Lords Sitting of 25 February 1850

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—1o Party Processions (Ireland).

CASE OF LIEUTENANT GRAHAM AND MR. ELLIOTT.
LORD BROUGHAM LORD BROUGHAM rose, in performance of an act of justice, to state, that upon further inquiry he was satisfied that he ought not to have made the observations which he recently had made (Feb. 5, p. 332), on the case of Lieutenant Graham and Mr. Elliott on the one side, and on that of Commander Pitman on the other. The facts which had since come to his knowledge would have prevented him from bearing such testimony as he had given to the characters of Lieutenant Graham and Mr. Elliott; whilst, on the other hand, they had convinced him that Commander Pitman did not deserve the opprobrium which he had cast upon that officer. The testimonies which he had received in favour of Lieutenant Graham and Mr. Elliott, which came from an officer whose judgment was as high as his testimony, was unexceptionable, and from an almost endless number of other officers. He had, however, since received another account from equally high authorities, and he could only account for the great discrepancy between them by supposing that the former must have related to their conduct at a period of their lives when they had not become guilty of the irregularities by which they had subsequently rendered themselves notorious; whilst, on behalf of Commander Pitman, he must say that the terms of approbation in which his general conduct was mentioned, induced him to believe that if the court-martial upon him had been postponed to a later period, he would never have been found guilty of the charges preferred against him. There was, however, this difference in the sentence passed upon these officers. Lieutenant Graham and Mr. Elliott were sentenced to be dismissed the service, and

1323
were declared incapable of serving Her Majesty in any capacity whatsoever. Commander Pitman was simply dismissed the service, but without the stigma of being incapable of serving Her Majesty.
The EARL of MINTOwould be sorry to say anything which should add to the pain which Messrs. Graham and Elliott must feel, while suffering under a very severe and well-merited punishment; but he must say that the officers serving on board that ship were of opinion that it was to be regretted Mr. Pitman had not called exculpatory evidence. It was to be regretted that the noble and learned Lord had drawn the attention of their Lordships to the subject. He must say that the bringing of the proceedings of courts-martial before Parliament had a serious tendency to weaken the good discipline of the naval service.
LORD BROUGHAMdenied that he had fallen into any error. He had done merely an act of justice which any one of their Lordships would have been equally bound to do upon similar information. And he now merely stated that he had received additional information which, had he received it before he made the former statement, would have prevented his laying it before their Lordships. As to his noble Friend's regret, he would have to suffer a great many more regrets from similar causes if he lived much longer.
The EARL of MINTOrepeated, that he regretted the noble Lord had brought forward those matters unnecessarily. He could easily have ascertained the precise facts had he made application to the heads of the Admiralty department.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION BILL.
House in Committee, according to order.
Several Amendments made.
On the 12th Clause, consolidating the Episcopal and the Common Fund,
The EARL of POWISopposed it, on the ground that it concealed very extensive powers under apparently innocent language; for, when that language was closely considered, it would be found to take away from the Crown the power of creating future bishops. The appointment of a larger number of bishops than existed at present, had always depended on a question of finance, and, unless a fund were provided to secure an income for the new bishops, it would be difficult to obtain an increase in their numbers. What he proposed as a remedy for this clause was this
1324
—that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should have power to pay to the common fund any surplus money which from time to time might come to their hands, reserving the surplus income of the episcopal fund, so that if Parliament should increase the number of bishops, an available fund might exist out of which to supply their incomes. He also proposed that, in the meantime, the money should not be left idle in the banker's hands, but that the interest should be applied towards the augmentation of the smaller livings. He contended that this was the more necessary, inasmuch as the surplus of the ecclesiastical fund would go but a very little way in increasing the "common fund," whereas by reserving it, as he recommended, it would be sufficient to carry out the views of the Royal Commissioners expressed some years ago by increasing the number of bishops by three. He regretted to find that this 12th Clause, as it stood, did not contain a single word respecting the erection of the three additional bishoprics, but would, as he believed, effectually prevent their appointment hereafter; whereas Ministers, just before the last election, publicly promised to erect them "as soon as conveniently may be." The noble Earl here read the preamble of the Act of Parliament for the erection of the bishopric of Manchester, in which the promise of three additional bishops was distinctly enunciated. Now, he asked the noble Marquess whether the Government still intended to carry out that extension of the number of bishops which had been thus formally promised, or whether he intended to shelve that question by this clause? The clergy of all opinions were requiring a moderate increase in the number of bishops, and, as that was the case, he hoped that their Lordships would support his Amendment. The noble Earl then placed his Amendment in the hands of the noble Chairman:—
"And it is expedient that power be given to the said Commissioners to transfer and apply any surplus of or arising from the said episcopal fund to the said common fund, for the purposes of such common fund. Be it enacted, that from and after the passing of this Act, it shall and may be lawful for the said Ecclesiastical Commissioners, when and as they shall think fit, from time to time to transfer all or any part of any surplus moneys arising from or being part of the said episcopal fund to the said common fund, and all moneys so transferred as aforesaid shall then form part of the said common fund mentioned in the said secondly-recited Act, and be applicable to the purposes of such common fund."
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid,

