Lords Sitting of 11 February 1850

Preamble
MINUTES. J. PUBLIC Brits.—1o County Cess (Ireland); Railways Abandonment; Administration of Justice (Ireland.)
2o Ecclesiastical Commission.

EDUCATION (IRELAND).
The EARL of STRADBROKEpresented a petition from the parents and guardians of children, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, attending the school of Kilronan, in the county of Waterford, stating that the school is in connexion with the Church Education Society for Ireland, one of the rules of which is, that the holy Scriptures, in the authorised version, shall be used in the daily instruction of every child capable of reading—that the petitioners approved of the rule, as tending to bring up their children in the way they should go—but that in consequence of this rule the school was precluded from participating in the advantages of the Parliamentary grant for promoting the education of the poor of Ireland. The petitioners, therefore, prayed that the school, and all others of a similar character, might be permitted to participate in the said grant for
614
national education, without being required to abandon this rule.
Petition ordered to he on the table.

RATE IN AID.
LORD MONTEAGLEmoved that the accounts which had been kept under the Rate in Aid Act should be produced forthwith.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, they were in course of preparation, and would shortly be laid before Parliament.

STEAM COMMUNICATION WITH AUSTRALIA.
EARL TALBOTrose to put a question to the noble Secretary for the Colonies. He wished to know whether the Government intended to establish any such communication; and, if so, whether it was to be by the route of Singapore, or by that of the Isthmus of Panama?
EARL GREYsaid, that contracts had been called for to conduct that communication in the most comprehensive manner. All the tenders which Government expected had not yet been received, and therefore it had not finally considered what route ought to be taken. The ultimate decision would partly depend on the terms which could be agreed upon.

AFFAIRS OF GREECE.
LORD STANLEYsaid, that since he had last adverted to this subject, information on the affairs of Greece had been received by the public, in an official shape, which threw rather more light than they had formerly had on the real nature of this case. He did not press for the premature production of the papers which the noble Marquess had promised on a former occasion; but he must say, that the postponement of those papers to a period when the events had ceased, and the public interest had subsided, was not the most convenient course to adopt. He saw in the French newspapers that the official correspondence between the different Ministers of England, France, Russia, and Greece, had been published at Paris, not indeed by the French Government, but still in such a shape as placed the whole of it before the public of France. He also saw that a conversation had taken place in the French Chamber of Deputies upon that correspondence; and it was there stated, that the mediation of France had been offered to this country on the differences in question, and that it had

615
been accepted by the English Government. He rejoiced that anything had occurred to put a stop to the hasty and injudicious proceedings which had been taken, without any justification, by our Minister and the British Admiral against the Government of Greece. He could not, however, help saying, that if the mediation of France had been accepted by our Government, England was placed in a situation the most humiliating, whilst France might well be proud of the exalted position which she occupied as one of the protecting Powers of Greece in accepting such a mediation; and although certainly the acceptance of the mediation was preferable to its rejection, he should have preferred that no occasion had been given for any reference whatever to France; still, when a mediation was tendered, he conceived the Government to be at liberty to accept it. He was sorry to find that the statements made in those official documents did certainly justify him in the declaration which he had made on a former night, that our Minister had used the unwarranted expression that, "he they just or be they unjust, our claims must be acceded to—and that his orders were so peremptory that he had no discretion to enter into any further discussion upon them." Now, if it were true that the mediation of France had been accepted, he rejoiced that it would put a stop to proceedings so inauspiciously commenced, and so likely to produce more aggravated violence hereafter. But the acceptance of that mediation now was grossly inconsistent with the refusal of the mediation previously offered, and with our insisting, at the point of the bayonet, or, he should rather say, on the roar of our cannon, upon immediate redress. The first question which he begged leave to put to the noble Marquess was, whether the mediation of France had been tendered to England, and had been accepted by the English Government? And the next was, whether that mediation, if it had been accepted, extended merely to the indemnity claimed for certain British subjects, or whether it extended further, to the still more important question as to the right of Greece or of the Ionian Republic to the possession of the islands adjoining them? The noble Marquess had stated, on a former evening, that there was a broad distinction between these two sets of claims; and the latter were not included in the categorical demand of our Minister, Sir Thomas Wyse. He wished also to be in-
616
formed whether any attempt would be made to take possession of the disputed islands before the mediation was concluded?
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEhad no hesitation in answering the question of the noble Baron. In the first place, as to the production of the papers which he had promised on a former evening, he had the satisfaction of telling the noble Baron that no unnecessary delay—nay, more, that no necessary delay, would prevent their almost immediate delivery, and that in a few days they would be laid on the table of the House. The noble Lord, referring to the proceedings of a deliberative assembly in another country, asked whether this country had acquiesced in an offer of mediation made by the Government of France. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had to state that the Government of this country had received and acquiesced in the offer made by the French Government to interpose its good offices for the purpose of settling this question. Though the noble Earl opposite was as well aware as any man could be that there was some difference between the terms "mediation" and "good offices," he must inform the House that there was a still wider difference between the terms "mediation" and "arbitration." Her Majesty's Ministers took the interposition of the good offices of France in the same sense in which they had accepted it in the dispute which we had with the King of Naples some two or three years ago. The same offer of "good services" which we made to France some time ago, when there was a dispute between France and the United States, had been renewed to us. The interposition of our good services at that period had been attended with results satisfactory to all parties; and he said on the present, as he said on all occasions, that where the offer of such "good services" was made in a spirit of good faith, it was for the interest of England, and, indeed, of every other country, to accept it. No offer of "arbitration" had been made in this case, and none had been accepted. The noble Baron had expressed his regret that the offer of their good offices, when made by the French and Russian Ministers at Athens, had been rejected, although such offer had been subsequently accepted. There was this wide distinction between the offers: the first was not authorised by the Governments by which those Ministers were respectively accredited; neither did

