Lords Sitting of 14 March 1861

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament.—The Duke of Richmond after the Death of his Father.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Leases, &c. by Incumbents Restriction.
2a Subdivision of Dioceses.
3a Trade Marks; Inclosure.

SUBDIVISION OF DIOCESES BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, that the measure he now proposed to their Lordships for the second reading, was not introduced on his sole responsibility, or without the advice and encouragement of others. He brought it forward more especially at the request of a gentleman representing a body of lay members of the Church whose names were appended to a memorial which had been presented to the Prime Minister, and

  1941
  which set forth the necessity of a measure of this kind. In the list of signatures were included those of the Duke of Marl borough, the Marquess of Westminster, Lord Ebury, and other persons of high position, who represented various shades of opinion in the Church of England. A similar memorial had been presented to the most reverend Primate, signed by upwards of 6,000 clergymen of the Church of England—a larger number than had ever before given their adhesion to a document of a positive character. The general object of the Bill was to modify the machinery by which dioceses might at present be subdivided and new sees erected, so as to facilitate those operations. Many further changes had been suggested to him; he passed no judgment on them, but he felt that it was not suitable, and perhaps not possible for a lay and private Member to carry a wide and comprehensive measure. He proposed, therefore, no change of any kind in the constitution of the Church, and he sought to do nothing more than to afford facilities for the subdivision of dioceses. The measure, would assimilate the system of the English Church at home in regard to the constitution of dioceses to what it was throughout the colonial Church, and to the system pursued in England itself, in the subdivision of parishes, the erection and endowment of new churches, and other subordinate matters. The Cathedral Commission in 1855 recommended such a measure on condition that no diocese should be divided without the consent of the Bishop, and that no new see should be erected without a sufficient income and suitable residence being provided; and that funds for that purpose should be derived from local contributions, or from episcopal property now in the hands of the Commissioners. The recommendation of Commissions in favour of the formation of new dioceses at Ripon and Manchester had been carried out, but similar recommendations in regard to Cornwall, Lincoln, and Durham had been disregarded, and as the bishoprics of Gloucester had been united with the see of Bristol, there had been in fact but one addition made in 300 years to the dioceses of England. He believed there was no difference of opinion among either the laity or clergy of the Church as to the desirableness of extending the Episcopate, and Convocation had year after year passed resolutions in favour of such a measure, and it had also met with support from un-
  1942
  expected quarters, such as from the noble Lord the present Secretary for Foreign Affairs, The colonial episcopate was receiving one or two additions every year, while the episcopate at home remained without enlargement. No doubt it might be said that a much smaller endowment was required for the foundation of a colonial than for an English bishopric. The answer to that was, that a great part of the money was provided by the colonists themselves; among whom there was a far greater preponderance of numbers and wealth than among the Churchmen of the mother country. It was needless to specify the precise sources from which the funds for the new bishoprics were to be provided; but he admitted that if Churchmen did not show a desire to contribute to the attainment of that object, there was an end to the main argument in favour of his proposal which must necessarily consist in the fact that the want of such a measure wa3 generally felt and acknowledged. He was satisfied, however, that there would be no lack of contributions to effect that object. He knew that in two important towns in the manufacturing districts a sufficient amount would be provided by the middle classes alone, if new sees were erected there. He was persuaded that it was not from a want of willingness to subscribe the money necessary for the purpose, but from the present state of the law which rendered the creation of a new diocese a matter of extreme difficulty that many new bishoprics were not established. He thought it was not necessary that he should enter into any elaborate argument for the purpose of showing their Lordships or any assemblage of impartial Englishmen that an extension of episcopal supervision was desirable in this country; or that there ought to be some proportion between the number of the Bishops and the extent of the population. In no Church, and at no period of ecclesiastical history, had there ever been such a disproportion as at present in England. Dr. Wordsworth, Prebendary of Westminster, in a recent pamphlet, remarked that if they examined the size and population of those dioceses in Asia to which St. John wrote they would find that the seven dioceses were not larger than one or two of our English dioceses. Henry VIII., under the advice of Cranmer, proposed to erect twenty additional sees, and twenty-six places for suffragans, so as to give about seventy Bishops for England

