HL Deb 24 June 1844 vol 75 cc1247-56

House in Committee.

Lord Monteagle

said, he wished to call the attention of their Lordships, and particularly of the noble Duke opposite, to a subject which was of some importance, although it was a point of form. It would be in their Lordships' recollection that the Bill was before them in 1843, and it was then understood by their Lordships that when it was next brought forward, the consent of Her Majesty would be obtained for proceeding with it. This Bill affected the rights and patronage of the Crown; and, being of that nature, the noble Duke last year expressed his opinion that it would be impossible to proceed finally with the Bill without having the consent of the Crown. He wished, therefore, to ask the noble Duke opposite, if the consent of the Crown had been obtained for proceeding with the Bill?

The Duke of Wellington

said, he could inform the noble Lord and the House that he had not the authority of Her Majesty to give consent to the Bill. He did when the measure was before them, in a former Session of Parliament, suggest that it would be expedient and proper to obtain the consent of the Crown before proceeding with the Bill; but as the noble Lord says it is not necessary that the consent of the Crown should be obtained at any particular stage of the Bill, he should have no objection to proceed with the Bill in Committee.

Lord Campbell

was desirous to know if it were the intention of the Government to allow the Bill to pass into a law.

The Duke of Wellington

did not mean to offer any opposition to the Motion of the noble Earl for going into Committee, or to making any alterations in Committee which he thought proper. If he should be authorized to give the consent of the Crown, he should do so; but at present his answer was, that he had not the authority of Her Majesty to signify her consent to the Bill.