617
those Ministers know whether their Governments would sanction the offer which they had respectively made. The British Minister at Athens was therefore justified, in his (the Marquess of Lansdowne's) opinion, in having declined that offer. The noble Baron had likewise asked whether our claim to the territorial possession of two islands was to he submitted to the good services of France? That question was not included in the offer and acceptance of the good services of France. It was a question which stood on totally different grounds, and which, as it was not included in the ultimatum proposed to the Greek Government, was excepted from the interposition of Franco. The nature of our pecuniary claims, and the amount of our pecuniary indemnity, were the only questions on which the "good offices" of France had been accepted.
LORD STANLEYobserved that no answer had been given to one of the questions which he had asked—whether, in the event of our territorial requisitions being refused, Her Majesty's Government would approve of any measures for taking forcible possession of the islands in dispute?
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEhad no reason to believe that any such steps would be taken.
In reply to a question of Lord BROUGHAM, respecting the island of Cervi,
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, that the question of territory was not raised in the categorical demand of Sir Thomas Wyse, and was purposely excluded from it.
LORD BROUGHAMwas afraid that there was no doubt as to the fact of our vessels having taken possession of some Greek ships of war.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEstated that there was no truth in the statement that ships of war had been seized by our cruisers; but that the Greek vessels were confined to a station in which they were under duress.
LORD BROUGHAM: That is, they are under imprisonment.
The EARL of ABERBEENagreed with his noble Friend near him in expressing his satisfaction that the mediation offered by the French Government for the settlement of this affair had been accepted, because it seemed to him the only means of extricating our Minister and Admiral from the situation, both highly embarrassing discreditable, in which they now found themselves placed. There was some little
618
inconsistency, however, in the statements which had been made, for the noble Marquess had now agreed to accept the mediation of France in the settlement of claims which last week he pronounced to be indisputable, and he had dropped the mediation of France with respect to that which he admitted was not certain—namely, the territorial question. We had also declared to Greece, that it was no longer a question of justice or injustice, but that the claims must be satisfied in twenty-four hours; yet we now not only admitted, and were ready to inquire ourselves whether the clauses were just or unjust, but we called upon France to examine and decide that question.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: It is not an arbitration.
The EARL of ABERDEENwas aware that it was a mediation. He thought the Power that had most reason to complain of Her Majesty's Government was the Government of France. They professed to cultivate the most friendly relations with the French Government, and they did well; but what was the sort of understanding which existed between them? Had they communicated to the French Government their intention? Had the English Minister at Athens, or the English Admiral communicated to his French colleague their intention? Had Her Majesty's Government made such a communication to France, he could not doubt that that mediation might have been offered, and might have been accepted, in a very different manner, and with much better character, than after the unfortunate proceedings of violence which had taken place. For what was the result? This was a specimen of that policy which had so long had for its object to counteract French influence. They had now taught Greece to consider France as her protector and saviour against British violence, and they were contented to receive lessons of moderation and justice from republican and revolutionary France, with a "Bonaparte at her head." He must say he thought that was a position which it would have been well to have avoided, by that friendly communnication which France had a right to expect from us, before we undertook a measure of this violent description in a country with which she was so closely connected. The noble Marquess must know, as well as himself, the sensation which a proceeding of this kind must necessarily produce in France.