  1943
  and Wales, when the population was only about 4,000,000; of these only six additional sees were actually created. Dr. Wordsworth said—
  "We profess a veneration for the English Reformers and zeal for the English Reformation. Let us, then, follow the example of the Reformers, and promote the principles of the Reformation. If the Reformers affirmed, as they did three centuries ago, that a subdivision of dioceses was needed in their own age, what would they say now, when the population has so greatly increased in the course of three centuries, and only one additional Episcopal See been founded in that time? What would they say if they were now to revive and to see the Church of England left to strain herself in a painful struggle to do her work in the nineteenth century with machinery which they deemed inadequate for the sixteenth?"
  The addition, too, of the sees of Ripon and Manchester was partially counteracted by the consolidation of the sees of Glocester and Bristol. He could quote another pamphlet in favour of an increase of bishoprics, written by the Rev. Mr. Pinder, who held the living of Bratton Fleming, in the county of Devon. They could not expect to see the venerable Prelate who presided over the diocese of Exeter in his place. The right rev. Prelate was a man of as great ability and of as great activity of mind as any man mentioned in history. His ability and activity of mind continued unimpaired. But from extreme old age it was impossible that his physical activity and energy should not be somewhat diminished. If any man could have performed the duties the right rev. Prelate could have done so; but he must say that no man—the most able and the most active—could discharge the duties of that large diocese. It might be said of many of our home bishoprics that the clergy could be counted by thousands and the laity by millions. It was not for him in the presence of the right rev. Bench to say a word on the proper functions of a Bishop; but a few general statements might be made without fear of contradiction. There was not one of the right rev. Prelates who would not be glad to be personally acquainted with every parish in his diocese, to be on familiar terms with every clergyman in it, to examine the children in the schools, to preach in the churches, and to converse with the laity. But a single fact would show that it was impossible. It was stated by the late Bishop of Lincoln that if he wished to preach in every church in his diocese, and to spend one Sunday in each parish, it would take him fifteen years to make the
  1944
  circuit. The ordinance of Confirmation was, perhaps, the most effective of all parts of the system for promoting close personal intercourse between the clergyman and his flock at the most promising and most important period of life. Dr. Wordsworth said that nothing represented so much real work, and work of the best kind, as Confirmation. There was one diocese the population of which fell little short of 600,000, and 6,300 were confirmed annually, or a little more than 1 per cent. Dr. Wordsworth said that at least 5 per cent ought to have been confirmed, and that that work alone would occupy the whole time and vigour of the strongest Bishop. It was said that improvements in postage and locomotion enabled the Bishops to communicate more efficiently with the clergy and laity. Dr. Wordsworth said—
  "It is with great reluctance that I notice this allegation. There are such facilities, but they have isolated many rural parishes, and made them less accessible than they were years ago; and surely this great and sacred question is not to be argued upon the facilities of the post-office or the railway."
  It should not be forgotten that these very facilities increased the business of the Bishops manifold, and that they did not increase the capacity of individual minds to discharge such business. The main object of the present Bill was contained in the second clause, which enabled the Crown, upon the report of a scheme by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to subdivide dioceses and direct new ones to be established. He had hoped that the Ministers of the Crown and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would be sufficiently influenced by public opinion, and their own sense of what was right, not to propose any arrangement which would not be judicious and satisfactory; but since the Bill had been introduced it had been pressed upon his notice that this was too indefinite and too large a power to intrust to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or any other body. The Ecclesiastical Commission was not an exceedingly popular body, but still there was no other body to which these functions could be confided. Under the letter of this Bill they no doubt would be able to cut and carve existing dioceses at their will without any particular check or control; but he had no wish to give them any facilities for interfering with existing arrangements in respect of temporalities. More than twenty years ago the whole

