HL Deb 23 March 1848 vol 97 cc893-7
LORD STANLEY

My Lords, it will be in your Lordships' recollection that in the course of last Session a Bill was introduced by Her Majesty's Government for the establishment of an additional see—that of Manchester—and that at the time the Bill was introduced by Her Majesty's Government, an announcement was made by the Government, and which, I believe, was a matter of previous negotiation and contract with the heads of the Church, that in consideration of an additional number of bishoprics—stated to be in number four—there would not be any objection on the part of the heads of the Church in this House, or elsewhere, to the introduction of a principle—one to which I, for one, most conscientiously objected—and that no difficulty would result from the proposed non-sitting in the House of Peers of the additional Bishop so to be created. That statement was made on the part of Her Majesty's Government to the heads of the Church by a most reverend Prelate, now, for the Church, unhappily, no more, and the announcement was distinct and positive that four additional Bishops at least should be appointed, and that the commission had, in point of fact, been issued, for the pur- pose of arranging the precise limits, and a fresh distribution of the ecclesiastical dioceses. Not only was that understanding entered into between Her Majesty's Government and the heads of the Church, but that intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government was distinctly notified and stated in the preamble of the Bill itself. I believe the fact was that a Commission was at that time issued with this distinct notification made to the Commissioners, that in the first place they were to devise a scheme for a new distribution of the ecclesiastical dioceses in this country, with the understanding that it was the desire of Her Majesty that the dioceses of Bangor and St. Asaph, which it had been in contemplation to unite, should remain separate; that no addition should be made to the number of spiritual Peers sitting in this House; and that four additional Bishops, including the Bishop of Manchester, should be created when the measure should receive Her Majesty's sanction. It is quite true that, though the preamble of the Bill contained that recital, there was no corresponding enactment in the Bill itself. The Bill went only to confirm the intentions of Her Majesty so far as related to the See of Manchester. The Bill contained no words which referred to the creation of three additional sees. The preamble of that measure, indeed, as originally drawn up, stated what were the views and intentions of the Queen and Parliament with respect to the appointment of four additional bishops; but in the course of the Bill's progress through the other House, the preamble was amended by the omission of those words which referred to the three other sees. A statement, however, was made by the First Lord of the Treasury, in his place in the House of Commons, to which, as the words were spoken in a former Session, I may refer. He said that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to proceed with the appointment of that additional number of bishops; that Her Majesty's Government did not assent to the proposition, thon under consideration, to mix together the two funds known by the names of the General Fund and the Episcopal Fund, the one being for the creation of additional bishoprics, and the other for the augmentation of small livings; and that it was their intention to proceed to appoint additional bishops so soon as the funds at the disposal of the Ecclesiastical Commission should be sufficient for that purpose. In consequence of the lamentable events which have taken place in the course of the last year, the Church has been deprived of the services of two highly venerated Prelates; and in consequence of their death a considerable addition has been made, prospectively at least, to the funds at the disposal of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Under these circumstances, I think this a fitting occasion to ask the noble Marquess whether he adheres to the declaration made last year, of the intention of the Government to abide by the permanent distinction between the Episcopal Fund and the General Fund; and whether, having a surplus at their disposal—for I apprehend there must be a surplus—it is the intention of Her Majesty's Ministers to apply that surplus by filling up and carrying into effect, so far as the fund will permit, the plan which they announced last year of making an addition to the episcopal body? I understand that, by the decease of the Archbishop of York, 2,000l. a year falls into the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commission; and by the decease of the Archbishop of Canterbury, 10,000l. a year. These two sums, after providing for the addition to the see of Chester, will, at all events, leave a difference in favour of the Episcopal Fund of between 7,000l. and 8,000l. The first question which I wish to ask is, whether it is the intention of the Government to adhere to the distinction between the two funds? and the second is, if they have funds at their disposal, whether it is their intention to proceed without delay to the formation of one or more additional bishoprics?