619
He must know perfectly well, that if this country had not accepted the mediation of France, in that case it would have been unavoidable that France should have placed herself in an attitude of direct hostility to this country, or else the French Government would have been shaken to its very foundations. Now, he said that was not the way to treat a Government with which you professed to be on the most intimate and friendly footing. Therefore, although the acceptance of the mediation was not only wise, but necessary, he thought it would have been highly desirable if that mediation had been accepted before any violence was accomplished; and he had not the least doubt that it would have been offered had the communication been made which France had a right to expect. There seemed to he some confusion or misunderstanding on the subject of the separation of the territorial claims. He found in the papers published at Athens that this claim was combined with the rest. The Greek Minister did not appear to make any distinction between the private demands for pecuniary compensation and the cession of territory. However, he took for granted that the separation had been made now, at all events, whether it was so or not at the time of the demand being made by Sir Thomas Wyse. He was quite aware that the demand for the possession of the islands was one which might very fairly admit of much discussion; it was a very complicated subject, and one of extreme difficulty. He was at a loss to understand why the claim had been made for those two islands, because the question referred not to two but to twenty, there being a considerable number of others in precisely the same situation. He was happy to hear that this subject had been separated from the other demands. At the same time, it would be very satisfactory if the noble Marquess were enabled to say, from what he knew of the claims and the manner in which they have been met, that there was no danger of any forcible proceeding having been adopted with respect to these islands; for, if he was not much mistaken, the exaction of that part of the demand being entrusted to Sir W. Parker, it would be in his power, and as he had reason to believe, according to his instructions, to take possession of those islands without further application to the English Government.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEwould offer only one or two words in explanation
620
after what had fallen from the noble Earl. Had the observations just made not proceeded from a person so thoroughly conversant with all diplomatic practice as the noble Earl was, he should have supposed that the noble Earl was throughout confounding arbitration and good offices. In one of the speeches he had made, the noble Earl himself plainly adverted to that distinction, and, notwithstanding, both before and after having done so, he argued on the assumption that we were placing France in a situation to arbitrate between us and Greece. We had done no such thing. The noble Earl was perfectly aware that the acceptance of good offices from France was no acceptance of any arbitration, and amounted to nothing binding upon us. But the noble Earl said that was inconsistent with his (the Marquess of Lansdowne's) having stated on a former occasion that we had indisputable claims. Why, what he stated was, that we had indisputable claims to an amount of compensation; but it did not follow that the precise amount of compensation was not capable of being assessed and regulated by the good offices of a friendly Government. And it was precisely in that way, after having made assertions of being entitled to peculiar compensation, that this country had interfered on behalf of other countries, and that other countries had interfered in our behalf, not admitting, in the slightest degree, a doubt as existing in reference to the justice of the claim, but admitting the possibility of assistance being afforded by a third party towards settling the amount of the demand, and the extent of interference. The noble Earl thought there was some shame to this country in having accepted an offer from France. If, indeed, the offer of these good offices had been made in the spirit which the noble Earl had suggested, for which he had supplied reasons the most inconclusive in his mind, probably there would have been a difficulty in accepting that mediation, and Her Majesty's Government would not have had that advantage which the noble Earl stated they might now have. But fortunately the offer was made in a spirit totally opposed to the observations of the noble Earl; it came unaccompanied by that tone of complaint and of insolence which would have created a difficulty in accepting it. The offer was made in the most friendly spirit. It assumed nothing but the notoriety of the facts. Upon that notoriety it assumed it to be a misfortune that any