Lord Monteagle

said, that nothing could be more courteous or more convenient than to enable the noble Earl to go on with his Bill in order that he might make any alterations which he thought proper before the decision of the House upon it; and with that view he hoped their Lordships would not think it an intrusion if he said a few words upon it at that stage. The first Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners on the subject was made in March 1835, and recommended a consolidation of the Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor, and the creation of a Bishopric in Manchester. But so far were the Ecclesiastical Commissioners when they presented the first Report from contemplating the measure which had now become the law of the land, that they recommended one of an entirely different nature. He contemplated a union of the Sees, and the creation of the new See at Manchester, it was true;—but by the second Report, and the legislation founded on it, not only were these Bishoprics consolidated, but another step was taken by the transfer of a certain amount of ecclesiastical revenue derived from the principality of Wales for the purpose of endowing the intended Bishopric of Manchester. Whatever differences of opinion might exist as to other parts of the question, all noble Lords concurred in the obligation and the necessity of creating additional episcopal superintendence for the diocese of Manchester. For the attainment of that object it had been considered necessary to consolidate the two Welsh Bishoprics, and to tranfer the revenues of the principality of North Wales to the endowment of the See of Manchester. Now it was to this second proposition he wished to call their Lordships' attention. He wished to re- mind their Lordships that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were not at the time the proposition was made aware of the fact which had since been brought under their Lordships' notice in the last Session, and more distinctly in the present Session, by a right rev. Prelate, namely, that there would be a surplus of episcopal revenues, out of which the new Bishopric of Manchester might be advantageously and fittingly endowed without diverting from the clergy of the principality of Wales any of those endowments to which by law they were entitled. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners did not then see any other means by which the object could be attained; but it had since been discovered that fifteen dioceses which had been examined into would yield a surplus of 8,000l. a-year, and there was no doubt that further investigation respecting the remaining dioceses would show an available surplus, at the disposal of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, fully equal, at least, to the endowment of the Bishopric of Manchester. He maintained, therefore, that although they had the right absolutely, as the guardians of the religious instruction of the country and of the endowment of the parochial clergy, yet that it would be unchristian to exercise that right—that it would be unjust in the highest degree to divest the principality of Wales of its revenues for the purpose of bestowing them on Manchester. On behalf of the parochial clergy of Wales, he would show their Lordships that it was their duty to apply them in a different way from what his noble Friend proposed. The income assigned to the united Bishopric was .5,000l., so that there remained about 4,700l. per annum balance of the former income of the two Bishoprics. The greater portion of this amount was made up of the tithes paid by a population, very many of whose Ministers, it was matter of universal complaint, were most inadequately remunerated, though the appropriation of the tithes thus abstracted from them would place them in a position of due comfort and respectability. In the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, recommending the union of the Sees, it was made a feature that the balance thus arising could most advantageously be applied to increasing the incomes of the poorer clergy. True, it had been since thought that it would be necessary to apply this fund to endow the Bishopric of Manchester; but this necessity was now superseded, and there was more reason why the amount should be applied to increase the incomes of the poor vicars in the north of Wales, in the way that common justice and the recommendations of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners dictated. Sure he was, that the population of this district would feel that the true interests of the Church would be better consulted by more fitly remunerating the clergy, than by giving additional Bishops to North Wales. The noble Duke suggested that the House could not legislate upon that matter; if so, this was an argument also against the Bill which they were about to legislate upon. He (Lord Monteagle) trusted that the House would abide by the laws which it had enacted, or it might be opening a door to some very mischievous inferences, to some dangerous arguments. He might mention the case of one parish in Denbighshire, that of Abigill, whose population was 2,500, occupying a district of not less than 10,000 acres, yet there was not one church for all this large and widespread population, and, moreover, the tithes resulting from it went, not into the pockets of the clergy, not into the pockets of the Bishops, but into the pockets of certain persons who had received a lease of them from a former Bishop their relative. This was a position of things which certainly required to be dealt with efficiently, but it was an abuse which these-verance of the Bishopric would in no way remedy. In the same way, there were in Flint and Denbighshire, three other parishes, whose tithes, amounting to 1,770l., were leased to the relatives of former Bishops, leaving but an inconsiderable sum to the present Bishop. In the whole dioceses of St. Asaph and Bangor. the number of Benefices, amid a population of 350,711, was 258, of which no fewer than 113 were under 200l. a year. The total revenues of the church in that diocese amounted to 83,964l. of which 18,324l. was appropriated to the support of the Bishoprics, cathedral dignitaries, and to sinecures; leaving 65,635l. for the parochial benefices. The united incomes of thirteen sinecures in St. Asaph diocese alone, amounted to upwards of 4,000l. per annum. The tithes of thirty-eight parishes were wholly or in part appropriated to the Bishoprics of St. Asaph and Bangor, which parishes contained a popu- lation of 53,062—more than one-seventh of the whole population of North Wales. Again, take the case of the Isle of Anglesey. The county of Anglesey contained seventy-eight parishes, with a population of 50,000; there were seventy-eight churches and chapels in which divine service was performed, and there were only fifty clergymen appointed to officiate in these seventy-eight churches. The consequence, as stated by competent authorities was, that there were about thirty cases in which two churches were served by one individual; nay, there were cases in which three churches were consigned to the care of one clergyman; in a few churches divine service was performed on alternate Sundays only, and scarcely fifteen out of the seventy-eight churches, had two services performed in them on the Sabbath. The tithes of eight parishes with a population of about 12,000, or one-fourth of the whole island, with eight churches, were annexed to the Bishopric of Bangor: the annual value of the tithes was 2,215l. Four curates performed the duties in these parishes, and received from the Bishop 582l. So again, the extensive district of Towyn in Merionethshire, including four parishes, with an area of forty-seven square miles, and a population of 4,651 souls, was annexed to the See of Lichfield and Coventry, and two-thirds of the tithes of the parish of Carnarvon, with a population of 7,642 belonged to the Bishopric of Chester. In fact, while the population of the diocese of Bangor amounted to 153,344 souls, 38,006 souls (being about one-fourth of the whole number) were residents in parishes of which the tithes were respectively appropriated to the Bishoprics of Bangor, the Bishoprics of Lichfield and Chester, and two colleges at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge—while the united income paid to the resident clergy of those parishes amounted only to 3,057l. per annum. This was a state of things which ought certainly no longer to continue, and he trusted that their Lordships would see the propriety of taking immediate steps to make the property of the Church in North Wales subservient in its just proportions to the due maintenance of that working clergy which had so long been deprived of it. It had been said, let only one of the proposed two Bishops have a seat in their Lordships' House, but this appeared to him to be a proposition fraught with much danger. He had himself indeed, heard several warm friends of the Church say, that after all, perhaps it would be better were some of the Bishops permitted to devote the whole of their time to their spiritual charge; but it seemed to him that were the question once raised whether any of the Bishops might not advantageously be relieved, as the phrase was, from their Parliamentary duties, consequences of a dangerous and unconstitutional nature might very probably be apprehended; for when he heard persons express a desire to withdraw the Church from all connection with the State, and propose that it should secede from secular duties, it always appeared to him that there was another proposition behind the ostensible one, a proposition, namely, an intention to place the Church above the State; and this was a proposition which he should ever determinately oppose on constitutional grounds, and more especially, for the safety of the Church itself. The more the Church and State were mixed up together—the more the Bishops, the more the clergy at large were taught to consider themselves as Members of the community, and to perform their equal share of its civil functions, subordinately only to their own peculiar duties—the better for the Church; and, on the other hand, most injurious and dangerous would it be for any party to attempt to set up the Church as a separate body, distinct from, apart from the State—and, in the next step, above the State, by reason of its sacred functions.

