Lords Sitting of 12 May 1854

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Militia.
3a and passed. Militia.
Royal Assent.—Income Tax; Exchequer Bills (£16,024,100); Highways (South Wales); Valuation (Ireland) Act Amendment; Commons Inclosure; Ministers' Money, &c. (Ireland); Church Building Acts Continuance; Militia.

MILITARY KNIGHTS OF WINDSOR.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he had a petition to present from the Mili-

211
tary Knights of Windsor, complaining of the appropriation of the revenues of the charity, and praying for redress, and in so doing he would put a question to the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack with respect to the object the petitioners had in view. The petition he was then presenting was, with some verbal alterations, adapted to the forms of the House, and also, with some very slight additions, the identical petition that was presented from the Military Knights of Windsor to George II., in 1735, by the Earl of Albemarle of that day. The petition stated that Queen Elizabeth had granted, by indenture, certain lands and tenements, of the yearly value of 600 l., amounting now to 14,000 l., and above that sum, to the Deans and Canons of Windsor and their successors, with the intent and purpose that the yearly rents and profits of same should be bestowed for the maintenance of thirteen poor knights; and the petition also stated that the Dean and Chapter had applied those yearly revenues, rents, and profits to and amongst themselves for their own uses and purposes. It was recorded that in another place an humble Address to the Crown was agreed to to petition Her Majesty to institute an inquiry into the claims of those knights; and the consequence was, as he was given to understand, that the Home Secretary laid the case before the Commissioners of the Charitable Trusts Act. If these Commissioners had the same extensive powers as a Committee of their Lordships would have to summon witnesses and compel the production of evidence, then he would say that those Military Knights who claimed redress would have all the redress they were at present entitled to; but there were clauses of the Act to which he wished to called the attention of his noble and learned Friend, and to ask whether they did not exclude the jurisdiction of the Board in this case? By the 15th clause of the Act the Commissioners could not interfere where any person was claiming property adverse to the charity, and he doubted whether that was not in itself a sufficient disqualification in that case; but there was another ground on which to question the jurisdiction of the Board, arising from the supposition that the church of St. George, Windsor, is exempt under the 62nd clause, which says that the Act shall not extend to the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, or London, or to any cathedral, or cathedral church. He also begged to inquire whe-
212
ther the Court of Chancery would have jurisdiction in that case?
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that with regard to the first question put by his noble Friend, namely, whether it was competent for the Charitable Commissioners to decide on the complaints of the Knights of Windsor of an alleged misappropriation of funds on the part of the Dean and Chapter, he had no doubt whatever that it was not within their competence to do so, because their jurisdiction was, by express provision, not to extend to the funds of any collegiate church. He did not think the other section would at all interfere with them, for that section applied to the cases of persons claiming property adverse to the charity; but the claim here was merely adverse to the Dean and Chapter, and that would not prevent the Commissioners from considering it. He wished to say that he might have led the parties into error, for, having come to him, not judicially, but privately, and asked him his opinion, he had suggested that they should go to the Charitable Commissioners, not knowing that there were those objections to their jurisdiction. With regard to the other question, as to whether the Court of Chancery had jurisdiction, he should decline giving any opinion, but he considered it would be a strange thing if, there being a misapplication of charitable funds, the Court of Chancery could not interfere.
Petition ordered to lie on the table.

THE WAR WITH RUSSIA—QUESTION—

  THE "ANDES" STEAM TRANSPORT.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEbegged to call the attention of the noble Duke the Secretary of the War Department to a statement of great importance which appeared in a newspaper of that day, and hoped he might be able to give them information respecting it. If information could not at present be given respecting it, it was a matter that required the immediate attention of Her Majesty's Government. There appeared in a letter, which was stated to have been received from an officer on board the Andes, which was employed in the conveyance of troops, the following statement—
  "I write these few hasty lines to inform you of our safe arrival at Malta, which is now about ten miles distant, We have had, altogether, a very fine passage. From Plymouth to Gibraltar it was splendid, having left Plymouth on Friday, at half-past seven P.M., and passed Gibraltar on