1325
the Government did not mean to prejudge the question of the increase in the number of the episcopacy by this Bill, or any clause of it. The noble Earl had very truly stated that the appointment of three new bishops had been promised by Her Majesty's Ministers, and though he was not prepared to say that Her Majesty's Government were prepared to bring in a Bill at present for augmenting the number of bishops, yet he could have no hesitation in saying that the question would not be neglected as soon as public expediency and the interest of the Church called for the alteration. One of the strongest objections that had been urged against the Ecclesiastical Commission originated from the desire of some parties to draw an impassable line between the episcopal and the common fund. Now, it appeared to him that the simplest and most efficient mode of meeting the wishes of the community and of the Church upon this point, was to unite both funds, leaving it open to the Commissioners to apply the funds so united in the manner which should be found most conducive to the interests of the Church. He could not agree with the noble Earl that this was a prejudging of the question as to increasing the number of bishops, but at the same time he must say, that without pronouncing any opinion at this moment on this subject, he should be extremely sorry to see such an addition to the episcopacy carried into effect without the general approbation of the Church of England. If the increase, however, did meet with that general approbation, what objection, he would ask, could there be to applying both funds together, as it would be applied under the circumstances in a manner which would be most conducive to the interests of the Church? The question whether there should be bishops in the Church of England was a question of principle, which did not arise; but the number of those bishops was a question, not of principle, but of expediency, and their Lordships had a right to consider how it was to be carried out so as to be most conducive to the best interests of the Church. The Amendment of the noble Earl prevented any addition being made from the common fund to the episcopal fund—an arrangement which might not be at all times advisable, and therefore he should prefer seeing the clause left as it stood, so as to give the Commissioners power to devote the whole fund in such manner as they should find most calculated to advance the interests of the Church.
The BISHOP of LONDONremarked,
1326
that the noble Marquess had admitted that bishops were essential to a Christian Church, but had observed that the question as to the number of bishops was a question more of detail than of principle. But, if that observation were carried out to its full length, it would follow that, so long as there were two bishops, nay, so long as there was one bishop, that one bishop might be enough. It was, however, essential to the well-being of a Christian Church, not only that there should be one bishop, but also a sufficient number of bishops. He had never heard or read in any historian, either lay or ecclesiastical, that the number of bishops in the Church of England was more than enough; and, if the number of bishops was only enough in former times, when our population was scanty in comparison with the present population, surely it could not be contended that it was sufficient now, when the population in every district of the country was so much augmented. It was upon this ground that he had always advocated the separation of the ecclesiastical and common funds, in order that there might be an episcopal fund for episcopal purposes. He had given evidence to that effect before a Committee of the House of Commons; so too had his right rev. brother the Bishop of Lincoln; and it was, he believed, mainly owing to their evidence that the House of Commons did not recommend the fusion of the two funds. He was aware of the force of the objection, that the episcopal fund should not be reserved for exclusively episcopal purposes while there were so many poor and populous districts of the country requiring spiritual aid; but he thought this objection had been met by the noble Earl, when he stated, that while the loss of the fusion would be very great to the episcopal fund, the gain to the common fund would be comparatively small. He (the Bishop of London) hoped to see many new bishoprics established. After twenty-six years' experience of the episcopal office, he felt that no man could discharge the duties imposed upon him by the present system with satisfaction to himself. As to the feeling of the clergy on this subject, he had reason to think that if the opinions of the whole body could be taken, there would be a large majority found in favour of maintaining the independence of the two funds, in favour of maintaining a separate fund, the surplus of which might be applied to the erection of new bishoprics. The Royal Commission had declared the absolute necessity of

