proves, beyond gainsaying, that the Church, on the sole occasion on which she has been permitted to speak, and then as far as power of speech was given to her, has, in a manner that cannot be misunderstood, and which ought to be known, declared her want of sympathy with the commission. She has declined to acknowledge it, and in her lawful assembly of bishops and representative priests she caused the mention of it to be erased; and yet, my Lord, it is in the face of this disclaimer—I say it with the most real respect, for I am well aware that the point has been overlooked—still in the face of this disclaimer it is, that the Ecclesiastical Commission are as yet maintaining the proposition that a bishopric shall be abolished. This being the case, I beg to submit to your Grace and their Lordships the bishops, and the Church at large, that the Ecclesiastical Commission, and consequently the resolves and acts also grounded on its report, do really become subjects of grave uneasiness, after such an expression of our ecclesiastical synod; that we have reason to fear a spirit of Erastianism, when the acts of the state continue to be promoted notwithstanding the church disapproves thereof, and declines to recognize the same; and, to come close to my present subject, when it appears that even a bishopric is to be suppressed, notwithstanding the public protests delivered against it, through the voice of the two bishops whose sees are concerned, through the voice of many other of her bishops, through her priests in Convocation, and through her clergy and laity expressing their sentiments in petitions. In addition to this evidence, and in further justification of the course I am taking, I beg to state that I have been entrusted with petitions from Jesus College, Oxford; from different bodies of the clergy of the counties of Hereford, Hertford, Derby, Bedford, Suffolk, and Salop, Gloucester, and Hants; as well as the petition which I have this day presented, signed by 468 lay inhabitants of the important metropolitan parish of Marylebone and its vicinity, with the residences of the petitioners attached to their signatures. 1 have also had the honour of presenting petitions in favour of the proposition I am about to make to your Lordships, from the counties of Flint, Denbigh, Merioneth, Cærnarvon, and Montgomery in North Wales; and from Cardigan and Carmarthen in South Wales. Both the Universities have also petitioned Parliament on behalf of North Wales; one petition only has, I believe, been presented to this House. There is another petition to which I beg to call the particular attention of your Lordships;—first, on account of the power and ability with which it has been penned, and next, from the recollection of the success which followed the exertions of my noble Friend behind me (the Earl of Ripon), when he undertook on the part of the clergy and inhabitants of the Isle of Man, to obtain the repeal of the clause which went to annex the see of Sodor and Man to that of Carlisle, and by that repeal to continue the see of Sodor and Man as a separate diocese. The petition states:— That your petitioners will ever most gratefully remember the powerful co-operation and the generous support which, in that arduous struggle, they received from the universities, the various chapters, archdeaconries, and numerous bodies of the clergy and laity of England and Wales, in advocating their cause with your right hon. House; and still more do your petitioners feel impressed with gratitude to the Parliament of the United Kingdom for their gracious compliance with the earnest prayers of the Manx people. That your petitioners feel in a peculiar manner the affinity between the sees of Sodor and Man, and St. Asaph and of Bangor—(I entreat your Lordships' particular attention to the following sentences) — all bishoprics of independent states for many centuries previously to the Isle of Man and the principality of Wales being incorporated in the British dominions —all in the earliest time endowed with funds for the maintenance of their several churches within their respective dioceses; all amid the revolutions of succeeding ages, the change of dynasties, and the reformation in the Anglican Church, preserved un-impaired by the storms of time or the sacrilegious hand of arbitrary power; — and all having poor, scattered populations, requiring the entire care and attention of the most jealous bishop. With these recollect- tions your petitioners feel themselves called upon as fellow-Christians to retnrn good for good, sympathy for sympathy, and most respectfully to express their earnest hope to your honourable House that these two most interesting remains of the episcopacy of former days, which ages of barbarism, of war, and of revolution have spared, may not, in these enlightened times be sacrificed to the expediency of measures which, however otherwise important, they beg leave most respectfully to express their hope may by other means be attained. That the ancient revenues of these sees may not be diverted from their legitimate object to assist in founding another see in a district unconnected with their own, and which is one of the most wealthy in the kingdom, but that the inhabitants of North Wales, by the blessing of Divine Providence, and through the wisdom and the justice of Parliament, for all time yet to come may be permitted to retain unchanged the incalculable advantages of their present episcopal establishment; and each see to continue to possess a separate resident bishop to preside over their churches, and personally to superintend and promote the spiritual and the temporal welfare of the people; and that at a time when it has been deemed expedient by the Government and sanctioned by the Crown, to consecrate prelates to all the widely-extended colonies of the empire in the four quarters of the globe, and even to the more-recently discovered shores of Australia; and whilst the rapidly-augmenting population of the British isles would appear likewise to demand an augmentation of episcopal superintendence, your petitioners would willingly hope that the next step in this great work will not be connected with the extinction of one of the very ancient bishoprics of the most ancient people of Britain. I am also happy to be able to quote in favour of this measure the kind and fatherly reception with which the most Rev, Prelate at the head of the Church has been pleased to honour an address which was presented to him by the clergy of the diocese to which I have the happiness to belong—I mean the diocese of St. Asaph, From the address itself I will first take the liberty of reading the concluding sentences. They are as follow:— But all representations, however forcible, must, of necessity, fail in conveying to your Grace that knowledge of our peculiar position which nothing but an actual residence in Wales can afford; and we feel persuaded, that had the Ecclesiastical Commissioners been perfectly conversant with the almost overwhelming difficulties we have to contend with, from the fearful prevalence of dissent, the difference of language, the poverty and inaccessible nature of the country,—the question would rather have been how to strengthen the arm of the church by an additional bishoprie, than to annihilate one of those sees which have existed for so many centuries amongst us. We entreat your Grace to believe that we are actuated by no interested motives in making this solemn appeal, but by a warm and filial attachment to the episcopal constitution, a jealous regard for the dignity and efficiency of the church, and an ardent zeal for the spiritual welfare of those who are ' committed to our charge.' We now most respectfully commend our petition to your Grace's serious consideration, earnestly trusting that the high powers with which it has pleased Providence to invest your Grace, may be exerted in rescuing from spoliation the sacred heritage of our fathers; and humbly praying Almighty God long to spare your Grace to edify and adorn the church, which is the common Mother of us all.