621
such facts had occurred; and offered to endeavour to put an end to any serious consequences arising from those facts. With reference to the territorial claim, orders had been issued on that subject totally different from those which applied only to the categorical demand; and those orders might or might not have been acted upon—he could not say; but, as he had already said, instructions had been sent out for suspending the operations of the fleet. He was obliged to the noble Earl for assuming we had something like a claim, on the part of the republic of the Ionian Islands, to the territory of the islands in question. His opinion to-night was in direct opposition to his opinion on a former night. He was glad to find that the noble Earl now admitted that we once had, and might have now, some claims to these islands. Whether the negotiations had been conducted in a manner consistent with the dignity of this country was a question he would leave to be decided by the papers which would be presented in a few days, although the noble Earl had thought it necessary to anticipate his conclusions by pronouncing an unqualified condemnation of the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government.
The EARL of ABERDEENsaid, the noble Marquess had misrepresented what he had stated in relation to the islands. He admitted last week that there might be a good claim to them on the part of this country, but he deprecated the mode of exacting it by demanding a cession of the territory in four-and-twenty hours; and he also admitted now, because he was more fully informed as to the particulars, that the claim was a doubtful question. But he had no doubt whatever that it was a most unjustifiable proceeding to exact a cession of the islands twenty-four hours after the demand had been made. The noble Marquess formerly insinuated that he (the Earl of Aberdeen) had himself made a demand for the cession of these islands, and observed that he had changed his opinion with regard to our rights. The noble Marquess was completely mistaken in that respect. He had never made any such admission. Sir Edmund Lyon made the demand three or four weeks before he (the Earl of Aberdeen) had entered office, by virtue of instructions from his predecessor, about which he knew nothing. The noble Marquess, therefore, was not to consider that demand as one proceeding from his instructions, or that he entertained any such
622
opinion as that imputed to him. The noble Marquess must have been misled, he supposed, by information from the Foreign Office; but he could tell the noble Marquess there was more in that office than was "dreamt of in his philosophy." He recommended the noble Marquess, for it was not the first time he had found the caution necessary, to be upon his guard. There was a familiar from that office at his elbow (Lord Eddisbury) who would also do well to be cautious. Certainly he had given no such instructions as those the noble Marquess seemed to impute to him. But he was not quite at case on the subject of these islands, in consequence of what had fallen from the noble Marquess. The noble Marquess said the cession of that territory was no part of Sir Thomas Wyse's categorical demand, but that other instructions had been sent out respecting it, which might or might not have been acted upon. He (the Earl of Aberdeen) very much feared that it would turn out that those instructions left the admiral a latitude as to taking possession of the islands; and if that should be the case, the question would become very serious indeed. He had not insinuated that the offer of mediation from the French Government had been made in any other than a friendly manner, on account of the great difficulty and embarrassment in which this country was placed by what had occurred in Greece. He had only said that our policy had for years been professedly to counteract what was called French influence in Greece, and that we had now unadvisedly done that which must establish it in the heart of every Greek in the kingdom.
LORD EDDISBURYcould not sit still after what had just fallen from the noble Earl. Fortunately, no long time had elapsed since the last discussion on this question; and he appealed to all their Lordships who had hoard it whether the noble Earl had not distinctly stated that he had consulted the map which was an "annex" to the treaty signed by himself, and that so conclusive was that map on the question that he entertained no doubt that the Ionian States had no claim whatever to these islands. Further consideration, and further information, as the noble Earl himself confessed, had compelled him to modify his opinion; and he (Lord Eddisbury) hoped that further time and further investigation would compel him to modify it still more. The noble Earl had stated that regarding one of the islands, Cervi,

623
not Sapienza, there could be no doubt whatever, was included in that map in the Greek territories. [The Earl of ABERDEEN dissented.] He (Lord Eddisbury) was startled at that statement. He too had seen the map. The lino drawn upon it, which the noble Earl declared to be destructive of our claim, seemed to him to establish it beyond contradiction. The object of the line was merely to mark the difference between the Turkish and Greek possessions in the Archipelago. The present was not a question of interference with foreign countries, but a question of procuring justice for injured British subjects. It became their Lordships to see that no injury was done to British subjects in foreign countries with impunity. He regretted to find that on every occasion the noble Earl took up the cause of those who were, he would not say the enemies of Britain, but who were ready enough to encroach upon the rights of British subjects. It was not sufficient for the noble Earl to say that we were a great country, and that we ought not to bully small States. The noble Earl well knew, from his long experience, that the countries which refused justice for wrongs inflicted were generally small States; and that a great one would hesitate long before it committed an act of injustice; knowing that it must be responsible for such misconduct. The noble Earl himself had been engaged in enforcing justice from countries not larger not more powerful than Greece. Our present demands on Greece had no relation to that protectorate of it which we had undertaken to exercise in combination with France and Russia: but were simple demands for redress for injuries done to British subjects, to whom justice had been pertinaciously refused, and in the settlement of which England and Greece were alone concerned. It was most undesirable that a premature discussion of this kind should take place. The noble Earl had spoken contumeliously of the French Republic with a Buonaparte at its head; and of the French Government with its shaken foundations, if indeed it had any foundations; but he Lord Eddisbury) must say that it was a republic which had always acted honestly and fairly towards this country.
The EARL of ABERDEENmust say one word to their Lordships by way of explanation. He thanked the noble Baron for the reference which he had just made to the map, though he scarcely knew what to say in answer to his remarks, except it
624
were to repeat, verbatim, everything which he had said last week. He had not seen the map since the year 1830, but from his copy it appeared that the isle of Cervi was given to the Greek kingdom. He admitted that it was so given without any previous examination and inquiry, but with a conviction that, as it was so near the Greek shore, it must belong to Greece. He thought, however, that that point was now open to discussion.
LORD EDDISBURYreminded the House that, in the opinion of the noble Earl himself, that which was positive the other clay was not positive now. He insisted that strong objections had been made from time to time against the Greek occupation of these islands.
LORD COLCHESTERobserved, that from the time when the Ionian Islands were first constituted independent States, he had always considered all the islands on the coast of Greece, and between the Morea and the Ionian Islands, to belong to the Ionian Republic. The whole question, however, hinged upon another; and that was, whether they had belonged to Venice and had been ceded by her to the Ionian Islands? He had nearly been called upon to take a very decisive course as to these islands when he was in command of a British vessel on the coast of Greece, during the time of Ibrahim Pasha's invasion of Greece. He believed them to belong to the Ionian Islands, and was prepared to occupy them as such had they been seized by the Turks.
LORD BROUGHAMobserved, that there was a party in this case to whom he thought that only scanty justice had been done in this discussion. That was M. Londos, the Greek Minister, who had drawn up a most dignified and touching statement relative to the treatment of his country in this matter; a statement which he considered worthy of the heroic and illustrious ancestors from whom he was descended. M. Londos appeared to have taken a very different view of our demands from that taken by his noble Friend opposite. He drew no distinction between our claims for territory and our claims for money. That was owing to the way in which his friend Sir T. Wyse had put forward our demand. On receiving our demand, M. Londos applied to the French Minister for his intercession on behalf of the Greeks; and to that application the French Minister at once acceded. M. Londos also applied to the Russian Minister, but the Russian Minister did not