  1945
  status and position of the Church of England had been subjected to a searching investigation, and the general scheme was fixed at that time. He did not at all desire to interfere with that system in any of its important features, and he was content that except as to territorial boundaries, that status should remain as it was. If, therefore, it were the opinion of the right rev. Bench and the House that restrictions should be placed upon the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, he had no objection to introduce amendments in Committee which would prevent them from interfering with the existing status of the Church. The only other point of detail on which he had to touch, and which was regarded in some quarters with a great deal of interest, was the source from which the funds for the establishment of the new bishoprics were to be taken. He was bound to state on this point that he was not himself willing to restrain Parliament from appropriating part of the Common Ecclesiastical Fund for the purpose, for he did not share in the opinion that all surplus funds ought to be applied to the increase of small livings exclusively. The object of the Common Fund was the improvement of the condition of the clergy and the increase of their number, and consequently the improvement of the condition of the Church. Now, in his opinion, the most effectual measure for the improvement of the condition of the clergy and the increase of their numbers would be to establish a sufficient number of Bishops to perform the work thoroughly. This was almost self-evident from the nature of an episcopal Church. He did not, therefore, wish to restrain the power of the Commissioners in this respect; but in this and in all other matters of detail he would willingly yield to the views of their Lordships and of the right rev. Bench. If it should be the opinion of the House that the funds should be drawn entirely from private benevolence he should make no objection; indeed, if he did not see beforehand a prospect of Churchmen being willing to contribute from their own great resources to the establishment of new dioceses, he should withdraw from the advocacy of the cause. He should be anxious to acquiesce in any suggestion from the right rev. Bench, and if it should appear during the progress of the measure that it did not meet with their concurrence he should not be disposed to press it. But he trusted he should find that their Lordships, the Go-
  1946
  vernment, and the other House would be favourable to his view; and he, therefore, moved the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that however desirable might be the objects of the Bill, it was quite evident, as the noble Lord had candidly confessed, that the mode in which the object of it was proposed to be carried out was open to serious objection. It was, in fact, impossible to agree to the Bill in its present shape. Up to this time Parliament had itself dealt with each case separately as it arose; but the noble Lord now proposed to entrust the creation of new dioceses to an independent body. On the whole, he doubted very much whether it would be desirable to read the Bill a second time—at least, in its present shape.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that as the most rev. Prelate and others of his brethren had been members of the Commission referred to, whereas he himself had not hitherto given any opinion on the subject, he wished now to say a few words. He was the last man in the world to deny the importance of this subject, for the short experience he had had of the metropolitan diocese was quite enough to convince him that the labours of it were such as, though they might perhaps be performed by a man in the vigour of life, would be very difficult of satisfactory accomplishment by a man advanced in years. To his mind the great difficulty in the matter was one of which the right rev. Bench were the fittest judges—the mode in which this desirable object should be attained. The noble Lord who had charge of the Bill had pointed out that the real object of the measure was to place in the hands of some independent body that power which, by the constitution of the country, was exercised at present by Parliament. Now, he saw very great advantage in an arrangement whereby matters of this kind could be settled by a permanent authority, rather than by a distinct Act of Parliament in each several case. He agreed, therefore, with the noble Lord that such an arrangement was very desirable if unexceptionable machinery could be found. But, though he had a great respect for the Ecclesiastical Commission, he scarcely thought that the country would approve of its being intrusted with the entire management of so important a matter. It rested with their Lordships rather than with the right rev. Bench to devise a mode in which the object could be attained. The