The following is the reply of his Grace: — My Dear Lord,Lambeth, May 1, 1843. I have to acknowledge an address on the subject of the union of the dioceses of St. Asaph and Bangor, recommended by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, which is signed by so many clergymen, both incumbents and curates, that it must be regarded as speaking the collective sense of the diocese of St. Asaph. I cannot but feel that such a declaration, proceeding from a body of clergy so strongly attached to the Church, and so zealous for its honour and its interests, is entitled to great attention; and I beg your Lordship to assure the petitioners, that I have received their address with the respect which is due to the importance of the subject, to the motives and character of those whose names are attached to it, and to the venerated Bishop by whom it has been placed in my hands. I remain, my dear Lord, Your Lordship's faithful servant and friend, W. CANTUAR. To the Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of St. Asaph." I trust I may be allowed to express a hope that the most Rev. Prelate will at some future, if not upon the present occasion, grant to the prayers of the petitioners the countenance and support which this letter indicates. I have now, 1 think, established sufficient grounds of justification of the course which I am taking in submitting this proceeding to your Lordships' consideration. I will next proceed shortly to detail the state in which the principality stands with respect to this great change; and, in doing so, I must take the liberty of assuming as an historical fact, hardly to be doubted now, that the union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor, and the creation of the bishopric of Manchester, are part of the same scheme of alteration, and were intended to be co-! existent and dependent on each other No person will believe that so wild a proposition would have been submitted to Parliament as the extinction of one of the Welch sees, if it had not been accompanied by a proposition for establishing a bishopric of Manchester. It would be my duty and my desire to obviate objections to any measure which I have to submit to your Lordships' consideration. Upon the present occasion I am bound to conciliate those who have supported the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Commission, or may for other reasons be opposed to my motion, since I feel that having taken no active steps in opposition to the 6th and 7th of William 4th., originally, when passing through Parliament, I shall undoubtedly add to the labour of Commissioners and of Parliament. A respectful consideration of other persons' opinions is therefore due from me. I shall, however, ask no concession which Parliament and the Commissioners ought not to concede, and may not concede, if they have the disposition to consider the case fairly and reasonably, and certainly none which will not benefit the Church at large. Two principal difficulties present themselves in the creation of a see at Manchester. First, the addition of a spiritual member of your Lordships' House; secondly, the want of means to provide an income for the bishop. Both objects were, however, attainable, by destroying an ancient Welch bishopric, and North Wales was doomed to be the sufferer, notwithstanding the protests of her bishops. The interests of North Wales were to be sacrificed to the expediency of creating a Bishop of Manchester. I have heard, in the course of my political life, many objections to the doctrine of political expediency. If that doctrine is objectionable in politics, surely it is undeniably more so in ecclesiastical and religious affairs; yet expediency is the only defence of this act of spoliation. Of the expediency, nay, necessity of creating a bishopric of Manchester no one can doubt, but who will venture to affirm the expediency of depriving North Wales of a Bishop, or deny that it must be an injury to the Church establishment there? With regard, then, to the first of the two difficulties which I have mentioned, I, for one, see no objection to an additional Prelate sitting in this House. On the contrary, I should readily concur in such a measure, and rejoice in at once securing to the great and wealthy population of the town of Manchester the benefits of an immediate episcopal superintendence. But, in order to meet the opinions of those who object to the introduction of an additional Bishop into this House, a course may be taken which I think may obviate all reasonable ground of opposition. Your Lordships are aware that whenever a reverend individual is first placed upon the Episcopal Bench, he becomes, as a matter of course, the Chaplain of your Lordships' House, and continues to discharge the duties of Chaplain until another vacancy occurs on the Bench. In the discharge of these duties reverend Prelates have been engaged one, two, and in one living instance, three years, accordingly as vacancies on the Bench are delayed; and during this period unremitting attendance on your Lordships' House during the assembling of Parliament is required of the newly-appointed Bishop. I beg to suggest that when a vacancy occurs on the Episcopal Bench, the individual nominated to succeed to the vacancy as junior or 27lh Bishop, should not become either Chaplain of your Lordships' House, or a Peer of Parliament until a second vacancy should occur. To me it appears that many ecclesiastical advantages would arise from such a delay. The individual thus appointed would be able immediately to proceed to learn the duties of his high station, and to acquire a local knowledge of his diocese, and would be enabled thereby more effectually to fulfil the duties appertaining to his office when absent in attendance upon Parliament. Upon the next vacancy occurring the junior Bishop would at once succeed to the chaplaincy of your Lordships' House, and to his seat upon the Episcopal Bench. One reserve should be made in respect of this routine, in the event of a rev. Gentleman being elected in the first instance to either of the sees of London, Durham, or Winchester, a contingency which, inasmuch as it has occasionally occurred, (as in the case of the most rev. Prelate,) your Lordships will perceive ought to be provided for. The next topic I shall advert to is the income of the see of Manchester. In so doing let me first inquire, why, if it is right to create an episcopal see at Manchester, and you are in earnest as to the creation of it, why should it be delayed until both the diocesans of North Wales shall have been removed? Is it not conclusive, my Lords, that the spi- ritual interests of Manchester are made I subservient to the acquirement of the tithes of North Wales, and the establishment of the bishopric is thus indefinitely postponed? From information which has reached me, I cannot doubt that the revenues which will eventually be placed at, the disposal of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners will be abundantly sufficient for endowing the bishopric of Manchester without any abstraction of the revenues of the Bishops of Bangor and St. Asaph. If a full income is not immediately to be had let the most rev. Prelate at the head of the Church solicit the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government to supply the wants of the see of Manchester by a temporary loan out of the funds known as Queen Anne's Bounty, which funds it has been proposed to mortgage for another important Church object. These funds are fully equal to the purpose. The aid required would be only temporary, since the surplus income of the archbishopric of York will amply supply an income for Manchester whenever a vacancy shall occur in the archiepiscopal see. I have stated at the commencement of my observations, that due consideration has not according to my judgment, been given to the interests of the principality, I now proceed to substantiate that opinion. The Principality, it should not be forgotten, contributes very largely to the ecclesiastical endowments of England. The establishments of Christ Church and of Jesus College, Oxford, derive a material income from the tithes of North Wales; and the dioceses of Lichfield and of Chester also receive a considerable income from the same source; while the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor have no revenues which do not accrue from the Principality itself, With these properties I do not wish to interfere. But I object to the further abstraction of any portion of our mountain tithes for the benefit of wealthy England, and their transfer from an individual holder, a kind and venerable inhabitant of our Principality, to any corporate body; the one anxiously alive to the wants of those around him, the other necessarily unacquainted with and indifferent to them. The Commissioners, in their first report. state, that— One advantage which will result from the union of these two sees will be, the opportunity afforded of applying a part of impropriations, which constitute nearly the whole property of the bishoprics, to the augmentation of poor and populous vicarages in the united dioceses. This recommendation of the Commissioners, instead of being followed up, has since been forgotten and laid aside; for it is now proposed that a considerable income should be taken from the Welsh bishoprics, and placed at the disposal of the Commissioners. The Order in Council issued under the provisions of the Act of the 6th and 7th William 4th, chap. 77, directs that the Bishop of the united dioceses of St. Asaph and Bangor shall pay annually into the hands of the Commissioners the sum of 4,750l.* During the last Session of Parliament a continuation Act (5th and 6th Victoria, chap. 112), was passed with the additional object of securing certain property to the said sees of St. Asaph and Bangor. Clause 2 of this Act is as follows:— And be it enacted, that all lands, tithes, As regards revenue it seems doubtful whether the Bishop of the united see of St. Asaph and Bangor would actually enjoy the income of 5,200l., adjudged to him by the Second Report of the Commissioners. The Commissioners, in their Second Report, recommend that he should pay over to the episcopal fund 3,800l. per annum, whereas the Order in Council enacting the union of the sees requires him to pay to that fund 4,750l. The Commissioners, in their First Report, estimated the future net revenue of the see of St. Asaph at 5,280l.; the income having fallen gradually from 1827 to 1834, and add, "there seems to be no prospect of improvement. They estimate the future net revenue of the see of Bangor at 3,814l.; stating that " the tithes have fallen in value in 1833 and 1834 below the average of the three years ending 1831 650l.; and there is no prospect of increase.

Future net income of St. Asaph 5,280
Future net income of Bangor 3,814
Total future net income of united dioceses 9,094
Deduct payment to Episcopal Fund by Order in Council 4,750
Income remaining to Bishop after fixed payment 4,344
Income allotted to Bishop by Second Report 5,200
Income actually remaining after fixed payment 4,344
Deficiency 856