1327
increasing the number of bishops by four, and so strong did that necessity appear to him, that he could not hesitate in recommending the Government to create the four bishoprics without delay. He hoped that it would not be considered presumptuous on his part to express his belief, that if the Government had only their Lordships' House to deal with, there would have been no hesitation in proposing the additional increase at once. He begged to give his cordial support to the Amendment of the noble Earl.
LORD STANLEYsaid, he understood the noble Marquess to remain still of the same opinion that he had entertained four years ago, for the expediency of increasing the number of bishops, and he therefore could not see on what grounds the noble Marquess objected to the proposition of his noble Friend, which merely went the length of declaring that when an increase of the episcopal fund sanctioned an addition to the number of bishops, the Parliament should be at liberty to take the question of such addition into consideration. If the necessity of adding to the number of bishops still remained, and if, when the supposed increase to the fund rendered such addition possible, the urgency still continued, as he had no doubt it always would continue, then he could see no objection to agreeing in the Amendment of his noble Friend. All his noble Friend asked was, that the money should be so applied when it had accumulated to a sufficient amount; and if the Government objected to that course, he could not see how they could hope by any possibility to increase the number of bishops at any future period. The episcopal fund was intended to be applied exclusively to episcopal purposes; but if this Bill passed, the question would arise every time it increased to 4,000 l. a year whether the sum ought to be expended in creating a new bishop, or in endowing forty additional poor clergymen. Much dissatisfaction would thus be produced, and, therefore, without the modification proposed by his noble Friend, they would by this clause put an end for ever to the idea of increasing the episcopal bench—an increase which he concurred with the noble Prelate who had just spoken in thinking absolutely necessary. If Parliament determined to fuse the two funds, and not adopt even the modification now proposed, he was at a loss to understand how there could remain a practical possibility of that addition to the episcopal bench which he held to be urgently required, and which
1328
he believed would at no distant period be demanded to a much greater extent than the creation of the three or four bishops referred to. He must say that he had heard with surprise the argument of the noble Marquess that the Amendment would prevent the Commissioners from making any addition to the episcopal fund from the common fund; for surely, when it was alleged so strongly that the common fund was insufficient for the calls upon it, there could be no intention of applying any portion of it to the ecclesiastical fund. On these grounds he must support the Amendment of his noble Friend.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the real question for their Lordships to consider was, as to what mode these two funds could be applied so as most to promote the general interest of the Church. It might be that these general interests would be best served by increasing the number of bishops at one time, or the number of curates at another time; but how were their Lordships to decide these points, unless they could anticipate what was to occur hereafter? He did not think, therefore, that they would be consulting the interests of the Church by tying up the hands of the Commissioners before they knew what exigencies might occur. He was of opinion that they should leave the discretion in the hands of those with whom it might safely be left, and who must have the best means of knowing from time to time how it should be applied, rather than fetter their discretion and compel them at a future period to apply the funds to one purpose, with the knowledge and conviction that for the good of the Church it had better be applied to another purpose.
The EARL of HARROWBYthought the Amendment would in point of fact leave the Commissioners a sufficiently wide discretion for the creation of benefices or other purposes. The Church and the Government were unanimous in favour of an increase of the number of bishops, and it had only been prevented by the opposition of some ten or twelve Members of Parliament.
EARL GREYthought they might well trust a discretion to the Commissioners in the manner proposed by the Bill, and unite the two funds. The clause of the noble Earl did not ostensibly interfere with this object, but it was expressed in a manner which would lead to great inconvenience and difficulty, because it might be contended that there was not a surplus after all the bishops that could be wanted had

1329
been created. As matters now stood, a great portion of the income of the bishops was derived from the appropriation of tithes in very distant districts. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners had laid down what he considered a reasonable principle—that, in making a new distribution of the income of the Church, regard should be had to the local wants and interests of the district in which the income arose. That appeared to him a very strong reason indeed in favour of the fusion of the two funds. He quite concurred with the right reverend Prelate, that an increase of population made an increase of bishops desirable, but it also made an increase of clergymen of still greater importance, not only to the interests of the Church, but to those of the country.
Their Lordships divided:—Content 31; Not-Content 26:—Majority in favour of the Amendment 5.

List of the CONTENTS.

MARQUESS.

Gage

Camden

Canning

EARLS.

BISHOPS.

Aberdeen

London

Malmesbury

Exeter

Enniskillen

Carlisle

Roden

Rochester

Nelson

Salisbury

Powis

St. David's

Glengall

Oxford

Verulam

Chichester

Cardigan

St. Asaph

Harrowby

LORDS.

Romney

Stanley

Lanesborough

Feversham

VISCOUNTS.

Colchester

Strangford

De Tabley

Hawarden

Walsingham

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

Lord Chancellor

Stafford

MARQUESSES.

Bessborough

Lansdowne

LORDS.

Clanricarde

Say and Sele

Breadalbane

Dunalley

Donegal

Elphinstone

EARLS.

Colborne

Charlemont

Sudeley

Waldegrave

Wodehouse

Granville

Campbell

Minto

Foley

Carlisle

Monteagle

Craven

Wrottesley

Devon

Ashburton

Grey

Eddisbury

Paired off.