  1947
  noble Lord had alluded to the number of confirmations which were far less than should be. No doubt it would be very desirable if some means were adopted by which the number of confirmations could be increased; but so far as his own diocese was concerned, though the number confirmed was far less than he thought desirable, it was far less also than be could himself confirm were a larger number of persons to offer themselves. Thanks to the arrangements made by his indefatigable predecessor, the confirmations in the diocese of London were so arranged, that double the present number might be eon-firmed if they offered themselves, without any perceptible addition to the labour of the Bishop. The fact unfortunately was that only a very limited number of persons offered themselves for confirmation; he agreed, however, that the number would probably be increased if the Bishops had time to make themselves better acquainted or more intimate with the Church people; and he should rejoice at anything being done which would admit of their doing this, and so stir up and infuse more life and vigour into the Church. He could not help seeing that there were great difficulties in carrying out the proposals of the noble Lord; and he feared that his proposals would possibly come to nothing if they were, as he proposed, left to depend for their funds for the new bishoprics entirely upon voluntary efforts. He was not quite so sanguine about the success of voluntary contributions as the noble Lord seemed to be, though he did not see the slightest objection to the funds being drawn from that source if it were possible. It was said that the reply of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, when first this subject was mentioned to him was, "Certainly, if people were ready to pay for a new Bishop, why should they not have one?" He was delighted to hear that so decided a feeling existed in Birmingham in favour of extending the episcopate, and he should be equally delighted if that feeling were shared by those who represented Birmingham. But he wished to know whether the attention of the Government had ever been drawn to the power which they already possessed of at once doubling the existing number of Bishops under the Statute of the 6th of Henry VIII. By that Act, on certain representations from the Bishop of any district, Her Majesty was empowered at any time to arrange for the consecration of suf-
  1948
  fragan Bishops. Now, he might be singular in the opinion, but he believed that the only practical solution of the difficulty now brought under notice would be by a recurrence to this old system of the Church of England. Before the Reformation the suffragan Bishops did a large portion of the episcopal work in the different dioceses. Since the Reformation, also, many suffragans had been appointed, and he suggested that the office should be united with that of dean, whose position was not at present so popular as, in his opinion, it ought to be. He had himself held the office of dean for seven years, and two years out of the seven were lost in vain attempts to find out what were the distinct duties of his office. At the end of the time he was, of course, able to make duties which, in such a position, might be advantageously performed, but these were not duties distinctly attaching to the office. He by no means wished to interfere with the office of dean; his proposal was the very opposite of that formerly made to seize the Dean's incomes and throw them out of the window to satisfy the public clamour. He would not touch one farthing of the Dean's incomes; he would increase them if need be; but he would defend and add to their duties; and he believed that nothing would be more satisfactory to those dignitaries than that their duties should be rendered more distinct and more useful. He would ask the Government, therefore, whether, supposing a representation to be made on this subject by the right rev. Bench, a proposal for increasing the efficiency of the episcopal system by assigning episcopal duties to the Deans they would feel disposed to consider it?
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he did not understand from his right rev. Friend, or from the noble Earl who preceded him, whether it was their intention to support or oppose this Bill. They appeared to him to think, that however desirable the object might be, that the Bill was not so framed as to be calculated to effect that object. He agreed that in its present state it was not one that their Lordships could assent to, and he was therefore anxious, before the question was disposed of, to say how far he concurred, and in what respect he differed, with the noble Lord who introduced the Bill. That noble Lord had referred, and very properly, to the Reports of the Commission appointed in 1852, and which made its last Report in 1855. Although he was not prepared to accede to

  1949
  all the recommendations of that Commission, yet, so far as they were applicable to the present case, they had his concurrence, as he agreed in the desirability of increasing the episcopate. The Bill, however, he thought, was not altogether in accordance with the recommendations to which his noble Friend had referred. The Commission thought that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should have certain powers of appointment under certain restrictions as to territory and population. When, however, he came to examine the contents of the Bill, he found that there was no provision by which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were to be guided in exercising the power conferred on them by the Crown. Now, he had a great respect for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but he did not think it right that they should in the way proposed in a great measure supersede the powers hitherto held by Parliament, though he believed it would be well that they should have certain permissive powers. He had entire confidence in the Commissioners, but he, nevertheless, did not think it desirable to place absolute and unlimited power in their hands, and to leave them perfectly free to act without the intervention and sanction of Parliament. He thought it by no means undesirable that a permissive power, somewhat of the character of that proposed in the Bill, should be granted to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; but in doing this it was necessary that certain limitations should be imposed. He thought it was absolutely necessary that Parliament should in the first place define to what limits the increase of Bishops should be allowed to extend. This was a matter which ought to be decided by Parliament itself. His noble Friend (Lord Lyttelton) had said truly that the Commission to which he referred had stated in their Report that there were at least three or four dioceses which might be most advantageously subdivided; but the noble Lord had not stated in his Bill the extent to which the number of bishoprics should be increased, and the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) had spoken of the possibility of doubling the present number. He (the Earl of Derby) would not enter into the question of suffragan bishops; but he thought that the more that question were inquired into the more difficulty would be found in applying that principle. There was another very important matter bearing upon the same question. His noble Friend in his scheme clearly contemplated
  1950
  that all Bishops who were added to the body should sooner or later have seats in that House, and he (the Earl of Derby) did not think that this was a wrong principle; but his noble Friend must recollect that if every Bishop had sooner or later a seat in that House it was absolutely necessary that every Bishop should have such an endowment as would defray the expenses incident to being a Member of that House. This was a matter which raised a very serious difficulty as to the financial part of the scheme. It might be comparatively easy to raise £1,500 or £2,000 a year for the income of a Bishop who resided constantly in his diocese; but it might be quite another matter to raise £4,000 or £5,000 for a Bishop with a seat in that House. There was another point that his noble Friend laid down no limit to—the creation of new bishoprics upon the questions of population, territorial extent of the see, or number of the clergy. He (the Earl of Derby) thought that a minimum should be laid down upon these points in the Bill, which minimum should exist before a see could be divided. The Bill as it stood gave the Ecclesiastical Commissioners power to sever any diocese, to attach any part of any other diocese to the new diocese, to allot the patronage—and, in short, to deal with the whole system of the dioceses of England according to their own will and pleasure, and this without restraint by Parliament or the necessity for any previous instructions from Parliament. If the Bill had provided that no diocese should be divided unless there was a certain amount of population, a certain territorial extent, or a certain number of benefices, or all these things combined; and that no three dioceses should be carved out of two unless the two came up to the limit; further, that it was made necessary that there should be a proper amount of maintenance for the new Bishop, and that this income should be secured to him—if these conditions were laid down he should have no difficulty in consenting to give the necessary power to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, under the control of the Government of the day. He thought that his noble Friend underrated the difficulty of the financial part of his arrangements. He (the Earl of Derby) had always thought that the separation between the Episcopal Fund and the Common Fund was an unfortunate arrangement, for if any increase of the episcopate were found necessary there would be practically