tenements, and other hereditaments, and endowments whatsoever, held, possessed, or received by the right Rev. William Carey, Bishop of Saint Asaph, and the right Rev. Christopher Bethel!, Bishop of Bangor, respectively, as such bishops, not being so held, possessed, or received in respect of any benefice with cure of souls, shall be, and be deemed to be to all intents and purposes part and parcel of the lands, tithes, tenements, and other hereditaments and endowments of the respective sees of Saint Asaph and Bangor, or of the united see of Saint Asaph and Bangor, as the case may be, and shall continue to be held, possessed, and received by the bishops of the same sees for the time being; subject nevertheless to any Order in Council issued under the provisions of an Act passed in the seventh year of the reign of his late Majesty, intituled ' An Act for carrying into effect the Reports of the Commissioners appointed to consider the state of the Established Church in England and Wales, with reference to ecclesiastical duties and revenues, so far as they relate to episcopal dioceses, revenues, and patronage, or of any other Act of Parliament." My Lords, I have some difficulty in explaining this part of my case. I should certainly not have understood the object of this Act had I not seen a Bill which had been previously introduced into the House of Commons last year by Sir James Graham and Dr. Nicholl; the fourth section of which is as follows: And be it enacted, that from and after the commencement of this Act, the dignity and office of Archdeacon of Saint Asaph shall no longer be holden by the Bishop of Saint Asaph; and the dignities and offices of Archdeacon of Bangor and Archdeacon of Anglesey shall be dissevered from the bishopric of Bangor, and be no longer holden by the Bishop of Bangor; and the then Bishops of Saint Asaph and Bangor respectively, or the Bishops of the united see of Saint Asaph and Bangor, and their successors Bishops of Saint Asaph and Bangor, shall forthwith and from time to time collate fit persons to the said archdeaconries respectively; provided that all lands, tithes, tenements, and other hereditaments and endowments formerly belonging to such dignities and offices, but now forming part of the respective sees of Saint Asaph and Bangor, shall continue to be possessed and enjoyed by the Bishops of Saint Asaph and Bangor respectively, and their successors Bishops of Saint Asaph and Bangor This Bill was withdrawn in consequence of objections raised against its being introduced when most of the Welch Members had left London to attend the summer assizes. It is remarkable, my Lords, that no previous notice of the archdeaconry of Anglesea occurs in the reports. It is not named except in the map attached to the Third Report. It is not noticed in the list as an old or a new archdeaconry. No mention is made of it until the introduction of the withdrawn Bill of last Session which had for one of its objects to separate the office and duties of the archdeaconry of Anglesea from the bishopric of Bangor, whilst the endowments of the archdeaconry were to continue annexed to the bishopric, not, as heretofore, in order to provide for the bishop of the diocese, but to enable the bishop of the united sees to contribute 4,750l. per annum to the Episcopal Fund. This remarkable omission tends to confirm my opinion of the want of knowledge of North Wales, upon the part of those who had the charge of these proceedings. The Act 5th and 6th Victoria, chap. 112, before referred to, has this remarkable difference,—it enacts the continuance of the property as therein described to the united bishopric, but omits all notice, by name, of the archdeaconries. Why is the mention omitted? Is the omission accidental or intentional? Another feature in this case is, that in its result it will practically continue one of those evils of church preferment which it was a principal object of your Lordships to do away with— I mean that of commendam. The archdeaconries of Anglesea and St. Asaph are both held by the bishops in commendam; the archdeaconry of Anglesea by Act of Parliament, that of St. Asaph by deed of commendam. It is, my Lords, objected to me that my proposition goes to repeal what is the law of the land. Here, my Lords, are two laws of the land, at variance with each other; one, the 6th and 7th William 4th., cap. 77, sec. 18, which enacts That after the passing of this Act, no ecclesiastical dignity, office, or benefice shall be held in commendam by any bishop, unless he shall so hold the same at the time of passing thereof; and that every commendam thereafter granted, whether to retain or to receive, and whether temporary or perpetual, shall be absolutely void to all intents and purposes; The other, the Act of last year, which continues property so held as the property of the Episcopal Fund. The duties of the archdeaconries are separated from the bishopric; the income of the archdeaconries is to be applied to the Episcopal Fund; the Act despoils the archdeaconries of their own proper endowments, and leaves them totally without income; a proceeding directly at variance with the promises held out by the Commissioners, in their Fourth Report, in which they state,— We desire to make a proper provision for the archdeaconries in Wales, which we are of opinion ought to be, as well as those of England, efficient and useful offices. Again, while the First Report professes an anxiety to give aid to the poorer livings in North Wales the sinecure rectories in North Wales will, it is apprehended, be taken away to the general fund. The value of the sinecure rectories to be suppressed in England and Wales is somewhat above 9,000l., of which those in St. Asaph alone amount to near 4,000l. [Vide Second Report, p, 29, and note.] Under this head, there-fore, the single diocese of St. Asaph will contribute to the general fund almost as much as England and South Wales together. Your Lordships would naturally suppose that arrangements would be made, with reference to this sum of money, to secure to St. Asaph, a proper share, Far otherwise. Payments by the Commissioners are made according to a scale which is regulated by the population of the parish to be assisted. As regards North Wales (a thinly-peopled but extensive country, where extent of surface, not population alone, must be the criterion, if justice is to be done), the result will be that the income will be taken away in a mass, and returned to the principality, if at all, in driblets; but the probability is, that no part of this income would again find its way into the principality. If these sinecures, as they became vacant, were applied (as they ought to be) to the increase of our poorer Welch livings, a most beneficial result must ensue. Another instance of the want of acquaintance with North Wales occurs in the transfer of the rural deanery of Montgomery from the diocese of Hereford to the promised united diocese; and that of Marchia, which includes the hundred of Oswestry, in Shropshire, from the diocese of St. Asaph to that of Chester. This change makes the intercommunication between the bishop and the clergy of the deanery of Montgomery more inconvenient than at present. Montgomery is about 50 miles from Hereford; it is between 60 and 70 from St. Asaph; between 80 and 90 from Bangor. From St. Asaph, the only road to Montgomery lies through Oswestry, in the deanery of Marchia, which is taken from St. Asaph and added to Chester, From Bangor to Montgomery the bishop and clergy must equally pass through Oswestry or cross the Berwyn mountain range. This difficulty was such that Mr. Telford, in laying out the Irish road from London, viâ Shrewsbury to Holyhead, felt himself obliged to adopt the circuitous route by Llangollen, instead of ascending that boundary of the counties of Denbigh and Montgomery. Mr. Telford says,— I made three attempts to cross the Berwyn Ridge, which separates them (the valleys of the Severn and the Dee), but found the lowest pass 1,000 feet above Corwen bridge, and that the two others were respectively 1,100 and 1,200 above the same place. It therefore became necessary to proceed from the English plains, where the river Dee leaves the mountains at the bottom of the valley of Llangollen," &c., &c.— Telford's Life, p. 207. The deanery of Montgomery has a population exclusively English. I do not believe a single native family in that deanery speaks the Welch language as their native language. In the hundred of Oswestry, on the other hand, there is a considerable Welch population. To satisfy your Lordships that this is no idle view of the case, I have only to name, that a few years since, a chapel was built and endowed for the purpose of enabling the Welch population of the parish of Oswestry to have the benefit of our Church service in the Welch language. Thus, the English population is transferred to a Welch diocese, the Welch population to an English diocese. The change may not be productive of any very material inconvenience, but it appears to be a change for the sake of change; no practical good is to be expected from it. It might, and would, have been avoided, if the commissioners had studied the locality otherwise than by a map; and the valley of the Severn might have been permitted to continue, as it has hitherto been, the natural boundary of the dioceses, and the division between those of my countrymen who speak the English and those who speak the Welch language. Another subject of great importance is the difficulty which the bishop in North Wales must encounter in the discharge of his duties. The united diocese consists of 3,250 square miles, the average dimension of English dioceses is not more than 2,196 square miles Thus, where the roads are worse, the means of communication between the different parts of the dioeese far more difficult than in England, it is proposed to make the Welch diocese half as large again as the average of English dioceses. The bishop of the united diocese will have double duties to perform, and half the income of the diocese is to be taken away. In those districts of the country where there are so few persons resident, your Lordships are hardly aware of the value of the constant residence of right rev. prelates. To remove one is to do a serious fiscal injury to the principality. To satisfy your Lordships of the spiritual injury my countrymen will have inflicted on them by the removal of one of their bishops, I will read to your Lordships the sentiments of a right rev. and eloquent Prelate (the Bishop of London) at a meeting of the clergy and laity, for the purpose of raising a fund towards the endowment of additional colonial bishops. The right rev. Prelate said:— I am not about, my lord, to prove to this meeting that the episcopal regimen is essential to the perfect ness of the Church. I hope, I believe I am addressing those who have imbibed that truth with their mother's milk; who have avouched it in their own persons; who are living in the enjoyment of its realities. For episcopal government is a reality; it is not a mere phrase; it is not a mere theoretical quality of the Church. The very name indicates its practical nature. The title of ' bishop ' or ' overseer ' implies an actual oversight of the household of Christ, members and ministers; and when that oversight is no longer possible, the Church, in so far as it ceases, to be under that oversight, ceases, as your Grace has before observed, to be an episcopal church, at least as to the practical advantages of episcopacy; except, indeed, that it may still have he word preached, and the holy sacraments [...]ministered, by those who have been duly commissioned for the work. I have elsewhere remarked, that an episcopal church without a bishop, is neither more nor less than a contradiction in terms; and the Church ceases effectively to have a bishop when it is removed beyond his possible superintendence or ministrations. This ought not to be the case with any portion of Christ's church—with any department of his vineyard. I intreat your Lordships to apply these beautiful sentiments to the presence of bishops in Wales. Another evil to the principality will arise from the whole patronage of the diocese being vested in one individual. Out of 250 livings, upwards of four-fifths will be in the gift of the bishop, while the patronage of the Crown, or of individuals, does not amount to one-fifth of the whole number. It will be impossible for the bishop, taking the difficulties of language into consideration, however conscientiously he may labour to discharge his duty, to make himself adequately acquainted with the qualifications of his clergy. The dioceses are, like the parishes, divided into localities, and to pass from one to the other is generally difficult, and sometimes impossible. My objections to these proceedings are, that they under the protection of an act for church reform, in almost every case make that which relates to Wales more inconvenient than formerly. The bishopric is to be doubled in size, the correspondence and communication necessarily doubled, while the means of the bishop are diminished in the same proportion that the inconvenience is increased, or his assistance likely to be required. The circumstances under which this unconstitutional act of the 6th and 7th of Will. 4th passed through Parliament give me an additional claim to your Lordships' attention. It was introduced at a period of great political excitement. Although objected to by the venerable prelates connected with North Wales, little attention appears to have been given to it in either House of Parliament. The unfavourable feelings towards the Church which were attributed to the previous Parliament, and the distant period to which the loss of one of the bishops of North Wales was apparently deferred, equally contributed to induce the laity in England and Wales to withhold expressions of objections to the measure. I think I have now satisfied your Lordships that I had good grounds for submitting this case to your Lordships' notice. I have shown that those best acquainted with the North Wales dioceses, advise against their union. That the Church, as a body, is almost unanimously opposed to it. That it is impossible to believe, that those who have decided to promote the union could be aware of the extent of the evil which it will entail upon the principality. These considerations will, I trust, induce your Lordships to receive with indulgence a proposition which, however humble the individual who proposes it may be, affects seriously the Church, and the spiritual interests and welfare of a large portion of her Majesty's dominions. 1 trust your Lordships will not disregard the numerous petitions upon your Lordships' Table pre- sented by other noble Lords, as well as by myself, from all parts of this kingdom, or the almost unanimous voice of the clergy, where they have been enabled to express their opinions — a unanimity greater I believe, than has ever before been expressed by that powerful and respected body, which indicates their apprehensions of the injury the church will sustain by the destruction of an ancient bishopric, and their sympathy for their brethren in North Wales, who are to be the more immediate sufferers by this objectionable and unconstitutional act. I feel I should have ill discharged the duties I owe to my countrymen, had I not submitted their case to your Lordships' House. The responsibility of deciding how these petitions are to be dealt with now devolves upon your Lordships. Before I conclude, I hope I may be allowed to address myself more particularly to the most rev. and right rev. Commissioners, under whose auspices the Act of the 6th and 7th Will. 4th, has hitherto been carried out. Individually I have no right to ask any favour from them, nor should I, as an individual, presume to do so. Honoured, as I have been, with the numerous petitions which I have laid upon your Lordships' Table, and thereby invested with a representative character; I, in that character, may venture to ask of those venerable Prelates whether they ought to refute to consider the prayers of the petitioners. I hope they will allow me to remind them that they have higher duties to discharge than those conferred on them as Commissioners by this modern act of legislation;—that they are, my Lords, tire Apostolical representatives of the church in this country;— that their duties as such are far more important than any which Parliament can confer. I hope they will allow me to urge earnestly, but respectfully, with how much greater satisfaction they will return from this discussion to their private retirement, if they shall be induced to reconsider the steps taken, and, by listening to the prayers of the petitioners, prove themselves no less the guardians and protectors of the church in North Wales than the promoters of her welfare in Manchester. Let these venerable men imagine to themselves the gratitude of the people of North Wales for having continued to them a blessing which their country has enjoyed for twelve or thirteen centuries. Allow me, my Lords, in urging these considerations to that venerable bench, to add that I am asking for my countrymen nothing of which they are not in possession, I ask no favour, no fresh boon. I merely ask your Lordships to arrest this prospective act in its course, and not. by your countenance and support to aid in depriving the principality of blessings which have been consecrated by time, and of which neither revolution, civil war, nor change of dynasty, has hitherto been enabled to despoil us. 1 have, my Lords, only further to express my grateful thanks for the patient attention with which your Lordships have honoured me, and to move that the bill for preventing the Union of the Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor be now read a second time.

The Duke of Wellington:

My Lords, 1 have listened with the utmost attention and respect to the speech of my noble; Friend, and I must say, that there never was an occasion on which any of your; Lordships has thought proper to apologise for his presumption—as was staled I by my noble Friend—in addressing the House on any subject, in which such an apology was so little necessary as on this occasion on the part of my noble Friend. My Lords, I listened with the utmost interest to the statement made by my noble Friend on the part of those petitioners,; whose petitions he has, during various periods of the Session, including the present evening, presented to your Lordships on the part of his fellow-countrymen of the principality of Wales, and particularly of the inhabitants of the territory, composing the dioceses of St. Asaph and Bangor. My Lords, I respect those persons on account of their sincere attachment to their Church, and their desire to maintain it in their country in the state in which it existed for a great number of years. I respect my noble Friend, my Lords, on I account of the zeal with which he has advocated their cause. But, my Lords, 1 beg leave to remind your Lordships that you have other duties to perform besides those of attending to that call, however interesting, on the part of my noble Friend, and of the persons whose petitions he has presented to your Lordships from his fellow-countrymen, inhabitants of the principality to which he has adverted. My Lords, it is my duty—a duty which I have undertaken to perform, and which I must perform in this House—to call your Lordships attention to the nature of the propo- sition made by my noble Friend, and to what it is that you are now called on to repeal. I have to call your Lordships attention to what that law is, and to all the circumstances belonging to it, and I hope my noble Friend will excuse me if I should be under the necessity of discussing freely the arguments which he has brought forward in support of the measure which he has submitted to your Lordships. My Lords, I beg leave to remind your Lordships that the clause of the act which my noble Friend has proposed to you to repeal, is part of an Act of Parliament passed through this and the other House of Parliament, and certainly, as my noble Friend has said, with little opposition, at the time that it was passed. There certainly was no great degree of opposition, considering the importance of the question to which the Act of Parliament related. We certainly, at the time, never heard in this House a word of objection to the arrangement then proposed. There was, indeed, a question raised in the other House of Parliament respecting the use of the Welsh language, which question I see by the reports of the commissioners, and by the Orders in Council, has been settled in the most satisfactory manner. But with respect to the present part of the arrangement, until this Session of Parliament, I must say I never heard of any opposition to it. My Lords, my noble Friend has adverted, in the latter part of his speech, to the powers confided by this Act of Parliament, and which my noble Friend has styled as unconstitutional. I think I did hear that term applied before, and when the measure was before Parliament, I think that a similar objection was made to it; but, my Lords, considering the immensity and importance of the objects to be carried into effect under this Act of Parliament, I conceive that the powers it conferred, though great, were not too great to be conferred on those on whom the task devolved of carrying those measures into execution. I beg to remind your Lordships of what the foundation of those measures was. There was a desire universally felt, in the years 1834 and 1835, to render the Established Church more efficient or more useful, and the desire was to make its action more extensive, and to increase the attachment of the people to it by rendering it more useful, by removing anomalies and objections which might be made to it. by some, and which might check the attachment of those who entertained a sincere affection and attachment to it. It was desired to attain those objects by means of the heads of the Church Establishment themselves, and that was done by the appointment of a commission, consisting of the principal dignitaries of the Church, of the Lord Chancellor, of the principal officers of the Government, and of some of the first statesmen then alive, or who had appeared in this country for many years. My Lords, these commissioners were appointed, made a report to the late King, and they proposed, if the Crown relinquished its patronage, the relinquishment of some of their own patronage. They proposed the eventual curtailment of the revenues of many of these dioceses, and they proposed a new distribution of the revenues of the Church, with the view of the more equal distribution of that part appointed to the episcopal order. They proposed the establishment of two new dioceses in the North of England, in those populous districts in the North of England, to be composed of parts taken from other dioceses; thus carrying into execution the object which every person reflecting on the subject must have wished to be fully carried—that is, of extending the influence and power of the Church of England in those great populous districts which have grown up in this country for the last century and a half. These desirable objects were to be attained, my Lords, by sacrifices there is no doubt; but my noble Friend, in bringing the subject before your Lordships, appeared to think that, in order to remove any inconvenience which might arise from the union of the dioceses, there would be nothing more easy than to create a Bishop of Manchester, or a Bishop of Ripon, and introduce him to the House of Lords. He appears to think, that nothing would be more easy than such a proceeding, but I am afraid that he forgot in his zeal what experience must have taught him,—namely, that the introduction of a twenty-seventh or twenty-eighth bishop into the House of Lords is not so easy as he appears to imagine. Public opinion must be consulted with reference to such subjects, and my noble Friend ought to recollect that, however attached he and his friends in North Wales may be to the Established Church, and however affectionately attached a vast portion of the population of this country may be to the Church, yet it has some enemies in this country-that it is looked on with jealousy by some, and that it is not all who walk the streets in these large towns who would approve of the admission of new bishops to the House of Lords; and if my noble Friend will read the history of this country, he will find that there have been times when the presence of bishops in the House of Lords was not very agreeable to some. It is not, I repeat, so easy to add two bishops to the number in the House of Lords, and, therefore, when (he commissioners took into consideration the propriety of appointing bishops to Ripon and Manchester, and when such a measure was approved of by them, they found it necessary to unite dioceses, so as to make two seats in the House of Lords, in order to make room for the Prelates who should be appointed bishops of Manchester and Ripon. It was in consequence of this necessity that it was proposed to unite the Sees of Bristol and Gloucester, and the Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor. I have been in this country, my Lords, ever since the union of the dioceses of Bristol and Gloucester, and I must say, that 1 have not yet heard any complaint of any j evils resulting from that measure. Yet those sees were both important, and since they have become united, the affairs of the Church have been carried on in that united diocese with equal satisfaction as elsewhere. The greatest possible advantages on the contrary, have resulted from following the recommendation of the commissioners, and I am satisfied that (he same advantages would result from carrying into execution immediately, if possible, the recommendation of the commissioners with respect to a bishop for Manchester, and it is desirable that it be carried into execution as soon as possible. But my noble Friend says, that the greatest possible inconvenience would arise from this union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor. Now, my Lords, I do not mean to say, that inconvenience may not result from this union, for on that subject ray noble Friend is better capable of judging than I am; but it is not exactly the fact to say, that the bishops of these dioceses were not consulted when the proposition was under the consideration of the commissioners, for at that period both the Bishop of St. Asaph and the Bishop of Bangor were called on to assist the commissioners.They did attend on that occasion, and they made a proposition with respect to impropriate tithes in the dioceses. I beg leave also to say, that when this subject was previously discussed in the presence of the right rev. Prelates, (and there are not two more respectable Prelates on the Bench), it was not objected to on the ground of any inconvenience resulting from the union, but it was objected to in reference to the appropriation of certain impropriate tithes. So far as the argument of the inconvenience of the union of the sees is concerned, I admit that there may be some inconvenience; but there is no greater inconvenience now, nor is there likely to be any greater hereafter, than when the measure was proposed, and when the objections were made on a different ground. I do, therefore, submit, my Lords, that if the measure were admissible at a former period, in the 6th and 7th Will 4th, it is admissible at the present moment. If there should be any inconvenience, it cannot be of that magnitude which ought to induce your Lordships to take the first step in a course which would be looked on as a symptom of your intention to depart from this great measure. 1 feel it my duty, as a Minister of the Crown, therefore, to ask your Lordships to pause and consider well before you adopt such a bill, under these circumstances, as that which has been proposed by the noble Earl. I wish, my Lords, that the House would declare, on this ground, its sense of the motion, and show lo the country that it is not its intention to depart from any portion of the measure of which this bill proposes to repeal a part; but that, on the contrary, it is the intention of the House of Lords that the whole of it shall be carried into execution as early as circumstances will permit. This is not a measure, my Lords, in which the credit only of individuals is involved; but it is a measure in which the credit of the Church, and the honour of Parliament are involved, and therefore I entreat your Lordships' not to listen to the affecting speech of my noble Friend when such great interests as those I have alluded to are at stake. I have already stated, that it will be impossible to carry into execution a measure to appoint a bishop for Manchester. If your Lordships pass this bill, I beg to remind your Lordships that there are other dioceses in, Wales that require assistance. There are the dioceses of Llandaff and St. David's, and they will get assistance to the amount that will be saved by the arrangements that will be carried into effect. My noble Friend referred to a measure passed last Session, with reference to the archdeaconry of Anglesea, but the words of the act which he quoted were not inconsistent with the words of the 6th and 7th of William 4th. My noble Friend adverted to carrying to the account of the general fund the income arising from the revenues of sinecure rectories, and he complains of the dioceses being thus deprived of some advantages in respect to the ministration of the duties of religion. What, my Lords, duties from sinecure rectories. The very word precludes the idea of the performance of duties. No!—the revenues were taken away because there was no duty performed, and they will be taken into account, with respect to the performance of duties, in any arrangement that may be made hereafter. I have stated this much, my Lords, in consequence of the observation of my noble Friend that the duties of the diocese would receive injury from that application of the revenues. With respect to the other points of my noble Friend's speech, having reference to matters of detail, 1 can only say that I was not a member of the commission, and that it is not in my power, therefore, to enter into a lengthened statement with respect to those details —but this I must say, that there can have been no object in the measure (a portion of which this bill proposes to repeal) but to make all the arrangements in the manner most convenient to the country generally. There would have been no desire to injure the dioceses of St. Asaph and Bangor, or any other district in the kingdom; but the object was to make a better distribution of the revenues of the Church, and to satisfy the public of a sincere desire to effect such a reformation as would be a real one, and such as would give satisfaction not only to those who were attached to the Church, as my noble Friend and myself, but also to others who looked on it with indifference. Now I have shown to your Lordships, as far as I am able, the object of the measure. I have shown the advantages that have arisen from its being carried into effect so far as it has gone, and I have endeavoured to show your Lordships the advantages that would result from carrying it completely into exe- cution. I have shown how important it is that the public should not entertain the notion that it is the intention of the House of Lords to give way on any part of this subject, and I entreat your Lordships not to consent to the bill proposed by my noble Friend. With regard to the act for the union of the diocese of Sodor and Man with Carlisle, and their separation afterwards, which was brought forward by my noble Friend as a precedent, I was in the House when the bill which has been alluded to as a precedent passed, and I recollect that both my noble Friend, who moved the bill, and the most rev. Prelate who sits on the bench above me, and the noble Viscount who used to sit in this place (Viscount Melbourne), and whose absence in consequence of illness no man more regrets than I, all three remonstrated against it, and objected to its being used at a future period as a precedent. That bill, my Lords, cannot be considered as a precedent for this bill, that union of Sodor and Man with Carlisle was connected with nothing else, and I recollected that my noble Friend who moved the measure stated that inconvenience would arise from the necessity of the Bishop being required to reside in the Isle of Man, whilst his other duties would require his attendance at Carlisle and his attendance also in the House of Lords occasionally. That bill, therefore, had no more resemblance to this measure than any bill which my noble Friend could mention, and, under all the circumstances which I have stated to your Lordships, I feel it my duty to move that the bill be read a second time this day six months.

The Earl of Powis

I beg to state in explanation that I am equally with the noble Duke opposed to the continuance of the sinecure rectories according to their present system. My objection was not to the suppression of these rectories, but to their income being abstracted from the poverty of Wales and applied to the endowment of livings of wealthy England.