  213
  Tuesday afternoon at half-past three. During the night, however, of Tuesday it blew a gale right ahead, which delayed us two days, otherwise there is little doubt we should have made the run to Malta in a week. We had a most providential escape yesterday from total loss. The ship caught fire, and for about two hours we were working for our lives, and got it under, thank God, without accident. The regiment behaved capitally. It was certainly the most alarming two hours of my life. We were a long way from land, had only two small boats, and had 1,050 men on board, and several tons of gunpowder, so the loss of life must have been immense. We threw overboard 50,000 rounds of ball cartridges."
  Though he had heard reports that the ship was not so well prepared as it might be, he had no remark to make upon that subject on the present occasion; but he wished to call the attention of the noble Duke to a fact that was stated positively, namely, that in that ship, laden with a vast number of men, there were only two small boats. That was a statement which, if it could not be contradicted, would cause great alarm for the safety of other troops that might be sent from our shores. It was a fact—if it were a fact—that required the attention of the Government; but he should be most happy if the noble Duke could give them reason to believe that the report was incorrect, or give them an assurance that care would be taken that no such case should happen again. There was very great difficulty in all these transactions under the present arrangement of the War Department; but he did not mean to go into that subject, which had been so ably spoken to on a former occasion. No one knew on whom the responsibility would lie if the statement be correct, or if such a case as that should occur again, and the tremendous loss of life it might occasion should happen. This was not a ship belonging to Her Majesty's Navy, and therefore he did not know that the Admiralty would be to blame. This was one of those ships that had been taken up for a particular occasion, and they did not know to what officer, if any, was awarded the duty of taking care that in all respects a ship so chartered and provided should be properly prepared for the troops despatched in it. But their Lordships would see that, if it were true, and if this large number of men were sent out in a ship with only two small boats on board, the officer, whoever he was, must have grossly neglected his duty.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that it was perfectly true, as stated in the newspapers, that the ship Andes caught fire
  214
  when about 300 miles west of Malta. The fire was supposed to have originated in consequence of the too great draught of the furnaces. With regard to the question put to him (the Duke of Newcastle) by the noble Marquess, as to whether it was a fact that there were only two small boats on board that ship, he certainly was not able to answer whether such was the case or not. He had sent to the Admiralty to ascertain if they had any report, and had learnt that they had not. Neither was the fact mentioned in the report received from the Horse Guards from the commanding officer of the regiment, who gave a detailed account of the transaction, and spoke in the same terms as the newspaper correspondent did of the conduct and discipline displayed by the troops. To return, however, to the question of the boats, he could only say that these vessels, not belonging to the Royal Navy, but being taken up by Government, were surveyed prior to being taken up and prior to leaving this country by officers appointed by the Admiralty, and he could not but think that it was impossible that any vessel could have passed that survey which carried only two small boats. He had heard it suggested that the boats belonging to the vessel might have been left behind in consequence of the increased quantity of baggage and other articles which it was necessary to carry; but he could only say that if it really were the case that the ship had only two small boats, the officer appointed to survey the vessel would have been highly culpable in allowing it to put to sea with those boats left behind. But for the statement made by the gentleman who appeared to have been on board the Andes at the time she caught fire, he should have conceived that it was impossible that such could have been the case. It was a matter of such importance that he had requested the Admiralty to make an inquiry into the subject, and ascertain if the statement referred to by the noble Marquess was or was not correct.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he thought it quite impossible to believe that the fact as stated was true, because there was no doubt as to the letter written by the officer in command of the troops, who had an interest in ascertaining the facts with regard to the number of boats on board, when the lives of himself and others were involved. It was essential that a great number of boats should be attached to those ships, not only

  215
  for their usefulness during the voyage, but because, when they arrived in Turkey, it might be expected that they would be employed in the conveyance of troops from one point to another, and in landing the troops. He was confident that to have a sufficient number of boats was a matter of the greatest consequence.