625
accede to his application; on the contrary, he sent to St. Petersburgh for instructions. Could anybody doubt that the Court of St. Petersburgh would be but too happy to give its Ministers instructions to comply with the application of the Greek Minister, and to encourage him to offer his "good services" also? The palate of the Court of Russia was especially gratified with the taste of a Mediterranean island, and doubtless she would support any measure which had the remotest tendency to produce for her that gratification. He did not see how we could refuse the good services of Russia after we had accepted those of France. He thought that such a measure as the taking the ships of Greece into our custody was calculated to lead to much greater evil than that which it was intended to avert.
VISCOUNT CANNINGhad also examined the map which was annexed to the treaty of Lord Aberdeen. It contained a line marking the boundary of Greece, so far as regarded Greece and Turkey. That line passed to the east of all the islands given to Greece by the treaty of 1830, and came to the Morea. It was then prolonged eastward, from Cerigo to Greece. There could be no doubt in the mind of any reasonable man that it was intended to give the island of Cervi to Greece, and not to Cerigo. If that point were to be decided by the map, the island of Cervi belonged to Greece, and not to the Ionian Islands.
Subject at an end.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION BILL.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE,having moved that this Bill be read a second time, said he would beg to offer a few observations for the purpose of distinctly stating what the objects of the measure were, and in what way he proposed to carry those objects into effect. He need not dwell on the circumstances attending the creation of the former commission. Their Lordships would recollect that about 1835, in consequence of many remarks made in and out of Parliament as to the then state of the revenues of the Church, it was proposed to appoint a Commission to determine in what way those revenues could be better applied and distributed for the benefit of the Church. A Commission was accordingly appointed, which, in the following year (1836), made a full report on the subject. That report met with the full approbation of Parliament and of the Government, and in pursuance of its recommendation a Commission was
626
appointed in that year, 1836, to give effect to an improved distribution of the Church revenues. That Commission, consisting of thirteen members, some ecclesiastical and some lay, proceeded to carry into execution the recommendations of the previous Commission, and to devise certain schemes, which, submitted for the approbation of Parliament by the channel of the Privy Council, were to be carried into effect by Orders in Council, and he believed very beneficially so. A great many such schemes were carried into effect; but after a time certain changes were made in the composition of the Commission, which, in his opinion, had not had the result of better qualifying the Commission for the then increased magnitude of their task, but rather, with the best intentions on the part of the members, of diminishing their aptitude for that purpose. The alteration made in 1840 enlarged the limited number of thirteen to forty-nine, including the whole bench of bishops. Now, the Commission having to deal with very difficult, very important, and very complicated pecuniary interests, and being composed of so large a number of persons, none of whom were bound constantly to attend, and any portion of whom attending were subject at any time to the interference of any others of the numbers, a body so composed had rather the effect of retarding, and, perhaps, of confusing its own proceedings. Many of the regulations adopted were calculated to have the same result; such, for example, as that which subjected any person in the room who happened, by reason of his seniority in rank, to fill the chair, to be displaced at any point of the proceedings by any other person, his superior in rank, who might happen to come in. There were many subordinate regulations equally objectionable. Yet, when the importance of the interests! involved was considered, it was obvious that the utmost attainable efficiency ought to be secured. The Commission had to deal with property derived from episcopal funds, of not less in amount than 16,000 l. a year, and with property derived from what was called the common fund not less in amount at present than 136,000 l. per annum, and which would, before very long, attain the amount of 300,000 l. per annum, derived from all manner of sources, from all manner of interests; from property leased on lives, on years, on renewals by fine, all necessarily requiring the most constant and vigilant attention on the part of the Commissioners. He was not surprised that a