The Bishop of Bangor

owed it to the Church, and to the people of his diocese, to press himself, however unwillingly on his part, upon the notice of their Lordships. First, as to what had fallen from the noble Duke, who had said that he and his right rev. Brother of St. Asaph had attended a meeting of the commissioners, and proposed that the surplus of the impropriated tithes should be applied to the improvement of the poorer benefices-. When he and his right rev. Brother at tended the commission, and when they were asked whether the united dioceses of Bangor and St. Asaph could be administered by a single prelate, they felt that they could not say it was impossible to be done when they considered the extensive districts over which other bishops presided This, however, was the only question which was put to them. They were not asked anything as to the feelings of the people upon the subject. It was said that he was present when the question was debated in that House; but neither he nor his right rev. Brother of St. Asaph was present on that occasion. The debate came on at a late period of the Session, and as they felt it would be in vain to attempt any opposition they had not remained in town. He would say, on behalf of the supporters of the present bill, that it was not their wish to disturb the great measure which had been carried, nor was it their wish in any way to interfere with that measure; but he was at the same time desirous of calling attention to some of its provisions, and of expressing a wish that their Lordships would yield their assent to the bill now before them. The removal, by the union of Bangor and St. Asaph, of an ancient see which had existed for 1,300 years, was a matter of some consideration, and it must be admitted that the extinction of a bishopric so ancient was in itself a great evil—an evil which should by all means be avoided unless some case of absolute necessity were made out. Now those who advocated the present bill contended that no such necessity had been established. Not one of those who wished for the present measure was not desirous of seeing a bishopric established in Manchester. Indeed, they lamented that such was not already the case. They also rejoiced to see that a bishopric had been established in Ripon, not only because of the establishment itself, but because of the excellent person who had been appointed to preside over the diocese with such credit to himself and such advantage to the people; but they did not see that to effect these changes it was necessary that an ancient bishopric should be destroyed by the union of St. Asaph and Bangor. When the commission first reported in 1835, their object appeared to be to procure a seat in that House for a Bishop of Manchester; but even if this could not be effected, it surely would be more desirable that there should be a bishop without a scat in that House than that an ancient diocese should be annihilated. The noble Duke observed, that many persons would object to increase the number of episcopal seats in that House. He was aware that many persons entertained such objections. Perhaps some of their Lordships might entertain such objections, and similar objections might be entertained in the other House of Parliament; but those who entertained such objections to the bench of bishops on principle would not be likely to oppose an individual addition. He must say that he thought the inhabitants of the diocese had great reason to complain of the conduct of the commissioners, who had in fact withdrawn the proposition made in the first instance, and devoted the revenues of the diocese to purposes very different from those to which it was expected they would have been applied. He trusted that in making this observation it would not be supposed he was speaking disrespectfully of the commissioners; he spoke of them as a body, he did not call in question the motives or the principles by which they had been actuated. Suppose it had been necessary that these revenues, the application of which had been solemnly guaranteed, as far as the recommendation of the commissioners went, should be appropriated to other purposes—suppose it had been considered ever so advisable that such an alteration should take place, he thought that a better, and a more conciliatory course might have been adopted than had been pursued with reference to such a change. It might naturally have been supposed that the commissioners would have afforded some explanation, which might have satisfied those whose expectations had been disappointed that the change had not been made without just and sufficient reasons. He thought the commissioners could not have recommended a course different from that which they had previously urged without some reason for their conduct; and they ought to have been stated. He had endeavoured to obtain some explanation from the commissioners, in order to give satisfaction to the people of the diocese, who were greatly dissatisfied when they found that the revenues which had been pledged to the support of the poorer vicarages had been applied to different purposes, but he had been unsuccessful. In 1836, when the commissioners recommended the union of the sees he wrote to the secretary to the commissioners stating, that the proposed appropriation of the tithes had excited a great sensation in the diocese, and that the contemplated union of the sees was regarded with strong dissatisfaction by the clergy, the gentry, and the people, and he requested to be informed on what grounds the proposed alteration was recommended. The secretary replied, that his letter had been received, and that it would be laid before the commissioners, but he had been disappointed at receiving no communication from the commissioners with reference to the grounds on which the change was proposed. On the 21st of March, 1837, he presented petitions from his diocese, praying that their Lordships would adopt such measures as might prevent the application of the surplus tithes to any other purposes than the augmentation of the poorer benefices; and in 1839 he presented several similar petitions from different parts of the diocese. In 1840, when the measure known as the Cathedral Bill was brought into the House of Commons, a noble Earl and several Gentlemen connected with the principality waited upon the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), who then conducted the business of the Government in the other House, and called his attention to the general state of the Welch dioceses, requesting his Lordship's careful attention to those portions of that bill which referred to those dioceses; and the noble Lord then proposed to strike out of the bill the clauses relating to those dioceses, stating that a measure relating to them might be the subject of future consideration. A bill was afterwards introduced by a right hon. Baronet, a Member of the present Government, with reference to the Welch dioceses, which included nearly all the clauses which had been struck out of the former bill by the noble Lord. This bill was introduced at a very late period of the Session, and at a time when he (the Bishop of Bangor) and many Gentlemen connected with Wales were absent from London. He was at the time in Wales, and he immediately wrote to the right hon. Baronet to inquire whether it were his intention to proceed with the bill? and the right hon. Baronet replied that it was his intention to press the measure. The bill was, however, at a subsequent period of the Session withdrawn; but the right hon. Baronet intimated his intention to introduce a similar measure during the next Session of. Parliament. The subject then began to excite increased attention and apprehension in the principality, where, among some classes, great ignorance had prevailed with respect to the proceedings which had previously taken place, and the effect of the proposed alterations. The clergy, after full consideration, were convinced that the course they ought to adopt was to apply to Parliament to repeal the act 6 and 7 Will. 4th, c. 77, so far as related to the union of the two sees of St. Asaph and Bangor, and for the rescinding of the orders in council which had been issued to give effect to the provisions of that act. The measure now under their Lordships consideration would not have been proposed if it had not met with strong and general support throughout the country. The number of petitions which had been presented to their Lordships afforded clear evidence of the strong feeling which was entertained on the subject by the general body of the clergy of the kingdom, and especially by those whose interests were so deeply affected by the measure which had formerly received their Lordships' sanction. All for which they asked was the preservation of their own ancient dioceses. The clergy in every part of the kingdom evinced the strongest sympathy on their behalf; and from the petitions which had been presented in support of their views from so many ecclesiastical corporations, from the two universities, and from a great body of the clergy, they had been led with some hope of success to make this appeal to their Lordships. A right rev. Prelate had expressed his surprise, that if so strong a feeling existed against the union of the sees, the opposition had not been pressed at an earlier period. But, considering the state of feeling which existed in the country at the time when the bill providing for the union of the dioceses was introduced, and considering also that about the same period a considerable reduction was effected in the number of bishops, it was not deemed advisable at that time to oppose the measure. As he had before stated, however, the feeling of the clergy and of the people was strongly opposed to the act, and they earnestly entreated their Lordships to assent to its repeal. The spiritual interests of the two dioceses would suffer most seriously if the two sees were united ; he therefore implored their Lordships not to turn a deaf ear to the prayers of the whole principality, to the petitions of the two Universities, and of so many of the clergy and respectable laity in different parts of the country, by rejecting this bill.

The Earl of Ripon

did not think this at all analogous to the case of Sodor and Man. If that see had been united to Carlisle as had been proposed, the result would have been, that the Bishop of Sodor and Man would, under an act of the local Legislature, with which Parliament bad no power to interfere, forfeit a great portion of his income. At all events, he had taken no step in the matter till he knew that the different members of the commission were not indisposed to sanction the alteration he proposed. He felt quite incompetent to enter into the merits of this particular case. He was content to rest the vote he should give on that most able and remarkable speech which had been addressed to their Lordships by his noble Friend, the noble Duke. Although he might be accused of inconsistency, all he could say was, that the course he took in the course of Sodor and Man, and that he intended to take upon the present occasion, were dictated by the most solemn conviction of what was best for the interests of the Church.

The Archbishop of Canterbury

felt bound to acknowledge the courtesy and temper which had marked alike the speeches of the right rev. Prelate and of the noble Earl who was the mover of this bill. He also felt the highest respect for all the authorities which had been quoted by the noble Earl. To these authorities he would not refer further than to observe, that there was no ground whatever for representing the convocation as condemning not this measure in particular, but the acts of the commission generally. He had been a member of the Ecclesiastical Commission since its first institution; and if there was any merit in having been one of the original advisers of its appointment he could claim that merit also. Placed in this position with regard to the commission, he hoped to be able to show to their Lordships that with reference to that branch of their duties which was now under the consideration of the House they could not have done otherwise than they did; and that, although, as in all earthly affairs, there must doubtless have been an admixture of evil with the good they had effected, still they had, under all the circumstances, done the best they could. By the terms of the commission, they were to inquire into the state of the dioceses of England and Wales, with reference especially to the amount of their revenues, the more equal distribution of the episcopal duties, and the practice of holding commendams with the cure of souls. It appeared to the commissioners, that in the archdiocese of York there were 831 benefices, and a population of 1,400,000; that in the diocese of Chester, there were 544 benefices, and a population of 1,900,000. That dioceses with such a population (to say nothing of their vast extent) ought not to remain as they were, could not admit of a doubt. The commissioners, therefore, proposed to form the two new dioceses of Ripon and Manchester; he believed they were all agreed as to the good results that had followed from the establishment of the former bishopric, and also as to the eminent services of the right rev. Prelate who had the charge of the diocese; and, with regard to the latter, he must say, that looking at the population of Manchester and its neighbourhood, and bearing in mind events that had recently occurred, the commissioners would have been wanting in their duty had they not recommended the erection of an episcopal see in that great town. Even now the population of the diocese of Ripon was 739,000 souls, while that of the proposed diocese of Manchester was upwards of 1,300,000. But the population of the existing diocese of St. Asaph was but 197,000, and that of Bangor was but 158,300. The number of benefices in St. Asaph was 131, and of those in Bangor 124. So that if the two sees were united, the number of benefices would be about 255, and the population would be a little above 350,000, being less than that of sixteen other dioceses, about equal to five, and more than that of four. Looking at these facts, looking also at the contiguity of the two dioceses, and the impossibility of effecting an union of either with any other diocese, he really did not see how the commissioners, with due regard to their instructions, could have acted otherwise than they did. His right hon. Friend had complained of the mode in which the commissioners proposed to dispose of the surplus revenue of the two dioceses. All he could say was, that if they took with one hand, they were prepared to give with the other. The surplus was to be paid into the episcopal fund. The commissioners had found the means of providing sufficient incomes for all the bishops, without the addition of any preferment in commendam. This he looked upon as a liberal proceeding towards the subordinate clergy, whose fait expectations of promotion had been so much abridged by the suspension of canonries and other dignities. Preferments to the amount of 39,000l. a-year were then laid open to the clergy at large, and the bishops were enabled to devote their whole time to the duties of their respective dioceses, instead of residing, as before, during a part of the year, at cathedrals in dioceses not their own. This salutary arrangement was effected by a redistribution of the episcopal revenues at the expense of the richer sees. And it is surely but reasonable, that the united sees of St. Asaph and Bangor should contribute to this object in its due proportion. His right rev. Friend had dwelt much on what he supposed to be the temper of the commissioners; a temper which he seemed to think had been communicated to the House. But he must say, that although the second commission included some names that were not in the first, the proceedings of both commissions were carried on in the same spirit of regard to the interests of the Church, and he was happy to bear testimony to the fairness that had actuated the commissioners on all occasions. These commissioners were parties to the arrangement with respect to the union of the two sees, with the tacit acquiescence, not only of the Welch, but also of the English clergy. No memorials were presented at the time, against the proposed union, and he was entitled to ask what injury had been done to Wales since the passing of the bill, or what alteration had taken place in the Church which should require this change in an act, which had been passed, without a division, by both Houses of Parliament? He believed that Wales would suffer no material damage from the consolidation of the two bishoprics, he did not think that the extent of country, or the population, or the number of benefices, would be such as to exceed the powers of one man to attend to. There were in the kingdom three bishoprics with a greater extent of country and population, and with twice the number of benefices. The nature of the country was objected, and he made no doubt but that there were places very difficult of access; but was that not the case also in other dioceses? If it were the duty of the diocesan to make parochial visitations, which was not possible in the present state of our episcopacy, he apprehended that in parts of Kent and Sussex, the bishop would find great difficulty in making his way to some parishes. If he thought that any evil would result which would not be greatly counterbalanced by good to the principality or to the Church at large, no consideration whatever should prevent him from retracting the opinion which he had before given. But when he looked at the population of the united dioceses of St. Asaph and Bangor, and the population of Manchester and its neighbourhood, he could not think that the two were to be set in comparison. They must consider the general interests of the Church, and whilst they did the best they could for every part of it, they must not overlook the whole. If what had been done five years ago, for the purpose of settling the Church, was to be undone without any alteration having taken place in the circumstances, there might be other alterations proposed with respect to the Church, which would be really injurious. He saw no necessity for undoing what had been done by the deliberate wisdom of Parliament. With regard to the appointment of any additional bishop much consideration was requisite, and the act did not provide for this, but only for the consolidation of the Welch bishoprics. With great deference to the judgments of others, he must adhere to his original opinions.

