ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION BILL. (Hansard, 28 February 1850)

§ The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE
then moved, "That the report of the Amendments made on the Ecclesiastical Commission Bill be received."

EARL WALDEGRAVE
objected to the 15th Clause, which, as amended by the Bishop of Salisbury, enacts that the income 125 of the Dean of York should not exceed 2,000l. a year, and that the incomes of the Deans of Chichester, Exeter, Hereford, Lichfield, Salisbury, and Wells, should not exceed 1,500l. a year, and stated that all the bishops had voted in favour of the clause.

The BISHOP of ST. ASAPH
said, that the noble Earl was wrong in stating that the whole of the bishops present had voted for the clause as it stood. And he begged further to say that he (the Bishop of St. Asaph) had never made any complaint at all with regard to his income having been reduced to 4,000l. a year. On the contrary, he thought it was a very right measure. What he complained of was, that his income was reduced to such a degree that he was unable to provide spiritual assistance for certain places in his diocese for which he would have been most anxious to provide had his means permitted. They might depend upon it, that the real efficiency of the Church would never be promoted by any attempt to draw a line between the working clergy and the dignified clergy. He was sure there were no men in the kingdom who worked harder than the bishops. They might be well classed among the working clergy; and he believed that the reason why the Church did not work still more efficiently in England was, that it had not a sufficient number of field officers, if he might so term the prelates of the Church. He should not, however, offer any further observations on the subject at present, as he would have other opportunities of doing so.

The BISHOP of CHICHESTER
observed, that his right rev. Brother, in moving his Amendment on this clause on a former night, had stated that the right interpretation of the former Act on this subject would have left to those on the old foundations the power of receiving their former emoluments, and had argued that the intent of that Act ought not to be interfered with by a Bill of which the only object was to remodel the Commission. He considered that it was not for the good of the Church that all the prizes of the Church should be withdrawn from it, and that there should be an uniformity of payment established for all its subordinate members. Advantage was gained to the Church by leaving inequalities among its members.