FOR.

AGAINST.

Marquess of Salisbury

Lord De Freyne

Marquess of Londonderry

Earl of Suffolk

Lord De L'Isle

Lord Milford

Earl Somers

Marquess of Anglesey

Lord De Ros

Lord Dufferin

The BISHOP of ST. ASAPHthen moved the following addition to the amended clause:—
"Provided always, that it shall be lawful for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, at the request of the Bishop, to provide for the spiritual necessities of any parish where the tithes form part of the episcopal revenue, in the same manner as if those tithes arose from a sinecure rectory in the possession of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners."
He did not wish to give powers to any persons but the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and he therefore hoped the Government would consent to this Amendment. It might be said that in such cases the bishop himself might provide for the wants of such parishes as those contemplated to be assisted by the Amendment, but that he believed was impossible under the present system. To show this, he would state the case of his own bishopric. The revenue used formerly to be 7,000 l. a year, derived chiefly from impropriated tithes. His predecessor, with great liberality, increased the income of a large number of the smaller parishes; but there were many to which he could not extend this boon with his income of 7,000 l. When he succeeded to the bishopric with 4,000 l. a year, he succeeded to all the claims, on an income of 7,000 l. a year. With the utmost wish to do as his prededecessor had done, he found that, with the other imperative claims upon his income, it was utterly impossible. The right rev. Prelate illustrated the working of his proposed clause by a reference to the parishes of Southhope and Northhope, in his diocese.
After some words from the Marquess of LANSDOWNE,
The BISHOP of ST. ASAPHwithdrew his Amendment, and the clause, as amended, was agreed to.
On the 15th Clause, regulating the endowment of Deaneries, proposing that from and after the next vacancy the income of the Dean of York should be 2,000 l. a year; that the present holders of the deaneries of Salisbury and Wells should receive 1,500 l. a year; and that the income of future holders of those of Chichester, Exeter, Hereford, Lichfield, Salisbury, and Wells, should not exceed 1,000 l.—
The BISHOP of SALISBURYproposed to substitute as an Amendment the following clause:—
"And whereas it was by the 3rd and 4th Vic., c. 113, sec. 52, enacted that so much and such parts of the lands, tithes, and other hereditaments

1331
annexed or belonging to or usually held and enjoyed with the respective deaneries of York, Chichester, Exeter, Hereford, Lichfield, Salisbury, and Wells, respectively should, by the authority therein provided, be, upon the vacancies of the said respective deaneries, applied to make such provision for the said deans respectively as by the like authority should be deemed just and proper; and by the 4th and 5th Vic. c. 39, sec. 20, power was given to carry such purposes into effect by any other mode of payment, contribution, augmentation, or endowment, which might be deemed fit: And whereas doubts have been entertained with respect to the powers of the Commissioners to endow the said deaneries with an amount beyond 1,000 l. in the year: And whereas it is expedient to remove such doubts: Be it therefore declared and enacted, that it is and shall be lawful, by the authority by the said recited Acts provided, to endow any of the deaneries above-named which have become or shall become vacant, in any of the modes by the said Acts provided, with such average annual income as shall by the same authority be deemed just and proper; provided that such income shall not in the ease of the deanery of York exceed 2,000., nor in the case of any of the other said deaneries exceed 1,500 l., nor shall in the case of any of the above-named deaneries exceed the average annual income of the lands, tithes, and hereditaments heretofore annexed or belonging to the same deanery, and which by the provisions of the said first-recited Act have accrued to and become vested in, or shall accrue to and become vested in, the said Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the purposes of that Act."
Having recapitulated at some length the circumstances under which the meaning of the original clause was misapprehended by the law officers of the Crown, and shown that his present proposal was not only consistent with the meaning of the 3rd and 4th of Victoria, as well as in accordance with the justice of the case, the right rev. Prelate said that he had one other ground to adduce in support of the Amendment—a ground, in his judgment, far more important than all those he had touched upon, inasmuch as it related not merely to the pecuniary incomes of individual clergy, but to the useful and efficient employment of cathedrals as the instruments of the Church for the high and holy purposes for which she was designed. If our cathedral establishments were to be not merely the ornaments but the strength and support of the Church, that end was to be attained not by viewing any parts of their institution as if we were ashamed of them—not by taking every possible opportunity and seizing upon every pretext to abstract from them every shilling of supposed surplus revenue—not by cutting down the number of their officers and by diminishing their salaries, leaving them in forced uselessness and degradation: that end was to be attained only by
1332
endowing them with adequate and suitable revenues, and requiring from them real and effective services. If our cathedrals were to be as they ought to be, the strength of the Church, nothing was more important than to require from the members of our cathedral establishments, now so greatly reduced in numbers, a more constant residence in their cathedral cities than was at present by law required. And, if their Lordships consented to the Amendment, he should be glad to see coupled with it a provision that in future there should not be held with any deanery any parochial benefice for the cure of souls which was distant from the cathedral city. Under the existing state of the law, the deans, in common with other members of the chapter, were competent to hold parochial benefices at any distance from the cathedral; and he would gladly see, as the first step to a real and beneficial reform, the deans and canons of our cathedrals placed, in this respect, under somevery stringent restriction. Although his proposal carried on the face of it an appearance of increase in the incomes of certain deans, it was, in reality, far more a measure of real practical reform than those which, by decreasing the incomes, decreased the efficiency of our cathedral establishments—it was a measure which held out a hope of increased usefulness in these establishments, and of rendering them far more conducive than they were at the present moment to the strength of the Church and the spiritual edification of the people.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, the object of the Bill was not to provide for augmentations, but to regulate the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Commission. This particular subject had been twice under the consideration of the law officers of the Crown; they reported that they saw no reason for altering their previous opinion, and therefore it was thought better to leave the law as it was. When the Act of 1840 was brought in, it so happened that two individuals, the holders of the deaneries of Wells and Salisbury, were aggrieved; and subsequently an infinite variety of claims were made to be put upon a better footing; but the object of the Bill was not to provide augmentations, but to improve the Ecclesiastical Commission. Under these circumstances he felt bound to oppose the Amendment.
House divided:—Contents 21; Not-Content 19: Majority in favour of the Amendment 2.