The Bishop of Salisbury

would beg leave to remind their Lordships that this was no mere question of Welch bishoprics; it was a measure deeply important to the whole Church, and which interested the feelings of the laity of that district in an almost unprecedented degree. He should proceed to state to their Lordships the grounds on which he should vote in favour of the bill which had been introduced into their Lordships' House. The consolidation of two such ancient bishoprics was a measure which could not but hurt the feelings of all the inhabitants of the district—of a sensitive people still possessed in a considerable degree of a national feeling on this subject. This was a measure which it must be allowed weakened the Church in a part where least of all it could bear it, and in a part where it behoved them to consider how it was possible to add new strength. This measure was further objectionable with respect to that part of the country, in consequence of the peculiar nature of the property on which the revenues of these bishoprics depended, inasmuch as it would abstract from that part of the country a species of property which, if possible, ought to be of local expenditure. On these grounds he was sure that there was not one of their Lordships but would feel that, except under the pressure of necessity, these two ancient bishoprics ought not to be consolidated by the act which it was proposed to repeal. Their Lordships who had addressed the House, and the noble Duke, had stated, that there was a case of urgent necessity to build up the Church in that most populous district of our island, where in late years, accumulated millions (he might say) had grown up in a manner never before heard of. There was a necessity to provide, if possible, means by which the Church might be built up as the population grew, and that it might have its full developement and its complete organisation in those districts where its influence was most needed to contend with the mass of irreligion and vice which unhappily, circumstances had caused so much to abound. He entered so much into this subject, and felt so much the necessity that there existed for the establishment of a bishopric at Manchester, that if he believed in order to accomplish this the consolidation of these two dioceses was an indispensable measure he should feel placed in great doubt as to the vote he should give. It was because he believed that it was capable of being shown that no such necessity really existed, and that a more suitable and better arrangement could be adopted as to both these points, which had been urged as the ground of that necessity, that he should feel himself free to give his vote in the manner in which he had expressed his intention to give it. The case then was, in what manner was a bishopric to be provided for Manchester? The first point was, how the funds wore to be provided. Both the noble Duke and the most rev. Prelate had stated that in order to obtain that object it was necessary to consolidate these two Welch bishoprics. The manner in which he should be disposed to look at this necessity would be as follows. There already existed a collegiate church in the town of Manchester. The proposal which the commissioners had made, and which was through this act to he carried into execution, was to raise that collegiate church into an episcopal see. This was analogous to what had taken place in the early part of the Reformation, when new sees had been founded at Oxford, Chester, Peterborough, Bristol, and other places. These sees had bean endowed with the revenues of the monastic establishments which they supplanted, and this, he conceived was the natural course to adopt in the first instance on this occasion. They proposed to raise a collegiate church to the station and dignity of an episcopal see. Where ought they to look for the funds to carry that object into effect? He hardly doubted that there was one amongst their Lordships who would not readily assent that the first funds to be taken for this object, and to which they ought to look, were the funds of the collegiate church. The sum of money wanted for the endowment of the Bishopric of Manchester was 4,500l. a-year. The sum which it was proposed to charge on the united sees of Wales was 4,700l. a-year; and as the Bishopric of Manchester could not be created till the consolidation of the two Welch bishoprics, the requirement and the charge both commenced at the same moment. They might say, therefore, that the payment was only necessary on one side in order to meet the necessity on the other; therefore, if the funds for establishing the Manchester bishopric could be got elsewhere, the consolidation of the Welch bishoprics was not necessary. He held in his hand a return of the ecclesiastical commissioners of the revenues of the Collegiate Church of Manchester from 1828 to 1834; and he really thought their Lordships would be surprised, for he had been so himself, when he stated, that if this whole sum of 4,500l. a-year, which was required for the establishment of a Bishopric of Manchester were taken out of the revenues of the collegiate church in the same place, there would still be left for the support of the chapter, of the dean and canons of that cathedral where it would be, then, more than was sufficient to support the dean and canons of the cathedrals of Ripon, of Chester, of York, or Salisbury. The return stated, that the average income of the warden ship of Manchester was 2,50l. 13s. 6d. a-year, and that the average of the recepts of each of the fellows was 1,251l. 5s. 9d. a-year. Therefore, if they were to take from the warden, who would then be called the Dean of Manchester, 1,500l. a year, and from each of the fellows, who would then be called canons, 750l. a-year, they would have precisely the sum of 4,500l. which they wanted. The provision for the dean and chapter would then be 1,000l. a-year for the dean, and 500l. a year each for the canons, which was the provision fixed for the dean and canons of other cathedral churches. But if, again, it was said, that this Church being so wealthy, it was not fair to reduce the income of the dean to 1,000l. a-year, and that of the canons to 500l. a-year each, if they took from the dean 1,000l. a-year, and from the canons 500l. a-year each, they would then have a fund of 3,000l. a-year for the bishopric, and the dean and chapter could then be more amply endowed than the deans and chapters of St. Paul's Cathedral, of Canterbury, of Christ Church, Oxford, or of Lincoln. If this were done even, he believed there would be a ready response to make up the deficiency from that wealthy district, and not from that alone. But if that were not thought right, he held in his hand a paper which would give an answer as to this deficiency also. This was a return of the ecclesiastical commissioners of the revenues of all the more wealthy sees, and of the sums at present received, and to be hereafter received by all the less endowed districts. Deducting the surplus revenue of the richer sees, and deducting also the surplus over and above the income to be appropriated to making up the deficiency of the less wealthy sees to the amount of income to be allowed, the ultimate annual surplus would be 6,821l. a year from these sources;so that even when 4,700l. was not to be received from the union of the diocesses of St. Asaph and Bangor there would still be an ample fund. With these observations he thought he might leave altogether the subject of funds. He must, however, add one word on the subject of the funds arising from these united dioceses consisting of tithes. It was much to be lamented that the bishoprics of North Wales were so largely endowed with this species of property, and no man felt more strongly than himself the great evil of the extensive appropriation which had been permitted to take place, and the transfer of tithes from ecclesiastical to lay persons; but he presumed that it would be admitted by all those who were acquainted with the subject, that the support of a bishop in a diocese by tithes was one of the first and earliest applications of that source of income. Upon that point all writers, including Sir H. Spellman and Bishop Kennett, concurred; and, therefore, however much it was to be lamented that the sees of North Wales were so largely endowed with tithes, there was in this nothing contrary to the principle upon which the Church was founded. But when it was proposed to transfer those tithes to the bishop of another and a new-created diocese, then the public had a right to say that this was a misappropriation which excited the feelings of the public in those parts of the principality which were to be, and would be, affected by it. And here he must take the liberty of saying, that the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) had fallen into a mistake when he stated, that the ecclesiastical commissioners had power to apply these tithes in the improvement of the small vicarages in North Wales. Unless he were greatly mistaken, he believed that they had no choice or power in the matter. The charges on the bishopric of St. Asaph were already settled by act of Parliament, and they had no power to alter that disposition. There remained only one other point to which allusion had been made, and against entering on which the most rev. Prelate had rather warned their Lordships; but it was a point upon which, having been introduced to their Lordships' notice by the noble Earl, who had moved the second reading of the bill now under consideration, and being of such importance to the Church, that he must claim to be permitted to offer upon it a very few remarks. The point to which he adverted was that which the noble Earl had mentioned with reference to the seat in their Lordships' House of the new bishop when the see was created. He thought the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington), when he spoke that evening, did not quite understand what the noble Earl had stated on that subject; but still it was a proposition not unworthy the consideration of the House. He was not unaware that the question of a seat in that House must have presented itself to the consideration of those who regarded this measure as one of great importance. Looking at the judgment of those to whom the matter was referred, he owned that great weight was to be attached to their decision. It would not be difficult to show that it would be unreasonable to object to the increase of the spiritual peers of that House by a comparison of the number of lay peers introduced. It was undisputed that since the reformation the lay peerage had been in modern times increased four-fold, not so the spiritual peers, who remained unaltered in number, notwithstanding the vast increase of population. Looking at all the circumstances of the nation and of the Church, he confessed he should not be disposed to contend for an additional seat in that House for a Bishop as a necessary condition for the creation of a new diocese. He was not indifferent to the advantages which he believed accrued to the Church and the nation from the respect shown to religion in admitting into their Lordships" House men who held the high calling to which he had the honour to belong. It constituted one of those links between the Church and State of the country which all the friends of both must be anxious to see undisturbed. It secured the presence in this House of persons who might be supposed to be best acquainted with those matters relating to ecclesiastical polity which were so frequently the subject of discussion by their Lordships; whilst at the same time it gave an opportunity of raising members of that Church to a distinguished and exalted position in the eyes of the country, to which they could not have a right by any other means to aspire. But whilst he felt the temporal station and honour which their seats in their Lordships' House entitled them to, he felt that these honours should be a help, and not an incumbrance to the Church. If the difficulty in the way of according a seat in this House were always to be an obstacle in the way of constituting a new Bishopric where it was required; if there were to be no more Bishops to attend to the spiritual welfare of the country, because it was considered inconvenient to increase the number of spiritual peers in their Lordships' House, then he would submit that the temporal honours should give way to the spiritual duties of the Church, and that they should constitute a Bishopric where it was needed, even though it was not connected with a seat in their Lordships' House. To act otherwise—to restrict the spiritual efficiency of the Church by the measure of its temporal honours, would be a subserviency to precedent, a chaining of the living to the dead, a temporising with the important responsibilities and high functions of the Church, which he, for one, could never approve of. Except for these two reasons to which he had referred, he had not heard any others tending in any degree to establish the necessity for the consolidation of these two sees; and he would, therefore, only say in conclusion, that, to obviate any objections which seemed to prevail, he fully concurred in all that had been stated by the most rev. Prelate, that it was not intended by the measure in any degree to shake the general framework of the settlement come to under the labours of the Ecclesiastical Commis- sioners. From their measures he considerably differed in some respects, and he hoped that the resolutions of that body were not of so stringent an authority, as not to be cabable of being revised. On all these grounds he would support the second reading of the bill.