  CHURCH BUILDINGS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clause 1.
  EARL NELSONrose to move an Amendment for the purpose of making the measure exceptional rather than general. He desired by the Amendment to prevent the ill effects that must arise if there was a feeling abroad that no sooner were churchyards closed than power was given, though money might have been paid for the burial of the bodies in these churchyards, to sell them, and that that was to be a general power. There was also a general power in the Bill for pulling down churches; and his object was to induce their Lordships to confine it to the City of London and to other cases (if they could be found) like the City of London, and to put them in a schedule annexed to the Bill, so that the Bill might not go forth to the country as a general rule, but only as an exceptional one. Another objection to the Bill was, that, having reference both to the country and to London, there was no check in the Bill to limit the operation of it in regard to the amount of population. It was advisable to introduce in Committee some limit as to the number of the population where a church must be kept, and the number of the population where a new church should be built; and this, as the Bill at present stood, it would be impossible to do, because the rule that was applicable to London would not be applicable to the country. It might be said, and he so far agreed, that one of the great uses of the Bill was the union of benefices proposed by it; he had proposed an Amendment, however, to the very first clause, touching the union of benefices, on this principle, that uless a special case could be shown, it was wrong that they should, by a side-wind, as it were, alter an Act which was watched in the most jealous manner whenever a proposition was brought forward that an alteration should be made in it. If a further amendment of the Union of Bene-
  216
  fices Act were required throughout the country he had no objection to it, so long as it was brought forward as an amendment of that measure, and not brought forward by a side-wind. He would remind their Lordships of the grounds on which the present Bill was justified by the promoters of it. In the first place, it is said that the City of London was left without a population altogether—that the population had gone to other places; and the proposal, therefore, was to pull down their churches, and set them up in those other places. And, in the next place, they said they wanted to sell the sites, because they would get so large a value for them, as being situate in the City of London. He (Earl Nelson) doubted, himself, whether even these reasons would justify this Bill; but he was quite certain—and he trusted their Lordships would agree with him—that unless cases could be shown of a similar nature, there was no reason which would justify them in allowing, as a general rule, the pulling down of churches and the selling of the churchyards, where these grounds could not be shown to exist. With reference to places out of London, the Bishop of Chichester, who was on the Committee, had a case which he was anxious the Bill should meet; but the object was to join a large parish outside the town to a small parish. That had only reference to the union of parishes, and had no reference to the pulling down of churches or the sale of churchyards; in fact, he particularly mentioned that he did not want to pull down the churches. The right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Lincoln) had stated to him the case of Lincoln; and he would put it to the House whether the case which was shown to exist in Lincoln was a case which would justify the extravagant clauses in this Bill? It appeared that in the city of Lincoln there were thirteen small churches, and the right. rev, Prelate considered that, in consequence of the smallness of the endowments of those churches, it would be much better to unite many of them; and in that he agreed with him, but that only referred to the uniting of benefices. But the right rev. Prelate also said that it would be also convenient to pull-down all these thirteen churches of Lincoln for the purpose of building five large churches in different parts of the city. Now, however strong the case might be shown in London to justify the questionable proceeding of pulling down churches and sell-

  217
  ing the sites of the churchyards, he doubted whether they should allow such a thing to take place on such comparatively small and insufficient grounds as those put forward in respect to Lincoln. He was told there was another very great case in Norwich, which would quite overwhelm them. Knowing that Norwich was celebrated for its large number of churches, they thought they had a case that was very likely to be a strong one, to show that Norwich was similarly situated to the City of London. He asked their Lordships to attend to a statement, received by him from a friend whose authority he could not doubt, respecting the City of Norwich, from which it appeared that, as a general rule in that city, where the clerical duties were even decently well performed, the churches, with all their disadvantages of high pews and dilapidated buildings, were upon the whole well attended. His informant, no doubt, stated that he had visited one church where there were only three persons besides himself at the morning service; but the reason of that was that the clergyman had some impediment in his speech which made it difficult to understand what he said, and he questioned if those three persons had ever attended before. They would also find that the church of St. Julian, about a quarter of a mile distant, having fallen down, had been rebuilt; and his correspondent stated that on his way to the service he saw a number of persons, sufficient to fill three such churches, smoking and reading, leading to the supposition that if hard-working curates were appointed in that parish, the result would be satisfactory. Judging, therefore, he added, from his observation of the attendance at the churches, and of the inhabitants around the churches, he was convinced that whenever the experiment was tried of increasing the number of working clergy in the parishes, the church accommodation in Norwich would not be equal to the population, and that there would be sufficient congregations to fill every one of the churches in every individual parish. He would say, therefore, that none of the cases, which had come to his knowledge out of the City of London, afforded sufficient reasons for this measure; and he called upon their Lordships, therefore, to consider whether, under these circumstances, this Bill, which was based upon the known state of many of the churches in the City of London, ought to be allowed to operate all over the country merely at the will of the bishop checked
  218
  by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The question of the sale of consecrated sites was a very serious one; and he called upon their Lordships, by affirming the Amendment he now proposed, not to allow this Bill to go forth as generally applicable, but, if clear cases could be shown to justify its application, then let those cases be placed with the City of London in the Schedule. The noble Earl concluded by proposing an Amendment, leaving out in the clause the words "cities or market towns," and limiting the application of the Bill to the City of London.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, the noble Earl seemed to think that the bishops, as soon as they got this Bill passed, would set to work with sledgehammers, and destroy churches in all directions in the midst of our towns, exciting everywhere the alarm and horror of the population. Now, so far from this being the case, he believed that it would go against every natural feeling on the part of the right rev. Bench to destroy churches and make away with consecrated ground, except an absolute necessity could be shown. That necessity in many cases did exist, and in a pressing form. With regard to the statements made by his noble Friend, he had to remind their Lordships that the parties most interested were most anxious that the measure should pass. Thus, with regard to Norwich, all he could say was, that the Dean of Norwich, who might be supposed to be pretty well acquainted with the wants of that city, was, he believed, anxious that the Bill should be generally applied. In regard to York, he understood the Archbishop was also anxious that the Bill should be extended throughout the kingdom; so, again, was the Bishop of Chichester, who was certainly no great iconoclast; and it was the same with regard to several others of the cathedral cities; those persons who were the most conversant with the wants of the people there in regard to church accommodation were most anxious to be admitted to a share of the benefits which they believed would be conferred by this Bill. Under these circumstances, without going further into detail, he trusted that their Lordships would admit the principle of making the Bill generally applicable, and would pass the clause as it stood.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, without at all sharing the extravagant fears entertained by some of the opponents of this Bill, he confessed that he thought it would have been the safer course for the present