The Earl of Powis

said, that he had felt it to be his duty previously to the introduction of the Bill, to communicate with his noble Friend (the Duke of Wellington), and since the second reading, he had further communicated with the noble Duke on the subject of the Royal consent being given to the measure, and that the noble Duke had informed him that it was not his intention to oppose the progress of the Bill unless material alterations were made in it when in Committee; but that he would take an opportunity of expressing the intentions of the Crown at a future stage. With respect to the argument of his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) who had just sat down, he did not think that it was fairly introduced by him upon the measure at present before the House. He (Lord Monteagle) objected to the income of the Bishops of North Wales arising from tithes. Such was, more or less, in almost every diocese the source from which a considerable part of episcopal incomes was derived. But the objection of his noble Friend came whimsically from him who had been himself, if his recollection was correct, in office, and a Commissioner when the Act passed which transferred these incomes from the Bishops of North Wales to the Episcopal Fund. His noble Friend objected to this proceeding as altering a Statute lately enacted. An Act would be equally necessary to repeal the Act referred to, and to apply the surplus episcopal income as advised by his noble Friend; and redeem it from the power of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. When the tithes were in the hands of their own Bishops, these revenues found their way back to the Principality, but it would be a very different thing when they were in the hands of an Ecclesiastical Corporation from whom it would be idle to expect any return of income. In parishes with which he (Lord Powis) was much connected, a large portion of the tithes were taken away by a college at Oxford, and he did not wish to see such means of disposing of the tithes of the parishes of North Wales increased. If his noble Friend intended to alter this state of things did he intend to limit his alterations to the episcopal tithe-holders of North Wales alone, or to extend it to the Sees of Lichfield and Chester, and other collegiate foundations which derive their income from North Wales tithes. If the evil was to be remedied, let it be met upon its own merits, and not confined to the Principality alone, but extended to the whole country, to England as well as to North Wales. Though such a reform might be very desirable, it would be difficult to carry it into execution, and his noble Friend was too well acquainted with Parliamentary practice not to know that to introduce his recommendations into the present Bill would be tantamount to ensuring its rejection in the other House of Parliament. Its appearance there, the Bill having assumed the character of a money Bill, would be to secure its being thrown upon the floor as interfering with the privileges of the House of Commons. During the discussion respecting the two Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor, there never had been an occasion (and he said it to the honour of the Clergy of both Dioceses) in which individual and pecuniary interests had less operated upon the Clergy, or been put forward by them; and he was convinced that if application were made to their indivi- dual interests, and they were told that they would derive pecuniary benefit from the destruction of one of the Bishoprics, one and all would openly and directly declare, that whatever inconvenience poverty entailed upon them, they would rather continue to suffer that inconvenience, than be made the excuse for inflicting on North Wales the serious evil of diminishing the number of her Sees and thereby of depriving the country of the benefit of episcopal superintendence. He hoped that the Bill would be allowed to pass the Committee, and he would only say, with regard to the recommendations and wishes of the noble Lord, that if he would introduce a measure for relieving the Principality from any existing grievances no man would be more ready to enter into the consideration of it than himself.