The Bishop of London

had derived great satisfaction from having heard the present debate, conducted with so much equanimity, so much calmness, and so much courtesy on the part of all who had addressed their Lordships this evening. It seemed to be admitted on all hands, that to establish a bishopric at Manchester was a step calculated to prove of much advantage to the Church. The effect of the bill introduced by the noble Earl, and recommended by him with so much candour and calmness as to disarm the opposition to it of all hostility—the result of this bill, if passed into a law, would be to put an end to the bishopric of Manchester; because the act for the erection of the bishopric of Manchester stated that, upon the union of the two sees of St. Asaph and Bangor, and not before, the bishopric of Manchester should be erected. Therefore, if by passing this bill Parliament declared that the bishoprics of St. Asaph and Bangor should not be united, it declared also that the proposed bishopric of Manchester should not be erected. It was true, it might yet be a point for inquiry, whether it might not be possible to erect a bishopric for Manchester by other means than those now provided for it; but, considering all that had taken place since the recommendation of the commissioners on this subject was first made—considering that it was only within the last two years that any strong expression of dissatisfaction had reached the Legislature on the subject, whilst five years had elapsed since the proposal was passed into a law—considering also that it was admitted by his right rev. Friend who had just addressed their Lordships, that the chief ground of objection to the measure arose out of the abstraction of a large portion of the tithes belonging to the bishoprics from the principality — considering all these circumstances, he thought he might be excused if he abstained from consenting to a bill, which would put an immediate extinguisher upon all that had been proposed and agreed to in this matter. His right rev. Friend, in whose general remarks he entirely concurred, had pointed out some other sources whence the bishopric of Manchester might be endowed. He agreed in the soundness of the right rev. Prelate's deductions from the calculations which he had made; indeed he (the Bishop of London) had himself thought of some such plan before. But the real fact was, that there would be no difficulty in providing funds for the endowment of the bishopric of Manchester; the real difficulty in the matter was in creating a bishopric the holder of which should not be entitled to a seat in their Lordships' House. It should be borne in mind that the principle of the scheme now proposed in respect to these bishoprics was one which had already been adopted in respect to other bishoprics, with success and general approval. The commission had recommended that the bishoprics of Gloucester and Bristol should be united; and they were united by general consent. The commission also recommended the founding of the bishopric of Ripon, and that recommendation had been carried into effect, to the general satisfaction of all persons. The founding of the bishopric of Manchester had been as unanimously recommended by the commissioners; and the question then was as to how that bishopric could be constituted. They might have recommended the creation of a suffragan bishop, or of a bishop having no seat in their Lordships' House. He agreed entirely in the propriety of not increasing considerably the number of bishops in this House. He thought that the right rev. Prelates occupying the Benches on which he sat were already sufficient in number to constitute an adequate representation of the Church in that House; he thought, that by their general conduct they had always deserved and commanded the respect of their Lordships, and he should be sorry to see the time when the leaders of any powerful party in the State should look with anxiety to commanding a great number of votes on the ecclesiastical Bench. With respect to the labours of the ecclesiastical commissioners, he thought that when the variety and difficulty of the questions brought before them were considered, they might well be excused if their judgment had not in all particulars proved infallible. It should be borne in mind, that this commission was first instituted several years ago, at a time when a feeling of political hostility to the Church existed to a considerable extent in the country; at a time too when the Church had not begun its own reform, a reform which it had since undertaken, and which he thought would do more to strengthen its position than any act since the Reformation. The novelty and difficulty of the inquiry brought before them should be considered and above all it should be borne in mind, that it was of paramount importance, that in all matters the commissioners should recommend what was practicable as well as desirable. It was considered by the commissioners desirable to increase the number of bishops; for it was plain that the number which had been sufficient for six or seven millions of people, was not sufficient for sixteen millions. But the question then came for consideration, whether they should recommend that the new bishops should have seats in Parliament or not. With respect to this point he was not prepared to say whether he agreed in all that had been urged with so much ability by his right rev. Friend who had last spoken. He apprehended, that to create certain bishops without seats in this House would lead to injurious comparisons between them and those who had seats; and, eventually, to a general inclination to dispense with the attendance of Bishops in the House of Lords. He did not apprehend, that any feeling of this sort would exist in the minds of their Lordships. For sixteen years, during which he had had the honour of a seat in this House, he had never observed any inclination on the part of any of their Lordships to dispense with the attendance of the right reverend body to which he belonged, or to treat their opinions with neglect; but he feared, that if a step of the kind suggested were carried into effect, there would grow up amongst the general body of the people some feelings of the kind he had described. Another course had been suggested to smooth over this difficulty, which was, that the additional bishop should be created, but that he should not have a seat in the House of Lords, as long as there were twenty-six bishops in that House, but that on the death of any one of them, he should succeed to the seat in that House, and that the junior bishop for the time being, should always be without a seat in the House. There were some advantages apparent in this proposal, but there was also this difficulty, that by the constitution of Parliament, the bishops sat by virtue of their baronies, and if the precedent should be introduced of a bishop who might ultimately succeed to a seat, but who did not actually hold one by virtue of his barony, how was the constitutional principle upon which bishops held their seats in this House to be maintained? This was a difficulty which, perhaps, might be got over; but whether it were got over or not, it was admitted on all hands, that it was highly desirable that a bishop should be appointed to Manchester. Now, the adoption of the bill, this evening moved by the noble Earl, would deprive them of the means of establishing this bishopric; and it was because he considered the establishment of this bishopric indispensably necessary to the spiritual welfare of the country, that he felt compelled to record his vote against this measure.

The Bishop of Exeter

could assure their Lordships that after the able speeches which had been addressed to them this evening, he had but a very few remarks to trouble them with. He must say, that he had derived the greatest gratification from hearing the speeches which had fallen from the. right rev. Prelates who had last and last but one addressed their Lordships. He was glad to hear from his right rev. Friend who had last spoken that he did not consider this question as desperate. He would go along with him in declaring that he considered the establishment of a bishop for Manchester to be absolutely indispensable, and it was because he so thought that he felt bound to vote for the second reading of the bill now before their Lordships. If the scheme which had been adopted on this subject was to be considered as a final measure, it must become obvious that Manchester could have no bishop, until both the Bishop of Bangor and the Bishop of St. Asaph had ceased to exist. He hoped that many years would elapse before such an opportunity could occur, and when he looked at his right rev. Friend near him, and considered the firmness of his constitution, he was induced to hope that it would be very many years before, under such an arrangement, as that now contemplated, the bishopric of Manchester, would be founded. He would say, then, give Manchester at once what it was proved her spiritual welfare stood in need of. It had been admitted by his right rev. Friend who had last addressed their Lordships, that there were funds in abundance for the purpose and that the only difficulty was upon the question of the bishop's holding a seat in that House. But he really thought, that the only difficulty attaching to that question, namely, the constitutional principle of bishops sitting by right of their baronies, ought not to prevent them from doing that which was proved to be essentially necessary for the good of the Church and the country. Holding, as he did, that episcopacy was necessary for the weal of the Church, he would ask, how was the Church to be made most efficient, unless by taking care, to have a sufficient number of bishops? How many bishops there ought to be was another question; he thought there should be more than there were at present. For his own part, he felt, every day of his life, the almost impossibility of adequately serving the Church in all the duties attaching to his episcopal station, and in desiring a large increase in the episcopacy, he did look for a large increase in the number of bishops sitting in that House. Did their Lordships forget that there was already a large integral portion of our episcopacy which had not seats in this House. He alluded to the bishops in Ireland, and though he thought the arrangement of their sitting in turns for a year at a time, an inconvenient one in many respects, yet he thought that some arrangement might be adopted to free the principle of episcopacy from a necessary connection with seats in that House. At all events, he thought it would be better to waive this constitutional privilege of episcopacy, where it was found to be necessary to the efficient service of the Church. With respect to North Wales, he thought it a great hardship that in order to get over a constitutional difficulty of this kind, that district should be deprived of one of its bishops. It was true that the district was not a very populous one, but it was of very wide extent, and under any circumstances, he thought that it would be an act of injustice to deprive the inhabitants of that district of any advantages which they at present enjoyed. It might with just as much reason be proposed to throw two rectories into one, for the purpose of founding an extra rectory in Lancashire, where additional churches were much wanted, as to take away the revenue of the diocese of North Wales to found a bishopric for Manchester. He considered, that this was an attempt to mitigate the distress existing in one district by committing a robbery upon another; and such being his conviction, he should vote for the second reading of the present bill, the object of which was to prevent such a step from being persisted in.