  219
  to limit its operation to the City of London. In the first place, he thought the House ought thoroughly to understand, that in one point of fact this Bill introduced an entirely new principle. It had been stated that it only proceeded upon a principle that had been long acted upon in other cases, and that was adopted in the case of the building of London Bridge and the like, but their Lordships would observe that the principle involved in this Bill was totally different from that. In the case of London Bridge, the Church had given all the sanctity it could confer on a certain space of ground that had been set apart for the service of God and the burial of the Christian dead; and it was thought necessary or expedient for the benefit of the public that the Church's right in this respect should be overruled by the national authority, and that the ground should be taken back by the country for some great national or metropolitan object. Now, the principle of the present Bill was entirely a different one. It was not intended to enable—because no such measure was necessary—the State to resume for its own purpose what had been granted for the use of the Church, but to enable the Church, which had become possessed of certain sites that by change of circumstances had become very valuable in point of price, in cases where the population had in the course of time migrated from the neighbourhood of a church to a greater distance from one, to sell those lands in order that it might endow new churches, to be erected in the suburbs, or in districts to which the population had betaken itself. The new principle set up was this—not that the State was to overrule, so to speak, the Church's act—but that the Church, having declared the act it had done, so far as it was concerned, to be perpetual, was to be allowed to terminate the perpetuity, and to part for a money advantage with the lands and buildings that it had consecrated. Now, whether it were right or wrong this was a principle which they ought to admit slowly and with caution. Parliament should require a strong case to be made out, before admitting it anywhere; and when admitted they should require it not to be admitted further than the case made out strictly demanded. Now it seemed to him that if the principle they were now called upon to adopt were applied to London alone, and its operation there were found to be unexceptionable, and that the feelings of Christian men were
  220
  not rudely nor unnecessarily violated by the removal of the sacred edifices they had been in the habit of frequenting—if they found that new churches were built in the suburbs and endowed with the proceeds of the old sites, and that they were filled by a population that had before wandered churchless, a case would be made out in favour of the principle, and it would not be too much to ask the promoters of the general Bill to renew their application next year, so that Parliament might extend the principle to other places in the country where circumstances called for it. Therefore no hardship would be entailed on those who might have to wait the necessary time until the experiment had been tried in London, and found in its working to be an unobjectionable one. He confessed that he admitted the principle with very considerable reluctance, and so did his right rev. Friend who proposed it; but his right rev. Friend had stated that he felt himself overborne by the consideration of the necessities of those for whose benefit the measure was framed, and that he regretted the inevitable shock it must cause to the feelings of those who had been accustomed to attach sacred associations to these places, to see them converted to different purposes. He was sure the proposition was made with the purest and best intentions, and with a sincere desire to enable the Church to expand her truest energies for the spiritual well-being of the people; but the promoters of the measure must allow equal credit to a difference of judgment upon the detailed application of this principle. The right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London), who must be best acquainted with the wants of the See he had so long administered, was convinced of the necessity of the measure against his will; and therefore he (the Bishop of Oxford) asked their Lordships to limit the application of its principle for the present to that diocese in which it had been declared to be essential; and then, if it succeeded there, it might afterwards be extended to other parts of the country. There was considerable advantage in maintaining a good number of churches in populous cities. To take the case that had been already mentioned; he should be sorry to see the thirteen churches in one large provincial city pulled down, in order that by rule and compass they might have five large churches built in their stead. In the first place, the religious sympathies and feelings of men could not be reasoned down

