§ LORD LYTTELTON moved that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEWhen last this Bill came before your Lordships' House I found myself in the singular position of voting against it, alone of all the Episcopal bench. I by no means repent that vote. But I do not now rise for the purpose of opposing the Motion of the noble Lord. All 1 desire to do is to impress upon your Lordships the importance of care in selecting the proposed Committee and jealousy in scrutinizing the result of its labours. For, my Lords, there are two parties—if parties they may be called—who desire the extension of the Episcopate. There is 709 one party who think that recent legislation has, on the whole, been successful in its efforts to place the ecclesiastical machinery of our Church in good working order—that, what with the improved moral tone of the clergy and the efficient aid rendered by archdeacons and rural deans, there are but few dioceses which are beyond the powers of a Bishop of average ability and energy. They think, however, that there are still left a few cases of unwieldy dioceses—Durham, Exeter and London have been named—in which a still further adjustment is required in order to complete which has been so well begun. Now, had the noble Lord's Bill merely proposed to carry out the views of this party, I should have heartily voted in its favour—knowing that there will be a limit to its operations and a limit to its duration. But there is another party, of which I wish to speak with all respect. It appears to think that the panacea for all the moral and social ills of our country is to be found, not in the extension, but in the multiplication of the Episcopate. Of that party the most recent manifesto is to be found in a pamphlet which was sent to me and was probably sent to many of our Lordship's before the first reading of the noble Lord's Bill. It is written by a learned and excellent clergyman, Dr. Wordsworth, Canon of Westminster. To what an extent that pamphlet proposes to multiply Bishops your Lordships may see by referring to a single instance. Differing as I do from the right rev. Prelate in many important points I have notwithstanding been in the habit of looking at the diocese of Oxford as one which was well governed. The requirements of Dr. Wordsworth's pamphlet would necessitate its subdivision into four dioceses at least. Now, my Lords, is it for the good of the Church and of the country that such a multiplication of the Episcopate should take place? One argument against that multiplication will be found in the altered status of the Bishops. That argument is one better urged by a lay Member of the House than by one of the Episcopal bench. It was well handled by the Earl of Derby in the last debate. Still I will say thus much, that I am sure that there is not a member of that Bench who would not gladly descend from the social position in which the Constitution of the country has placed the Bishops if it were really for the good of the Church and nation. The question is whether it is for the good of he Church and nation that it should be 710 so? Look at the matter in another point of view—as it affects the status of the clergy. In proportion as you multiply Bishops, in the same proportion do you withdraw them from the censorship of public opinion. In the same proportion do you increase the need of that censorship, for you increase their opportunities of intermeddling with the clergy. The views I entertain on this point have been so well expressed by a right rev. Prelate whom I regret not to see in his place to-night that I will venture to read his remarks made in relation to the proposed separation of the now united dioceses of Gloucester and Bristol.
If the sphere of a Bishops labours be lessened to such an exent as to enable him with ease to watch in minute detail the ministrations of each individual pastor, there will be, I think, great danger lest the activity and energy of the Bishop degenerated into injudicious and mischievous meddling; and lest the zeal and decision of character of the clergy manifest themselves in many instances in a defiance of Episcopal authority. For whilst many of less vigorous mind would become mere echoes of their Bishop's opinions, those of more independent thought and action would resent with indignation any attempt to control them. I cannot but deem it a great blessing, in the present state of theological opinion in the Church of England, that a bishop's diocese is large enough to give full scope to his energy, while there is no danger lest his activity should interfere with the usefulness of others, and that he is enabled, without any compromise, to prove himself a friend, a councellor, and a zealous en-courager of all those who are engaged with him in extending the Redeemer's kingdom.Such, then, are the plans of the party to which I refer, and such will be the effect of their being carried into execution. I do not hesitate to connect the Bill now before your Lordships with that pamphlet, for the noble Lord quoted it by name on moving the second reading of that Bill, and drew many, if not most of his arguments from its pages. Be this, however, as it may, thus much is certain, that the noble Lords' Bill creates a machinery exactly fitted for the carrying out of purposes similar to those advocated in the pamphlet, and where I see adaptation, there I conclude that there has been design. But then it is said you are an alarmist. The Bill will be inoperative, no money will be forthcoming. Is it expedient, my Lords, to pass a Bill with the hope that it will be a dead letter? But a dead letter it will not be. No limits as to endowment are proposed. Even if there were we should ere long be requested to relax the rule. Recently an excellent friend of mine has 711 gone out to Brisbane as a Colonial Bishop with a stipend of £150 per annum. Was this contemplated when first the extension of the Colonial Episcopate was projected? Another reply is that the public will never tolerate such an exorbitant increase of the Episcopal body. My Lords, I have no wish to pronounce an opinion as to the expediency or not of the resuscitation of Convocation. But I am old enough to remember the day when it was said that the country would never tolerate the revival of a body in which the clergy are so inadequately represented, and in which the laity have no voice at all. How stands the case now? The Convocation of the Province of Canterbury has recently received the Royal licence to alter the 29th Canon, while even the Convocation of the Province of York has begun to exhibit signs of life. Such has been the success of an organized, an energetic, and a discreet minority—for a minority I firmly believe it to be—acting upon a pliant ministry. For these reasons, my Lords, I once more entreat you to be careful in the selection of your Committee, jealous in scrutinizing the result of its labours. Those labours will, I trust, issue in the Bill which now represents the views of those who would multiply the Episcopate almost indefinitely—becoming a Bill which shall embody the views of those who simply desire its limited extension—a Bill which will necessarily expire by the achievement of its defined purpose, instead of a Bill which will never cease to unsettle and to subdivide the dioceses of England.