The Bishop of St. David's

said, great excitement had prevailed in Wales upon the subject of the suppression of one of the sees, and the cause of that excitement was a very strong impression which prevailed in the minds of the people that an injustice had been done to the Church— that its interests and honour—that something precious and valuable had been sacrificed. The measure had been defended sometimes on the ground of necessity, and sometimes on the ground of expediency. Surely the first ground must now be given up; at all events, from the admission made that night, it did not now exist. There was one reason why the union of the sees was deprecated by the inhabitants of the principality of Wales. From a national spirit they were in the habit of making a distinction between English Bishops and Welch Bishops. They did not consider that they were two numerously represented in that House, and they did not wish to see the number of Welch Bishops reduced, but the great grievance complained of was, that the revenues of a poor church would be withdrawn from it in order to endow and enrich an English one—that the overflowings of Welch poverty were to be dropt down upon the riches of Manchester. He trusted that some step would be taken to satisfy the inhabitants of the principality of that subject.

The Bishop of Lincoln

said, one of his right rev. Friends had placed the matter on the right footing. He said there was a very great necessity for the erection of a bishopric at Manchester, but that he must either forego the erection of that bishopric or assent to the union of the two sees. His right rev. Friend had had some difficulty in deciding on the alternative, and that was precisely the position in which he now stood. He certainly should take what he considered to be the strongest side of the alternative—he should adhere to the recommendation of the commissioners, and give his vote against the second reading of the bill.

The Bishop of Exeter

ventured to submit to the noble Earl who had moved the second reading of the present bill, whether what had fallen from the right rev. commissioners and the sentiments expressed by them were not better than even a favourable vote on this question; and whether he might not withdraw the bill, and leave the question on the footing on which it was left by those right rev. Prelates.

Earl Fitzwilliam

said, that he was not altogether satisfied with the Ecclesiastical Commission, and the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London himself was compelled to make something like an apology for the commission. The difficulty felt by the commission was, whether they should introduce into the Episcopacy a Bishop who should not have a seat in the House. But, if they felt that the number of Bishops was not sufficient, they ought not to have been actuated by so small a consideration. Even if they had recommended a large addition to the number of Bishops, without that privilege, they would have had the support of several right rev. Prelates. It appeared to him, however, from the debate, that the measure for the union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor, instead of being, as he had anticipated, a measure of reform, would be an obstruction to measures of real reform. Under these circumstances he felt bound to give his vote in favour of the second reading of the bill of his noble Friend. He found that the benefits to be derived from the contemplated changes were dependent upon the lives of two right rev. Prelates, one of whom was present, and he hoped the other was likely to live as long as the right rev. Prelate who was then present, and gave promise from his appearance of a long life.

The Bishop of Norwich

could not allow this bill to pass without expressing his opinion. He should be sorry that it should go forth to the public, that he was hostile to the continuance of bishops in Wales. So far from it, he should be desirous that these two bishops should continue, and he should be glad to see the number of the bishops generally increased, particularly in the larger dioceses where the work to be done was more than could be effect u ally performed by one individual; and for this reason, he should be grateful if the noble Duke at the head of the Government would allow of the appointment of another bishop in the extensive district which he (the Bishop of Norwich) had to superintend. But there was another and pressing consideration to be attended to— and here he should have thought it his duty to trouble their Lordships with some statistical accounts which he had drawn up, had he not been anticipated by the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury). He would, however, just refer them to the number of benefices in a certain number of dioceses in support of his views, thus—Lincoln contained 1072; Norwich 897; Chester about 700; York 690; Lichfield 491; St. David's 454; while the joint sees of St. Asaph and Bangor contained only 258. That is not much more than half the number in St. David's where there was only one bishop, and about one quarter only of the number in the diocese of Lincoln. When it was therefore borne in mind, that the dioceses of St. Asaph and Bangor comprised but 258 benefices, and that the district proposed for the diocese of Manchester contained 1,340,000 souls, it was hardly possible to hesitate in preferring the interests of the latter. Anxious though he was to preserve to both the Welch sees their bishops, provided it could be secured without endangering more momentous interests. Before he sat down, he would take the liberty of turning their Lordships' attention to a singular argument urged by a writer of whose name he had not the slightest knowledge, and on whose opinion he might therefore animadvert, without any supposed feelings of a personal nature, for the retention of two bishops in North Wales. This writer, he begged to observe, professed him self to be a staunch friend to the Church, and vented his disapprobation of the conduct of the ecclesiastical commissioners in no measured terms, asserting that— His late Majesty was pleased, in an evil hour, to issue a commission to certain persons lay, as well as ecclesiastic, to advise him respecting certain alterations in the spiritual state of the kingdom, which the commissioners undertook to do, to the satisfaction, as it turned out, of none but those whose enmity to the Church was notorious. That the prelates in that day quailed beneath the popular cry. That these alarming intermeddlings with the episcopal seats and diversion of the revenues of the cathedral churches could be justified only upon the principles of the great rebellion, that the union of these two sees might be looked upon as a deed of sacrilege—that the division of a diocese against the will of the bishop was a robbery upon him, and such violent attacks upon the unity of the Church were of the highest sin. After such remarks, the professed friend of the Church went on to vindicate the necessity for the two sees, by alleging the disreputable character of the clergy, asserting that the increase of sects in that country (North Wales) was beyond the imagina- tion of those who had never seen it, that the Church was literally desolate, that the clergy required a careful and watchful superintendence,—that being cut off from many of the advantages which their more favoured brethren in England possessed, they were the more ready to fall into habits of indolence or of disobedience. That discipline was almost disused there, and that habits of life that would and did shut a man out from worldly society, were not so rare in that country as they ought to be, and that, in consequence, these clergy required most active episcopal superintendence. Now, he (the Bishop of Norwich) was prepared to say, that whatever their conduct might have been in the lamentable state of apathy in which the Church had for a season allowed to creep over and cripple its exertions, such charges were, at present, in great measure, libellous, and he would appeal to his right rev. Friend (the Bishop of Bangor), whether a change had not taken place. He could speak from good authority, that they were following the example of the other clergy of England, and were greatly advancing in spirituality and devotion, and fully participated in the revival going forward in the Church, sincerely desirous of upholding alike the efficiency and the honour of their order, the estimation and dignity of the Church, and the real welfare of the country. Fully alive, then, though he was, to the importance of preserving as close as possible a juxta-position and connexion between the dioceses and their clergy, he was compelled by a sense of duty to an enormous and unprovided population to adhere to the existing arrangement.

Lord Lyttleton

said, that after the gratifying speeches he had heard from right rev. Prelates, he felt satisfied that the proposed union could not take place; and he doubted not that their Lordships felt every desire to avoid it. There was no force in the objections urged against entertaining the present proposal, as, for instance, that the surrender of the Bishopric of Manchester was involved in adopting it, or the analogies suggested between the present and such cases as that of Bristol and Gloucester. As little ground did there appear to be for the apprehensions hinted, rather obscurely, about disturbing existing arrangements, the fact being that, existing arrangements were only prospective, and as they had effected as yet no alteration, a change of them as regarded the present case would only be a return to the existing state of things. The question, then, resolved itself really into one of the simple merits of the case—a balance of the alleged convenience of the union with the positive evils of that measure; and upon this point he did not think there could be any doubt. No one had attempted to deny the great evil of the union; and as it was also generally admitted that the question of the increase of the number of bishops must be separately, seriously, and speedily considered, there was no counterbalancing benefit at all to be attained by the adoption of the measure. While every class of men (including the clergy) were rapidly increasing with the augmentation of population, and while every order, every rank was perpetually and proportionately increased, it was utterly impossible that the important, the essential order of episcopacy, should remain long in its present position. There was, therefore, no evil to be avoided —no advantage to be gained, and, great mischief, it was admitted, would be produced by an adherence to the present measure.

The Marquess of Salisbury

expressed his opinion, that after the measure providing for the Manchester district had been permitted to rest so long— [The Duke of Wellington: " And has been acted upon by order in Council!"]—it would not be expedient to alter it without a proper substituted provision for so immense a population as that the interests of which were at stake. Till that object were answered—and gladly should he find it so—he must adhere to the existing arrangement; and he hoped the present proposal would be withdrawn.

The Bishop of London,

in explanation, said, he should wish to correct the common error, that the first commission existed as a deliberative body, whereas it had been superseded by the existing commission, established for the purpose of executing the measures recommended by the former one, and sanctioned by Act of Parliament. He should be happy to find any means of reconciling, unobjectionably, the two great objects in view.

The Earl of Powis

said, I feel considerable difficulty in deciding what course is the most advisable for me to take under he appeal made to me, unaccustomed as I am to have such responsibilities thrown upon me, and knowing that a difference of opinion prevails as to whether it is or is not well now to go to a division. Under ordinary circumstances I should prefer to follow the same straightforward course on a public question which I should in private concerns, and, as we are all prepared for it, conclude my motion by going to a division. But after the suggestions of the right rev. Prelate and the noble Marquess (Marquess of Salisbury), and the universal feeling among your Lordships in favour of the early establishment of a Bishopric of Manchester, I think it will be a prudent course for me, with your Lordships' permission, to withdraw the bill for the present, reserving to myself the power of again bringing the subject to your Lordships' notice, if satisfactory measures are not adopted in respect of the bishopric of Manchester and the bishoprics of St. Asaph and of Bangor.

The Duke of Wellington

had no objection to his noble Friend's motion being withdrawn. When his noble Friend brought in a bill another time, he would recommend him, in the first instance, to have the Queen's consent to have the subject taken into consideration.

Amendment and motion withdrawn.

The House adjourned at a quarter past twelve o'clock.