  1951
  no fund for the purpose. It was very unfortunate that the funds had been separated, for otherwise the Episcopal Fund would have furnished a legitimate and fair ground for a moderate endowment. He did not doubt that a fund might be raised to endow one or two bishoprics by voluntary contributions; but then, in order that this permissive system should work well, the persons who were expected to contribute ought to know before hand how the funds they might subscribe would be dealt with. For these reasons he thought that his noble Friend could hardly expect the concurrence of the House—although they might agree that there should be an increase of bishoprics, and that the increase might be safely entrusted to the permissive power vested in the Crown—in a Bill which simply vested the whole power in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and did not lay down any condition under which that permissive power should be exercised. He should be sorry, because he entirely approved of the object of his noble Friend's Bill, to vote against the second reading, though if he gave his vote for the second reading it must be upon the distinct understanding that his noble Friend would apply his mind to the consideration of, those changes that ought to be inserted in the Bill, and that when they came to discuss the Bill they should discuss the sufficiency of the restrictions to which he had referred, and also the maximum number of new bishoprics, the question of the new Bishops having seats in that House, and the income to be provided for them. If the restrictions introduced were not sufficient to satisfy the reasonable demands of Parliament and of the right rev. Bench, he should consider himself at liberty not to consent to the third reading.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, that being one of those who signed the Report of the Commissioners, he wished to say a word or two upon the matter. And, first, he wished to say that he was still precisely of the same opinion as when he did so. He felt then, as now, that some extension of the episcopate of England was a desirable object, and essential to the thorough working of the Church of England system; especially in certain counties where great masses of the population were gathered, for whom all the offices of the Church should be provided. With proper checks and provisions, he was still of opinion that such a limited increase of the episcopate was much to be desired. But he felt
  1952
  obliged to say he agreed with what had fallen from the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) as to the want of certain provisions and limitations in this measure. And he thought the noble Lord (Lord Lyttelton), who had given the subject so much attention, and whose manner of introducing it had been a perfect pattern of the mode in which such a question ought to be introduced, instead of pressing the Bill to a second reading, would pursue a wiser course, having elicited the opinion of the House, by withdrawing this particular measure, and, at a future time, introducing another, embodying all the suggestions the noble Earl had thrown out. But if the Bill were pressed to the second reading, he should feel a difficulty in giving his vote against it. He could not agree with what his right rev. Brother had said as to the utility of the Act of Henry VIII. He did not think the provisions of that Act would give any satisfaction. There was a very strong reason why it would not in the fact that it never did work in times much more easy for its operation than the present. At the time it was passed the Bill fell flat. It contemplated a division of powers that the Church had never admitted. The suffragans were Bishops without Sees; they came to the Bishops of dioceses as coadjutors. Suppose a Bishop died, the suffragan was in a most anomalous position. He could only continue to exercise his functions with the consent of the new Bishop, and it might happen that he felt bound to object to the acts of the new Bishop. Such a state of things was not desirable, and therefore it would be well to give further consideration to the subject before legislating upon it. With respect to the fusion of the office of Dean with that of Bishop he was not prepared at present to pronounce a decided opinion. His right rev. Brother had stated that he filled the office of Dean for two years, without being able to find out the use of it; but he seemed to draw a distinction between the duties and the use of the office, whereas he (the Bishop of Oxford) thought if he found out what were the duties he would find out what was the use of the office. At present, however, the House was not in a condition to deal with the question of fusion. That matter might be dealt with in the event of suffragans being appointed with succession. Where a Prelate, from ill-health or advanced years, became unable to perform all the duties of his office, it might be provided that, with