627
Commission so composed and so enlarged should fail to attain the object in view—the equal, prompt, and beneficial application of the funds thus derived from the Church. It was admitted on all hands that a state of things had arisen which made it imperative to alter and amend the composition of the Committee, and he would, therefore, briefly state to their Lordships what were the provisions of the Bill which had been prepared for the purpose of rendering the Commission more efficient for securing greater attention to the important details involved, and to the pecuniary interests intrusted to the Commission; so that these might not be left to the incidental care of persons who might attend at one time and not at another. It was proposed by the Bill to name three Commissioners for the management of these Church estates, to be called the Church Estates Commissioners. In the report of the Committee of the House of Lords it was recommended that all the three Commissioners should be paid Commissioners; but, on reflection, it had been considered that it would be sufficient to have only two of the Commissioners paid Commissioners, and that a third Commissioner might be found, fully competent to the task, whom it would not be necessary to remunerate for that particular service. The Bill provided that these three persons should compose an independent Commission of three Commissioners, one of them to be named by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the other two by the Crown; the paid Commissioner appointed by the Crown to be the chairman of the Estates Committee, and to be paid an allowance of 1,200 l. per annum; the paid Commissioner named by the Archbishop of Canterbury to be paid an allowance of 1,000 l. per annum for his services. In order to secure adequate attention to the business of the Commission, and to prevent those accidents which had occurred under the late arrangement, it was provided that no act, matter, or thing should be done at any meeting of the Church Estates Commissioners, unless two of the Commissioners were present. Another provision, the necessity of which had been enforced by a recent unfortunate circumstance, was that the offices of secretary and of treasurer should not be filled by one and the same person; but that the office of treasurer should be jointly filled by the chairman of the Commission, and the Church Estates Commissioner appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Another clause provided that fixed incomes might
628
be secured to those bishops, appointed after the 1st of January, 1848, who might prefer such fixed incomes to fluctuating annual incomes. By another clause it was provided, that henceforth what was called the "episcopal fund," arising from the diminution or alteration of episcopal revenues; and the "common fund," arising from the diminution or alteration of the revenues of deans and chapters, and other like sources, should form one fund, applicable to all the purposes conducive to the efficiency of the Established Church, now separately provided for by these funds. The only other clause to which he need refer, was one by which it was provided that the income of future Deans of York should not exceed 2,500 l., that the future income of the present Deans of Salisbury and Wells should not exceed 1,500 l. per annum; and that the income of future Deans of Chichester, Exeter, Hereford, Lichfield, Salisbury, and Wells, should not exceed 1,000 l. per annum. The noble Marquess then moved the second reading of the Bill.
The ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURYsaid, he had great satisfaction in expressing his entire concurrence in what had fallen from the noble Marquess as to the desirableness of making an alteration in the Ecclesiastical Commission; for his part, he should have been very glad had such an alteration been made some years ago, but for the reflection that, in a pecuniary point of view, this would have been accompanied with the subtraction for salaries of so many thousands of pounds from the funds of the Church. It had now, however, become essential no longer to delay the change. The increasing business of the Commission, the many intricate negotiations in which it was involved, and the still greater number likely to devolve upon it, rendered it essential that there should be some responsible officers directly and distinctly charged with the administration of such important affairs, and of such large funds, so that the country might have some guarantee for the due execution of the one, and the due application of the other. With reference to the late Commission, he felt called upon emphatically to protest against many of the imputations which, out of doors, had been cast upon it. No one could assent to those imputations without doing much injustice to many noble and right honourable and honourable persons, who had given their time and attention, in the most disinterested way, to