List of the CONTENTS.

MARQUESS.

Gage

Camden

Canning

EARLS.

BISHOPS.

Aberdeen

London

Malmesbury

Exeter

Enniskillen

Carlisle

Roden

Rochester

Nelson

Salisbury

Powis

St. David's

Glengall

Oxford

Verulam

Chichester

Cardigan

St. Asaph

Harrowby

LORDS.

Romney

Stanley

Lanesborough

Feversham

VISCOUNTS.

Colchester

Strangford

De Tabley

Hawarden

Walsingham

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

Lord Chancellor

Stafford

MARQUESSES.

Bessborough

Lansdowne

LORDS.

Clanricarde

Say and Sele

Breadalbane

Dunalley

Donegal

Elphinstone

EARLS.

Colborne

Charlemont

Sudeley

Waldegrave

Wodehouse

Granville

Campbell

Minto

Foley

Carlisle

Monteagle

Craven

Wrottesley

Devon

Ashburton

Grey

Eddisbury

Paired off.

FOR.

AGAINST.

Marquess of Salisbury

Lord De Freyne

Marquess of Londonderry

Earl of Suffolk

Lord De L'Isle

Lord Milford

Earl Somers

Marquess of Anglesey

Lord De Ros

Lord Dufferin

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

Lord Chancellor

Strafford

MARQUESSES.

Waldegrave

Breadalbane

BARONS.

Clanricarde

Campbell

Donegall

Dunalley

EARLS.

Elphinstone

Claremont

Foley

Carlisle

Say and Sele

Granville

Sudeley

Grey

Wodehouse

Minto

Wrottesley

Paired off.

FOR.

AGAINST.

Cardigan, Lord

Monteagle, Lord

Walsingham, Lord

Colborne, Lord

Malmesbury, Earl

Eddisbury, Lord

The BISHOP of OXFORDproposed the insertion of certain clauses, empowering the Commissioners to deal with the tithes in certain large districts in his own diocese and others, which are now diverted to lay appointments. A clause to this effect was inserted in a Bill by Her Majesty's Government last year, and it proceeded so far as to pass through Committee. He hoped there would be no delay in passing it on this occasion. If there were, the injury now suffered by particular parishes from this cause might be indefinitely prolonged. He also proposed to add a clause with relation to another subject. When Parliament began to legislate concerning the income of the bishops, one of the first principles acted upon was, that all benefices with cure of souls held in commendam by different bishops in order to make up a sufficient income for their support, should be severed, and the money hitherto received from that source be supplied from the episcopal fund. This provision separated livings held in commendam from all sees but three; it was now desirable to include those sees, and the clause he proposed would enable the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to present a scheme to Her Majesty in Council for carrying out the severance in respect of the sees of Gloucester and Bristol, Oxford and Peterborough.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, he had no objection to the clauses proposed by the right rev. Prelate.
Several other Amendments made: the report thereof to be received on Thursday.
House adjourned till To-morrow.