  1953
  the consent of the Crown, the dean of that particular see might become suffragan, with succession to the Bishopric upon the decease of the Prelate then in office. He held succession to be an essential part of the Church system, and that to vary that rule would be to weaken that system.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHexpressed his thanks to his noble Friend for the manner in which he had brought this Bill before their Lordships, but at the same time he must say that it appeared to him that it was the duty of the Government to deal with this subject. When the question was raised last Session upon the occurrence of a vacancy in the see of Rochester, the Government stated that the matter was one which should not be dealt with piecemeal, but by a general measure; but if he understood the noble Earl, the President of the Council, that evening, he thought that this measure was too comprehensive. Last year he wanted a comprehensive measure, and this year the measure was too comprehensive. This appeared to him (the Duke of Marlborough) to be a mode of shelving the matter which would scarcely satisfy the country, and he trusted that before the debate closed some Member of the Government would give an assurance that the subject would not be overlooked by them.
  LORD REDESDALEhoped that if his noble Friend adopted the advice given and withdrew the Bill, he would do so with the full intention of bringing the measure forward again, framed in accordance with the suggestions of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) and the right rev. Prelate, for it was most important that this question should be brought in a tangible form before the House. He agreed that there should be a permissive power, without coming to Parliament on every individual occasion. He entertained some doubt as to the willingness of the Government to undertake this subject, though it was very desirable that they should do so in order to ensure the Bill passing the other House.
  LORD LYTTELTON,in reply, said he felt in the position of other Members of Parliament who did not know what to do with their own progeny. He was asked in the ordinary terms of courtesy used by those who wished to get rid of a Bill to withdraw his measure, and be satisfied with the expression of opinion which it had elicited from the House. What he complained of was that he had elicited no expression of opinion, and did not know
  1954
  what was really the view of the House. The little that was said by his noble Friend (Earl Granville) was, as far as he could make out, against the principle of the Bill. The whole principle of the measure was to give a permissive power to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners under conditions, and that principle was opposed by his noble Friend, as he understood him. As for the points of detail which had been remarked upon, he admitted that the Ecclesiastical Commission was not a body which possessed much of the confidence of the country; but no one had suggested any other body, or he might have assented to the substitution of some other. Nor would be have objected to such a provision as that the constitution of a new bishoprick should be laid before Parliament for a given time before it was carried into effect. The suggestion of the noble Earl opposite was one which he (Lord Lyttelton) would most distinctly and unreservedly accept, and if his Bill were allowed to pass its present stage he would postpone the Committee upon it for such a time as might allow of the full consideration of the subject. He did, indeed, think that the Bill, as it stood, was one which substantially complied with the recommendations of the Commissioners. He thought the only way in which he could ascertain the opinion of the House was by dividing, and he should, therefore, press the second reading.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, there had been an observation made in this debate on the difficulty, as was said, of ascertaining what were the feelings and wishes of the right rev. Bench. But the subject was one on which it was very difficult for the Episcopal Bench to give an opinion. They were in this position, that if they spoke strongly on the desirableness of increasing the episcopate, they would be charged with magnifying their own office; and if, on the other hand, they took strong objections to such a measure, it might be said that they were jealous of any interference with their Bench. For his own part, he should be very willing to give the noble Lord every assistance in his power in the object he had in view; but, on the whole, looking at the opposition which had been raised, he would suggest to the noble Lord that it would be more expedient not to press the second reading.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, if his noble Friend thought to take the sense of the House by a division, he was afraid that he