  221
  upon such abstract rules, and they might administer a serious shock to the feelings of those whose families had for generations, perhaps, been in the habit of worshipping in particular churches. Another thing to which they must not shut their eyes was, that there were considerable variations—and he, for one, was not sorry to see those variations —in the mode of performing the common services of the Church, because such variation rooted itself in the different peculiarities and tendencies of man's nature, one form being more adapted to the feelings of one man than it might be to those of another. Add to this the result of prejudice and education, and they would see that this diversity was exceedingly desirable, and far better than rigidly tying down the whole worshipping population of a large town to one absolutely level plain in the mode of administering the common services of the Church of England. We all knew that the congregation of one church liked more singing introduced into the service than was practised in another; that one congregation would not be satisfied if this or that particular canticle were omitted, whilst another would hold it to be almost Romanist if some portion of the service was chanted. By having these multiplicity of churches, they gave room for this legalised dissimilarity, which suited the tastes of different bodies of worshippers; whereas, if they pulled down the churches which people had been in the habit of attending, and told them they must go to a church henceforward that was to be conducted in a different form to what they had been accustomed, and were to throw in merely as a part, and perhaps an infinitesimal part, of a district, those who might have been the leading men in smaller parishes, and had a very influential voice in determining the mode in which the service should be conducted, they would be introducing a dangerous principle, that might do great violence to the feelings of those who were worshippers in particular churches in provincial towns and cities. He asked the House, then, to weigh these things before extending by a needless haste over the whole of the country a principle which he, for one, did not object to in the City of London. It was said that the Bill provided such checks that no harm could be done by it—that the Archbishops and the Church Building Commissioners had a veto upon the application of its provisions to a particular case. But it must be remembered that the powers of the Church Build-
  222
  ing Commissioners would expire in two years, according to the measure before their Lordships; so that one of those checks would thereby be taken away, and then the only check left would be that of the Primate. Now only last night matter had been discussed in the presence of his Grace, who then stated his objection to the power of assenting or dissenting being left in the hands of persons in his position, who would necessarily have to trust to the representations made from the particular locality, and he said that Parliament had no right to throw upon them such a responsibility. He (the Bishop of Oxford) could not see that any inconvenience would arise to all these cities and towns if they were called on to wait till the result of a year's experience of the measure had been ascertained upon a confined area; and therefore he thought it would be most in accordance with the caution of their Lordships' ordinary legislation to limit the operation of this principle to the City of London in the first instance.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, with regard to the checks imposed by this Bill, it was quite true that, as the law now stood, the powers of the Church Building Commissioners would expire at no distant period; but he ventured to say that if the functions of those Commissioners were put an end to, another body with similar powers must be constituted, as the multifarious duties confided to the Commissioners were such as it would be impossible for them to fulfil within the limited time given in the Bill upon their Lordships' table; and they were engaged in a great extent and variety of operations with regard to church buildings which must be intrusted to some body. Although he had himself been a Church Building Commissioner for the last thirty years, he said with great confidence that a better body than those Commissioners could not be intrusted with the same duties. Thus the check afforded by the veto given to these Commissioners, if that body were done away with, would have to be transferred to the body who took their place, and would therefore still continue in existence. With respect to the check to be given to the bishop of the diocese, it was quite true also that it might not be expedient to leave the power altogether in the hands of one individual; and it might perhaps be right to interpose the authority of the Secretary of State. Some check, however, must be provided; and he confessed, therefore, that he did not see the force of the argu-