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that he felt some difficulty as to the course which he should take with respect to the Motion before their Lordships. He was very unwilling to do anything that might be supposed to be in opposition to any ecclesiastical arrangements that it was desirable to have made; but on the second reading of the noble Lord's (Lyttleton) Bill everybody found fault with it, and a noble Earl who was not now present (the Earl of Derby) was among the Peers who pointed out objections to it, and, as he understood, recommended that it should be withdrawn and another Bill prepared. He hoped that the noble Lord who had charge of the Bill would enter into some details with respect to his own views as to Amendments before he asked their Lordships to consent to the Select Committee.
§ LORD LYTTELTONsaid, his object in moving that the Bill be referred to a Select 712 Committee was simply to obtain a full consideration of the suggestions urged for the Amendment of the Bill before it came to be considered in Committee of the whole House. He was willing, if there were a general desire expressed upon the matter, to specify in the Bill the increase of new dioceses, and to declare that the incomes or status of existing dioceses should not be interfered with. He wished, however, to deny that the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) had made any appeal to him to withdraw the Bill. Such a suggestion might have been made by other noble Lords, but certainly not by the noble Earl alluded to. The noble Earl advised many alterations in the measure, but never recommended the withdrawal of the Bill. He trusted the Government were not about to oppose the Motion for referring the Bill to a Select Committee.
§ LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he certainly had never understood his noble Friend to suggest the withdrawal of the Bill. The noble Earl limited his observations to a commentary upon certain features of the measure, which he recommended should be altered.
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he did not hear the observations of the noble Earl to whom he referred, but concluded that the noble Earl had made the suggestion from the report he had read in one of the newspapers.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he did not remember any Bill having been referred to a Select Committee which was so generally disapproved on the second reading as that now before their Lordships. The course of referring a whole subject to a Select Committee, and laying before that Committee any Bill which might have been proposed in relation to that subject, was not an unusual one. Perhaps the noble Lord (Lord Lyttelton) would not object to it in the present case?
§ LORD EBURYcomplained of the indirect opposition that was given to this Bill. While the necessity for legislation on this subject was generally admitted all sorts of cold water had been thrown upon the measure. He trusted that the noble Earl at the head of the Government in that House would not oppose the Motion for referring the Bill to a Select Committee. He (Lord Ebury) had taken great pains to investigate this subject, and thought that some such measure as that proposed was much wanted. If there were any substantial objections to particular clauses, surely 713 the best mode of considering them would be by referring the Bill to a Select Committee. He thought it was high time that they should at all events attempt some legislation on the subject.
§ LORD REDESDALEsaid, that the proposition to refer the whole subject to a Select Committee was tantamount to proposing to get rid of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord said he did not know a case in which a Bill so generally disapproved of had been referred to a Select Committee. But if the House absolutely disapproved the measure it would not have read it a second time; and he thought the understanding with which the second reading of the Bill had been agreed to was tantamount to a declaration on the part of the House that it should be sent before a Select Committee. It would not be fair to the noble Lord, who had taken so much pains in the preparation of the Bill, to deny him the opportunity of going before a Select Committee, where, after a discussion of its merits, the Bill could ultimately be put into the shape in which it was deemed most desirable to request for it the sanction of the House.
§ THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, he trusted the noble Lord would persist in his Motion, and expressed his regret that the right rev. Prelate should have introduced the question of religious parties into a matter of this kind. To say that the Bill had emanated from a particular party in the Church was to cast a stigma upon it; but such was not the fact. The Bill proceeded from no one party. He took some part in the consultations previous to the preparation of the measure, and he knew that in those consultations different shades of opinion were represented. He had also the honour of presenting a memorial to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, showing the necessity which existed for the subdivision of dioceses, and it was signed by many Members of both Houses of Parliament, as well as by many other persons not connected with the Legislature, representing all shades of opinion. The Bill did not, therefore, proceed from any particular party, but was founded on a deep-rooted conviction that the episcopate was inadequate to the necessities of the present day, and that if the Church wished to keep pace with the rapidly-growing wants of the country, the episcopate must be moderately, but properly and adequately increased.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONthought what 714 had fallen from his right rev. Brother had been somewhat misunderstood. His meaning as he apprehended it, was, not that any religious party was specially answerable for this Bill, but that there were two views, according to one of which it was necessary rapidly to multiply the number of bishops, while, in the minds of others, a moderate addition was all that was necessary. He believed it to have been far from his right rev. Brother's intention to throw on the movers and supporters of the Bill any allegation of being actuated by party feeling in a religious sense. The difficulty which he felt in going into Committee on this Bill they was to know precisely with what object were about to do so. Was the object of the Bill to increase the episcopate? If not he was more in the dark than ever.
§ LORD LYTTELTONsaid, the only object of the Bill was to provide the machinery whereby to regulate the action of the Church.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONThe noble Lord himself had made various concessions to meet the objections raised against the Bill. He was quite ready to give up that part of it which delegated power to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the power of dividing the revenues of existing sees, as well as other parts of his Bill to which attention had been called. It was a pity, therefore, that these should have been introduced into the Bill, and he thought that any new Bill brought before then ought to have these alterations. As. their Lordships had pledged themselves that the matter was worth considering he should not oppose the Motion for a Select Committee, but the Bill must be materially altered before it could have the slightest chance of being adopted by their Lordships.
THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, he had not the slightest intention in the world to make the imputation which it was supposed that his language conveyed. He had only used the word "party" from the want of another term at the moment, and perhaps from his inexperience in debate.
§ EARL GREYthought the best course would be to withdraw the present Bill and to introduce a new one. As it stood the measure was most objectionable, and was calculated to alter the entire nature of the episcopate. He believed it would be much better to deal with individual cases as they arose, and Parliament, he was convinced, would not refuse its assent to any proper application sanctioned by the Ecclesiasti- 715 cal Commissioners and supported by Her Majesty's Government. But the controlling power ought never to be parted with, as was proposed by this Bill.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, that having on the second reading pressed the noble Lord to withdraw this Bill, and introduce a new measure embodying certain alterations, he was anxious to say a single word upon the position in which the matter now was. He was prepared to support his noble Friend in sending this Bill to a Select Committee upon the ground that the House, in passing the second reading, had admitted that it was desirable to consider in Committee the principle of the Bill, which was that it was desirable to increase the English episcopate without fighting every separate increase of that kind through the two Houses of Parliament. He agreed in deprecating any sudden increase of the English episcopate, but he could not agree with the noble Earl (Earl Grey) that it would be easy for any Government at any time to carry through separately Bills for the division of dioceses. There would be great difficulty in doing so, constituted as the other House of Parliament was, and having in it a great number of persons who were conscientiously opposed to the Established Church. He, therefore, thought that the principle of the Bill, which would enable Her Majesty's advisers from time to time to make a moderate increase in the episcopate, would be good and useful; but he thought that there should be some check—such, for instance, as requiring an Address from Parliament to the Crown. He believed that there were other and very considerable alterations required, and he should support the Motion for a Select Committee.
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that after the general expression of feeling on the part of their Lordships he would not oppose the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee.
§ After a few words from Lord in reply,
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Bill referred to a Select Committee accordingly.
§ And on the Monday next, the Lords following were named of the Committee:—
| L. Abp. Canterbury | E. Carnarvon |
| L. Abp. York | E. Powis |
| D. Marlborough | E. Grey |
| D. Newcastle | E. de Grey |
| E. Derby | E. Ducies |
| E. Shaftesbury | V. Eversley |
| L. Bp. London | L. Lyttelton |
| L. Bp. Durham | L. Redesdale |
| L. Bp. Winchester | L. Stanley of Alderley |
| L. Bp. Oxford | L. Overstone |
| L. Bp. Carlisle | L. Ebury |
| L. Herbert, Un. Pr. Sec. | L. Chelmsford |