The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE

said, that he was happy to state that Her Majesty's Government entertained the same views which it did when the Bill mentioned by the noble Lord was introduced, as to the expediency eventually of making an increase in the number of bishops in reference to the amount of population and the spiritual condition of particular dioceses. The noble Lord had stated most correctly, that the Bill of last Session, which provided only for the establishment of the new See of Manchester, did recite in its preamble, that it was the intention of Her Majesty to make the addition when it might be convenient to do so; but that that preamble was struck out in the other House, because it was conceived that it had nothing to do with the actual provisions of the Bill, which was simply to create a new bishopric of Manchester. This was the state in which the matter stood at present. Whenever there were means sufficient for the purpose, it would be for Her Majesty, in conjunction with the two Houses of Parliament, to consider whether further addition should be made to the number of bishops, and whether such a measure would be the best appropriation of the Episcopal Fund. Therefore, when there were means for the endowment of another bishopric, that question would be considered in the way he had just mentioned. He must add, that the amount of the fund had been overstated by the noble Lord. He believed that it fell far short of the sum which he had stated. Under these circumstances, and in consequence of the lamented decease of the two most rev. Prelates, the Commissioners had made no report on this subject; but when they should be in a situation to make a report, and there should be sufficient funds, then the whole matter would be taken into consideration. With regard to the application of the Episcopal Fund, he apprehended that the object mentioned by the noble Lord would have the preferable claim upon it.

The BISHOP of SALISBURY

was sure that the Church would be glad to learn that Her Majesty's Government still adhered to the expectation they had held out last Session as to an increase of the number of bishops. He expressed a hope that on inquiring into the subject sufficient funds would be found to enable the Government to carry out its views on this matter.

LORD MONTEAGLE

doubted whether the notions which prevailed amongst the bishops as to the expediency of enlarging the episcopal body prevailed also amongst the laity, who constituted a very considerable portion of the Established Church. He thought, also, that an opinion was entertained that the separation of the Episcopal and General Funds was not conducive to the best interests of the Church.

The BISHOP of OXFORD

wished to express his dissent from the sentiments of the noble Baron who had just sat down; for he believed that an impression of the necessity of appointing additional bishops very generally existed in the minds of the laity. He considered that very satisfactory proof could be shown of the necessity of keeping the two funds, the General and Episcopal, separate; but at all events that arrangement had been made by Parlia- ment, and not at the suggestion of the bishops. He expressed his hearty concurrence in what had fallen from the noble Marquess who represented Her Majesty's Government in that House, in reply to the question of the noble Lord opposite; and he rejoiced to hear that it was the intention to proceed in the course which they had formerly announced.

LORD LYTTLETON

begged, as a lay member of the Established Church, to confirm the statement of the right rev. Prelate, that amongst them there was a strong opinion of the necessity of increasing the number of the bishops. He conceived that in that respect his noble Friend opposite (Lord Monteagle) was mistaken, and that the time had now arrived for carrying out that design which had been already intimated.

LORD REDESDALE

defended the principle of the separation of the Episcopal and General Funds. He, too, thought that the time was arrived for making the proposed addition to the number of bishops; and that the earliest opportunity ought to be taken in carrying out that engagement in which so much confidence had been placed. He regretted that the Government had shown such lukewarmness on the subject, and could not help suspecting that the announcement last year of their intention to create additional bishops had been made with a view to the general election.

The EARL of HARROWBY

added his testimony to that of the noble Lord who had just sat down, that the clergy and laity were in favour of increasing the number of the bishops.

The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE

indignantly denied that the announcement last year by the Government had been Blade with the view of influencing in any degree the elections that then took place. He wished merely to say that he agreed with the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford) with respect to the application of the two funds. If it should be thought fit to erect other bishoprics, those bishoprics would have a preferable claim on the Episcopal Fund. At the same time he could not give any pledge that under any circumstances no part of the Episcopal Fund should be applied to other purposes which might be deemed to be for the welfare of the Church at large.

After a few words in explanation from the BISHOP of OXFORD, subject at an end.

House adjourned.