  223
  ment urged against the proposition on this head. his right rev. Friend (the Bishop of Oxford), in stating his objections to the general application of the Bill, had based one of those objections on the necessity of keeping up a diversity in the manner of performing the Church services. Now, in his (the Bishop of London's) opinion, so far from it being desirable that there should be a different mode of performing the service in each of several churches, it was most desirable that there should be a greater uniformity; for he believed, without recommending too rigid or strict a rule in this respect, that greater uniformity in the service of the different churches would be calculated to give the Church a greater hold upon the affections of the people. It did not necessarily follow, when the congregations of two churches were united, that in the church which was retained divine service would be performed in a different manner from that in which it had been celebrated in the church which was removed, or that there would not, at all events, be a disposition on the part of the incumbent of the church to which a new congregation was transferred to meet their wishes so far as he could do so consistently with his sense of duty. He looked, therefore, upon the argument grounded upon the assumed necessity for this diversity as being untenable, and, therefore, that there was no substantial reason for continuing supernumerary churches either in the metropolis or in some of the larger cities of the country. As far as he was personally concerned, he would be content that the measure should be confined to the City of London as originally intended; but he had learnt from several right rev. Prelates that in their cathedral cities a similar inconvenience to that existing in London was felt, from there being a superfluous number of churches in particular districts, and a deficiency of church accommodation in other localities, where there was a large population. The object of this Bill was not merely to combine two or three churches into one, but to provide a competent maintenance for the clergy. He thought their Lordships would allow that if there were two or three small parishes, the incumbents of which received incomes of less than 150 l. a year each, and 400 or 500 of population, it would be a better arrangement that the incomes should be consolidated, and the churches themselves united into one, and an active incumbent appointed, with one or two curates, who
  224
  would attend to the spiritual wants of the inhabitants of the united parishes more efficiently than the poor incumbents. This he regarded as one of the most important objects of this Bill. His right rev. Friend said this Bill introduced a new principle. Under the authority of the Legislature, however, ground set apart in ancient times, and dedicated to the worship of God and Christian burial, in a particular parish, had been taken, as it were, from the Church's property, and converted to secular purposes, for the promotion of great public improvements. But what could be an object of greater public importance than to make a provision for the spiritual destitution of thousands of perishing sinners crowded in suburban districts where no means of pastoral superintendence or places of public worship existed? As regarded any new principle, he made bold to say that what the Church did under the authority of the Legislature, the Legislature might be considered to do; but he could not for a moment admit that because Parliament gave authority to those most interested in the work of supplying the spiritual wants of the people to carry into effect its wishes, that therefore the Church committed a breach of its trust by acting upon the principle now under discussion. Where the Church desired to do its work more effectually, and to do this had incidentally to remove some of its ancient landmarks, for which it had to call in the authority of the Legislature, he held that no new principle, and certainly no dangerous principle, was thereby introduced. On the contrary, he thought it a great protection, for which the Church had reason to be thankful, that the Legislature did not interfere with its single-handed authority to effect directly the object in view without the intervention of the Church, but authorised the rulers of the Church, with certain checks upon their own discretion, to do what the interests of the Church manifestly required. There were provincial towns to which he considered the provisions of this Bill might be applied to very great advantage. With regard to the city of Norwich, he could speak from personal knowledge; and he had no hesitation in expressing his conviction that in many cases it would be for the interests of the Church if the churches were united; the clergy would be better provided for, and ample church accommodation secured to the parishioners; and no doubt the ministers would be better able to discharge their duties to the flocks committed to

  225
  their charge. As far as he was concerned, however, he only interested himself about the City of London, and he said, so far from this being an iconoclastic proposal, it was eminently a church extension measure, and one to be applied for the benefit of the Church. If, from other sources, they could obtain the means of building new churches where they were wanted, it might perhaps be objected that they were about to interfere unnecessarily with consecrated edifices; but even if they could otherwise obtain the needful means for building the new churches, he was not disposed to deny that it might not be better in some cases to unite the smaller parishes, and introduce a more extended and active ministry into the City of London. A great portion of the population of the City had of late years migrated to the suburbs, and he was of opinion that those persons who were now called on to pay tithes in the City of London, and who were reaping the benefits of the enlarged commerce of that great emporium, ought not to complain if part of the present stipends were applied for the spiritual advantage of their workpeople, who mostly lived in districts beyond the limits of the City. It had been stated, on a former occasion, by a noble Friend of his, that there was a sufficient number of poor in the metropolis to fill the churches, and that the reason the poor were so seldom seen in them was that the City churches were filled with large square pews, which were locked up, so that the poor could not enter them. He could state that that was really not the case. He had made inquiries, and had received reports from numerous parishes, that there were no pews locked up, and that there was no difficulty in obtaining access to them; that seats were provided for the poorer inhabitants of the parishes more than sufficient to accommodate the whole number of poor resident there. The people who attended church resident in the City of London were very few. The merchants, bankers, and great traders went away every Saturday, and returned on Monday to business. They had few or no domestic servants in the City, and their employés lived at a distance; the only persons left upon their premises were porters, who had charge of the warehouses and shops, and who could not, if they would, be constant attendants at church. It was for this reason that so few worshippers were to be found in many of the City churches on Sunday. True, certain of the City churches were pretty
  226
  well attended, and he believed that would always be the case where the parishes were sufficiently large, and where the clergy did their duty; but, however able or active a clergyman might be, he could not have a full congregation of his own parishioners where there were not parishioners to form a congregation. He said, then, that by assenting to this measure they would consult the best interests of the Church, violate no sacred principle, greatly strengthen the Established Church, and encourage the building of new churches. He would allude to another objection against the measure. It bad been asked whether it was likely that persons would contribute to the building of new churches when it was possible that, after the lapse of some years, such churches might be pulled down, and the ground upon which they were erected might be sold for secular purposes. He (the Bishop of London) was not afraid that the churches which benevolent individuals would be likely to build would be erected in places where it was possible that their demolition should happen in any foreseen period of time. If such persons built churches, they would build them in populous districts where more were wanted than already existed; and to talk of their apprehending that the edifices would be pulled down unless the locality was turned into a desert and the population migrated, was really to conjure up a phantom to paralyse the efforts of those who would otherwise contribute to a good work. He had not the slightest apprehension that this measure would discourage church building. The spirit of church building had happily been excited throughout the country, and had manifested itself in numerous instances, not only in his own diocese, but in the manufacturing districts. It might be gratifying to their Lordships to know that he himself had been instrumental in building eighty-three churches in the metropolis, twelve of which had been erected entirely at the cost of private individuals. He hoped, if his life were spared a few years longer, to complete at least his century of metropolitan churches; and he was persuaded their Lordships would render him most important facilities in accomplishing that object by assenting to the present Bill.
  THE BISHOP OF LINCOLNconcurred with the right rev. Prelate who had just sat down, that great spiritual destitution might be occasioned by the maintenance of numerous inefficiently endowed churches.