629
the business of the Commission. With reference to the late unhappy circumstance, by which 6,000 l. had been abstracted from the funds of the Church, he could not help saying that the late secretary of the Commission had, up to within the last six months of his official life, performed the part of a faithful, zealous, and very useful servant. It would appear that some unhappy speculations, involving him in embarrassments, had induced him, in an evil hour, to appropriate the funds of the Church, in the expectation that he would be able to replace them. But a charge has been made against the Commission which I am chiefly concerned to notice, because it goes far to accuse of malversation the episcopal members of the Commission. We have been charged with applying to the purpose of building bishops' palaces the funds which ought to have been applied to the augmentation of livings. Allow me to lay before your Lordships the real circumstances of the case. It will be in your Lordships' recollection that the Commission, as at first established, had two objects to accomplish: one being the nearer equalisation of the several sees, by taking from the superfluity of one what might supply the deficiency of another; and, secondly, the furnishing endowments to those parts of the country where the revenues of the Church were very insufficient to meet the wants of the increasing population. The funds were to accrue from two different sources—partly from suppressed canonries and sinecures, partly from the contributions of the richer sees. As the objects were separate, and the sources by which they were to be supplied separate, it was natural that the funds also should be separate; and accordingly the Act of Parliament which constituted the Commission established also an episcopal and a common fund. From the episcopal fund so formed, a residence has been provided for the new see of Ripon, part of the expense of a new house for the Bishop of Lincoln has been furnished, and about 9,000 l. has been expended upon the residences of the Bishops of Worcester, Gloucester, and Oxford; the whole expense being about 29,000 l. Now, then, your Lordships will ask, how could the idea prevail that the expense has amounted to five times that sum? Whatever has been expended beyond 29,000 l., has been mere exchange of property; property sold in Hants, and bought in Lincolnshire; property in Gloucestershire disposed of, and
630
bought in Bristol; property at Bromley sold, and bought at Danbury. And how came it that this was charged to the account of the Commission? Because the negotiations were not carried on, as they would formerly have been, by private Acts of Parliament, but through the general powers granted by Parliament to the Commission. They therefore appear as part of its transactions. But the property itself never made part of the funds of the Commission, not was ever intended so to do; and was no more destined for the augmentation of benefices than the estates of any of your Lordships. It is very unfortunate, my Lords, that a misconception on this subject has so long prevailed, and that the public have been so slow to receive the explanation. An impression has been produced upon the minds of many of the clergy, natural under the circumstances, but not the loss to be regretted. Many of the clergy are in painfully straitened circumstances. Placed in insulated situations, and feeling the want of domestic comfort, they are led to marry early, often with no better provision than a precarious curacy, or an ill-paid incumbency. It cannot be matter of surprise that they soon find themselves embarrassed; and they naturally compare their incomes with their labours, their talents, their education, and think them very ill requited. My Lords, when men are distressed, it is easy to persuade them that they are ill used. But the supposition is no less unfounded than it is injurious to the Church. For it can be nothing but injurious to the Church, when the feelings of the inferior clergy are alienated from those who are above them in rank and fortune, though often in nothing else, and who probably, at the very moment when they he under the imputation of selfishness, are employing their time, their thoughts, their influence, and often not sparing their purses, in promoting the comfort, and increasing the means of usefulness, of their humbler brethren. My Lords, it is one of the purposes of the Act now brought in, to prevent the possibility of such misconceptions in future. It is intended to abolish all distinction between the episcopal and common fund, and to take from the general fund what may be required for any of the purposes of the Commission. But I am glad to have had the opportunity of showing that the episcopal members of the Commission have not been, as was supposed, selfish administrators of the means which a great sacrifice