  1955
  would get, not the sense of the House, but a decision against the principle of the Bill by the rejection of the second reading. Now he (the Earl of Derby) agreed with the principle of the Bill, as to the increase of the episcopate, by giving a permissive power to the Crown. But if his noble Friend now got an adverse vote he would be precluded from going on with it; whereas, if he took the course recommended by the most rev. Prelate, he could bring in another Bill on the same subject during the present Session; but after this Bill should have been rejected on the second reading he would be precluded from doing so.
  THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'Ssaid, the opinion of the right rev. Bench was this, that they were unanimous in a general approval of the principle and sympathy with the object of the Bill; but the question was whether the machinery devised for it was of a nature that it would be safe to adopt. He heartily assented for his own part to the general principle of the Bill, and in the way suggested by the noble Earl opposite he would give it his support. Even in favour of the Bill as it stood he would vote with the noble Lord, but would rather advise him not to press it.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDassured the noble Lord that, if he intended to divide, he would vote with him in favour of the second reading.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that he saw several objections to the Bill. He objected to the principle itself, of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners drawing a scheme which was then to be sanctioned by an Order in Council. He did not think that the Resolution of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners sanctioned by the Order in Council in favour of the Deanery of York had been received with such unmixed satisfaction as to induce the House to favour the authority which, according to this Bill, was to sanction the scheme of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The second principle also, which was that of raising funds for the endowment of the new bishopric, not by voluntary action, but by setting apart for that object a portion of the existing Fund, appeared to him to be fraught with this consequence—that if the Bill, with such a provision as that, were sent down to the House of Commons, it would immediately be said there that it was quite clear the Episcopal Fund was larger than were requisite, and that it would be better to take the superfluous funds, and apply
  1956
  them to relieve the spiritual destitution of the Metropolis, or to increase the provision for the parochial clergy. Now, he thought, on the contrary, that while the Bishops occupied seats in their Lordships House, and had a certain station to maintain, it Would be wrong to cut down their incomes. For these reasons, he thought, even for the purpose which the noble Lord himself had in view, that he had framed his Bill in a most unfortunate manner. On the whole, and if the noble Lord were so anxious to see more sees divided and more bishops created, he should withdraw this Bill, and then he might bring it forward in another shape.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, nobody liked to undertake a troublesome duty without a hope that it would lead to some result. He, therefore, wished to obtain from the Government a declaration whether they objected to the principle that, under proper restrictions, a permissive power should be given to the Crown to create bishops in particular cases, without its being necessary to apply for the sanction of Parliament.
  After a few words from Earl GRANVILLE, which were inaudible.
  On Question, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 27; Not-Contente, 23; Majority, 4.

  CONTENTS.

  Marlborough, D.

  Llandaff, Bp.

  London, Bp.

  Bath, M.

  Norwich, Bp.

  Camden, M.

  Oxford, Bp.

  St. Asaph, Bp.

  Dartmouth, E.

  St. David's, Bp.

  Derby, E.

  Winchester, Bp.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Portarlington, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Powis, E.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Romney, E.

  Grinstead, L. (E. Enniskillen.)

  Selkirk, E.

  Lyttelton, L. [Teller.]

  Dungannon, V.

  Northwick, L.

  Redesdale, L.[Teller.]

  Bangor, Bp.

  Silchester, L. (E. Long ford.)

  Chichester, Bp.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Campbell, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Stratford de Redcliffe, V.

  Sydney, V.

  Newcastle, D.

  Somerset, D.

  Carlisle, Bp.

  Airlie, E. [Teller.]

  Abinger, L.

  Chichester, E.

  Denman, L.

  De Grey, E.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Granville, E.

  Herbert, L.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  1957

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Taunton, L.

  Stratheden, L.

  Truro, L.

  Wodehouse, L.

  Resolved in the Affirmative; and Bill read 2a accordingly.
  House adjourned at Half-past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, Half-past Ten o'clock.