  227
  The condition of the city of Lincoln, in this respect, closely resembled that of the City of London. Lincoln contained 17,000 inhabitants and had thirteen small churches, the largest of which afforded sittings to 600 persons; and the clerical income of the thirteen incumbents was 1,380 l. a year, or an average of something more than 100 l. each. Those among their Lordships who were acquainted with small parishes would know under what very great disadvantages the worship of the Church must be carried on in these circumstances. He conceived that a great number of small churches that were ill endowed weakened the efficiency of the Church's ministration, while there were other overgrown and populous districts suffering under great spiritual destitution. At the same time it was obvious that few of the clergy would be parties to the pulling down of superfluous churches, even to provide church accommodation elsewhere where it was most wanted, unless it was done under the conviction that it would enable them to remedy greater evils; and, of course, whenever it was done, it should take place under sufficiently stringent safeguards. It might, perhaps, be questionable whether the checks contained in this Bill were sufficiently stringent, but he thought it most desirable that the operation of the measure should be extended to the few places where interference was necessary. The right rev. Prelate below him (the Bishop of Oxford) had suggested that the experiment should be tried in the City of London before the measure was applied to provincial cities and towns. It had been said, "Fiat experimentum in corpore vili;" but the right rev. Prelate would first try the effects of the Bill upon millions, and afterwards upon the less populated districts; but surely if the experiment was allowable in the metropolis, it was allowable in the few other cases in which it could be adopted. It must be remembered that the provisions of the Bill could not be carried out immediately, for lives must drop in, and other contingencies must occur before parishes and endowments could be united.
  THE BISIIOP OF ROCHESTERaddressed a few words to their Lordships which were inaudible.
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid, that this proposition was not a new experiment to render the Church more elastic, but a retrogression to the system of plurality prevalent in former days. They ought not to
  228
  break down the law, which had worked satisfactorily for fourteen years in the prevention of pluralism, but to adopt the Amendment of his noble Friend, and limit the operation of this measure to the cities of London and Westminster, and those few towns and cities where it might be expedient. If there were places to which the provision was applicable, there could be no difficulty in naming them in a schedule. The fact was, this was one of those measures that were framed for the metropolis and its vicinity, and then extended over the whole of England without sufficient inquiry as to its general applicability. The causes of the falling off in the congregations were often pluralities and the system of pew-rents; but this Bill called on them to undo the work of the last fifty years in regard to church extension. They ought to take care that in their endeavour to obtain a competency for the clergy by uniting several livings, they did not destroy all stimulus to individual exertion, and check those efforts of private munificence in church building which the noble Earl at the head of the Government had illustrated on the previous evening.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONhoped he had not been misunderstood in what he had said respecting the observations of his right rev. Friend (the Bishop of Oxford) as to the different modes of performing divine service in the Church of England. He had not meant to represent his right rev. Friend as having said that he approved that difference; but what his right rev. Friend had said was, that the taste of persons as to the performance of religious worship varied materially, and that the Church of England allowed considerable latitude with respect to the celebration of divine service. His right rev. Friend meant merely to suggest that fair scope should be allowed for a legitimate diversity, and not that that diversity should be carried to an extravagant length.
  EARL FITZWILLIAMsaid, he considered that their Lordships would act wisely in adopting the Amendment of the noble Earl. He was the more disposed to take that course from what had fallen from a right rev. Bishop (the Bishop of Lincoln), whose addition to the Bench every one in the House must rejoice at, but in whose views he confessed, on the present occasion, he could not concur. That right rev. Prelate had told their Lordships that in the city of Lincoln there was a population of 17,000, and for those 17,000 there were