631
on the part of the Church had placed in their hands.
The EARL of HARROWBYdid not rise to oppose the Bill, though he confessed that he had some misgivings respecting it. The noble Earl then suggested that the interval of time between the second reading and the committal of the Bill would afford the Government an opportunity of introducing an Amendment, the object of which should be to increase the number of bishops from time to time as the wants of the community required them, without in each case having to draw invidious comparisons between the claims of different districts. He thought that it was not consistent with common sense that a number of bishops, which might have been sufficient to manage the affairs of the Church in the time of King Alfred, should be deemed sufficient for the purpose now that the population had increased to so vast an extent. Whenever an increase was made in any regiment in the army, it was always deemed necessary to increase the number of its colonels. The same rule, he thought, ought to apply to the Church. In his opinion, it was alike necessary to provide for the episcopal jurisdiction of the Church, and for the spiritual destitution of the people.
The BISHOP of LONDONwould strongly recommend the consideration of Her Majesty's Government of the suggestions thrown out by the noble Earl who had just spoken as to reserving the power of providing for the addition of new bishoprics, as occasion might arise, The present was the last opportunity that might present itself for making the necessary provisions for attaining that important object. As regarded the constitution of the Commission, he thought that a somewhat greater degree of equality should subsist among the members of it; and according to the provisions of the measure, Her Majesty's Commissioner would have, he apprehended, an undue preponderance. A complimentary allusion had been made to the manner in which the episcopal duties in London were performed; but it was impossible that any single individual, however zealous he might be, could be capable of adequately fulfilling the whole of those duties, overwhelmed as the diocese was with a rapidly-increasing population, and no one was more sensible than himself of the necessity of relieving the bishops from a portion of their labour. The right reverend Prelate then expressed some doubts as to the position of the episcopal commissioner being a sa-
632
tisfactory one as proposed by the Bill, and the belief that, by the regulations proposed, it would be impossible that commissioner could ever sit in the chair of the Commission. Each commissioner, he thought, should take the chair alternately. With regard to the Ecclesiastical Commission, none had better performed its functions, until the great accession of business of late years, and it had worked more good for the public than the public imagined.
LORD STANLEYconcurred in the object of the present Bill, and believed it to be a most excellent measure. At the same time he must say he concurred, in the strongest possible manner, in the observations which had been made both by his noble Friend (Lord Harrow by) and the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London), with respect to the particular provision of the Bill to which they had referred, and which, if it remained in its present state, took away any chance of increasing, either now or hereafter, the number of the bishops of the Church. He knew well all the difficulties of effecting that object; but their Lordships might depend upon it, that it was a question which if they did not face now, they would be obliged to do so at no very distant period; for it was utterly impossible, even if the present number of bishops was equal to the effective discharge of their duties now, that, with our growing population, with the increased attention which was paid to the religious instruction of the people, with the vast multiplication of the number of the clergy, with the increase of the number of churches which he was happy to see erecting throughout the country—it was utterly impossible, he said, even for the overlooking of the clergy alone, irrespective of other duties, that the same number of bishops which might have been sufficient for the past twenty years, should be adequate for the duty which would fall upon them twenty years hence. He had listened with great attention and respect to the explanations which had been given by the most rev. Prelate; but, while he gave him entire credit for the motives by which he had been actuated in assenting to the consolidation of the episcopal and common fund, he must say that the arguments which he had used in its favour led him (Lord Stanley) to an opposite conclusion, because he felt quite certain that if there was dissatisfaction felt at present, when there were two funds—viz. one upon which the inferior clergy bad no claim, and one upon which they had an exclusive

633
claim, dissatisfaction would be felt much more strongly when the fund from which substractions were made, either for the purpose of establishing new bishops or for increasing the accommodation and comfort of those who already existed, was a fund upon which the inferior clergy had a legal claim, and when they felt, which they could not do at present, that the sums granted for the accommodation or increase of the higher order of the Church, were deducted from the fund which, by law, might be applicable to the increase of the inferior order. He feared, therefore, that the separation which the most rev. Prelate looked to as the means of diminishing the dissatisfaction among the inferior clergy, would have a precisely opposite effect, and would tend to introduce a new element of dissatisfaction and jealousy between the lower and higher order of clergy, and by doing so would inflict a serious injury upon the cause of religion by producing a feeling of alienation between those orders. The Government might rely upon it that this was the last chance of preserving the means of doing that for the higher order of clergy which for the benefit of all was essential to be done. He did not ask that the Bill should contain a provision for augmenting the number of bishops—although he thought it a highly desirable object; all he suggested and desired was, that the Bill should contain no provision which should put it out of their power, or the power of their successors (which they would do if they consolidated the episcopal and common fund), to provide for the wants of the Church hereafter when they should be felt to be most urgent. The noble Marquess had stated that the episcopal fund amounted to 16,000 l. a year, and the general fund to 136,000 l., with the prospect of increasing to 300,000 l. The addition of 16,000 l. to 300,000 l. was a matter of comparative unimportance; it would not add largely to the general fund; but, if left untouched, that sum would afford the means of effecting a great national and ecclesiastical object without the possibility of a reasonable complaint from any part of the community, lay or ecclesiastical. If, however, they passed the 12th clause, they would deprive themselves for ever of the possibility of effecting that object, and when they had so deprived themselves of the power, he felt certain they would regret it. This then was a point which he submitted to the right rev. Prelates. He considered this point of the consolidation of the episcopal and common
634
fund to be a matter of deep and vital importance, and he trusted that before the Bill went into Committee, the Government would consider whether they would persevere in pressing a portion of a Bill otherwise desirable and valuable, which, if passed, he felt quite sure (even with the best intentions for the good of the Church) would inflict a permanent injury now, and prevent the possibility of future good.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, that, however desirable might be the object to which reference had been made, he could hold out no hope of the Government departing from the provision which they had introduced for consolidating the two funds.
On Question, Resolved in the Affirmative.
Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday the 25th instant.
House adjourned till To-morrow.