The Bishop of Bangor

wished to set the noble Lord (Lord Monteagle) right as to one matter, respecting which he laboured under a mistake. He had represented the tithes as having been abstracted from the local clergy in order to make part of the revenues of the Bishops. This was a mistake. They were tithes anciently appropriated just like other impropriate tithes; they had not been taken away from the local clergy; they were ancient appropriations belonging to the archdeaconries of Anglesea and Bangor, and were attached to the Sees they at present belonged to by Act of Parliament. In England tithes had been similarly appropriated and let on beneficial leases. The tithes in question were never let, but the Bishop received them just as a lay impropriator received them. With respect to this Bill, he knew that the clergy throughout Wales was almost unanimous in opinion that the Bishoprics should be preserved, and that it was the general wish of the inhabitants of the two dioceses.

The Bishop of Salisbury

thought that some parts of the speech of the noble Lord opposite deserved consideration. But he would remind the House that the recommendation of the Ecclesiastical Commission, of which he had been a member, had been given ten years ago, but had not yet been acted upon. He agreed with the noble Lord that a Bishop of Manchester was much wanted, but if such a Bishopric were so necessary, could not the Government, with the co-operation of the Houses of Parliament, find means to procure it? In the progress of years, new divisions of the dioceses would always be wanted, but the want of new Bishops formed no ground for the destruction of old Bishoprics. He trusted that their Lordships would pass the present measure, and that whatever question might incidentally arise upon the subject of tithes, in connection with it, they would not allow those difficulties to interfere with its success.

The Bishop of Norwich

could give his testimony that throughout Anglesea and North Wales, there was a loud and general complaint of the unjust appropriation of the tithes, and of their alienation from the support of the local clergy: and he felt assured that his right rev. Brother must be deeply distressed at receiving such tithes. The feeling of the principality on the subject was so decided that he (the Bishop of Norwich) believed that a great part of the dissent which prevailed there was attributable to the alienation of tithes from the Clergy. There could not be a more objectionable mode of deriving an income than when it was derived from the tithes of a parish which you are conscious ought to be paid to the parish clergyman. He was sure his right rev. Brother must feel, as he (the Bishop of Norwich) should assuredly do under similar circumstances, some hesitation in calling to account pluralists and sinecurists within his diocese, knowing that they might turn round and say that, in his own case, the tithes of so many parishes went to swell the income of his See. He rejoiced at the notice which this subject had received, for he saw in it the sure prospect of justice to the clergy of the diocese in question. At the same time he looked forward to the establishment of a Bishopric in Manchester. Look at its population. He was surprised, after the recommendation of the Commissioners that the wealth of Manchester had not come forward with a voluntary tender of an amount sufficient to endow a Bishopric. It would not be an item worthy of consideration compared with the vast wealth of that town. But, if they did not come forward, as he thought they ought to do, there was a resource of 10,000l., which might be appropriated to the purpose of establishing a Bishopric in Manchester. A right rev. Friend near him intimated that it was not so; he hoped, however, that he was wrong: at all events, he should look forward from the debate of that evening to a revival of religion in Wales, and to the prospect of the clergy of North Wales again possessing their rights.

The Bill went through Committee, and was ordered to be read a third time on Monday.