  229
  thirteen churches. He was not quite sure whether the right rev. Prelate had stated it in his speech, but he understood that he looked to a considerable decrease in the number of churches. Unless, however, it could be shown that those churches were so circumstanced as to be ineffective, he did not see that it was desirable to diminish their number. Considering that, if fairly apportioned, there would be 1,200 or 1,300 persons to each church, he must be allowed to doubt whether there was at Lincoln a superabundance of church accommodation. He apprehended that no one would dispute that the City of London would derive great benefit from this Bill; but he did not think it was equally clear that it would be as beneficial to other towns. As it was the intention to trust the provisions of this Bill to the management of the respective diocesans, with the consent of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, he must entertain a doubt whether it would not be better for Parliament to keep the control in its own hands, and inquire into each particular case according as the necessity arose. He was the more inclined to adopt that opinion from what had fallen from the right rev. the Bishop of Oxford, who seemed to think that diversity in the service of the churches was a very desirable thing, and that separate services should be kept up. Now, though he (Earl Fitzwilliam) was a liberal Churchman, he was not prepared to go that length. He should support the Amendment of the noble Earl.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, he thought that, as a portion of the remarks he had made had been misrepresented, both by his right rev. Friend (the Bishop of London) and by the noble Earl who had just sat down, it was necessary that he should offer some explanation. His right rev. Friend, with his usual candour, had acknowledged that in the heat of argument he had made a misrepresentation in some degree of what had fallen from him (the Bishop of Oxford), but as, notwithstanding the explanation of his right rev. Friend, that misrepresentation had been echoed by the noble Earl, the House would allow him to state what he did and what he did not say. He did not say he desired to see separate services in every church, or anything like it; but he said, and he repeated it, that the taste of men affected them with respect to religious worship as well as in other things; that the Church of England allowed a considerable diversity
  230
  in the administration of the same service; that, in the rubric, for instance, she laid down a certain portion of the service to be said or sung; that one congregation greatly preferred, and thought it increased their devotion, to have it sung; that another congregation preferred to have it read; and that he thought it would be exceedingly unwise in any person—whether the clergyman of the parish, the bishop of the diocese, or other individual—to attempt, in those matters which the Church had left free, to obtrude on a religious congregation a mode of service which it disliked. His noble Friend on the cross-benches (Earl Fitzwilliam) said that he was a liberal Churchman; and he (the Bishop of Oxford) ventured to claim for himself, that if in this respect he differed from the noble Earl, it was in being a still more liberal Churchman. In matters indifferent it was his maxim to advise his clergy to endeavour to ascertain the way in which the people wished to have the service performed within the limits allowed by the Church of England, to act with them, and not to violate their opinions. That was his view of this matter, and he had never yet heard any arguments which could induce him to change his opinion. It was because he believed that the doing away with churches would have a tendency to violate these opinions, that he had used the arguments he had offered. To remove a person who had been accustomed to a small church with a quiet service, and that quietness of preaching that commonly belonged to it, to a populous church, with a large congregation and all the adjuncts of music, and a particular style of preaching, was, to him, a serious and real evil; and it was because he desired the utmost liberty within the limits of the Church of England, that he always ventured to use the argument.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYthought the question involved by the Amendment was, whether they would confine the remedy to one place. his noble Friend on the gross-benches said he should not like to trust the Bishops with the measure; but, in his opinion, the Bishops were far more likely to carry it out in a conservative spirit than otherwise. He was afraid that, if they were to carry out this principle of consulting the tastes of individuals, they would have to have several services a day in each church. In reply to the argument that the operation of this Act ought at first to be confined to the cities of London

  231
  and Westminster as an experiment, he said that no experiment was needed, the fact on which it was proposed by this Bill to legislate being well known and ascertained. If, however, it would suit the views of his noble Friend (Earl Nelson), he had no objection, between that time and the time the report came before the House, to embody in the schedule the names of the places to which the principles of the measure should be applied, which, it appeared to him, would do away with the objection.
  EARL NELSONsaid, that this would not satisfy him. The measure might operate very well in London, where they were told that there were many parish churches without congregations, but would it be equally beneficial in other places, such as Lincoln, for instance? They ought to have very strong grounds before they proceeded to destroy any church, and it would not be sufficient to say that it was more agreeable to change a particular church to this or that district. Under all the circumstances of the case, he should press the Amendment.
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," their Lordships divided:—Content 28; Not content 27: Majority 1.
  Clause agreed to; the remaining clauses agreed to; Amendments made; the Report thereof to be received on Friday next.
  House resumed.
  House adjourned to Monday next.