Lords Sitting of 14 April 1863

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Courts of the Church of Scotland (No. 65).
Select Committee—Augmentation of Benefices Bill (No. 59). nominated (List of the Committee.)
Committee—Mutiny; Marine Mutiny.
Report—Mutiny; Marine Mutiny.
Third Reading—Post Office Savings Banks (No. 47), and passed.

COURTS OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND BILL [H.L.]
A Bill for removing Doubts as to the Powers of the Courts of the Church of Scotland, and extending the Powers of the said Courts—Was presented by The Lord HAMILTON, and read 1a. (No. 65.)
AUGMENTATION OF BENEFICES BILL [H.L.]—(No. 59.)

  SELECT COMMITTEE NOMINATED.
  On Order of the Day for the Nomination of the Select Committee oil Augmentation of Benefices Bill,
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, he wished to take that opportunity of making a few observations on the Bill of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. It was of great consequence, in every case in which an important Bill was to be referred to a Select Committee, that the principle of the measure should first he thoroughly discussed; because, when they got into Committee, they were always told that the principle of the Bill had already been approved of, and that oil they had to do was to consider the Bill clause by clause. Now, there had been no discussion which would enable their Lordships to determine what principle should govern them in dealing with a measure of this sort, and yet this Bill was one which it was of the utmost importance should be considered most carefully. The Bill proposed to sell 320 livings with small incomes, which were in the patronage of the Lord Chancellor, in order that the price of those livings might augment their value, His noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor seemed to have been anxious to show their Lordships that those livings did not, properly speaking, belong to the Crown—or rather, as he said, speaking reverentially, that the Crown was, in some sense, to be considered as a trustee of those livings for the benefit of the Lord Chancellor, in whom the right of presentation was vested. But that very statement
  122
  showed that the livings were properly Crown livings; for, if the Crown were trustee, then the livings must belong to it, otherwise there could be no trusteeship. When their Lordships considered that formerly the Great Seal used to be held by an ecclesiastic, who was the keeper of the King's conscience, they would not be surprised at the course which was usually pursued with respect to those livings. It could be seen from the Rolls of Parliament five centuries ago that even at that time it went beyond the memory of man to say when, the right of the Lord Chancellor to present to those livings accrued, and how. It appeared from the Rolls of the 4th of Edward III. that the Bishop of Lincoln, who had lately died, had misapplied his patronage, and had appointed to the livings persons who were nut intended by the Crown, under the original directions, to have those livings. The Council accordingly met, and advised that the Lord Chancellor should appoint to the livings under the ancient rules—
  "Because it hath been ordained in times whereof there is no memory, and granted by the progenitors of our Lord the King, that the Chancellor for the time being should give the benefices which belong to the King to give."
  It appeared, therefore, that at that time it was considered that those benefices were, in point of fact, in the gift of the Crown. Those livings, therefore, did belong to the Crown as much as any other livings which might lie in the patronage of the Prime Minister. A singular case in point was reported by Chief Justice Hobart as having occurred in the early part of the reign of James II. The Lord Chancellor of that day presented a person to a living, and this person had been inducted; but a mistake in the mode of presentation was afterwards discovered, and the Crown appointed another man. A question then arose, whether the nominee of the Crown or the nominee of the Lord Chancellor was the person properly appointed. The case went before the Lord Chief Justice, who reported it, and the Lord Chief Baron, and they were of opinion that the nominee of the Crown was not entitled, because the nominee of the Lord Chancellor had been inducted; and the grant having been made under the Great Seal, it was, in point of fact, a grant by the King himself, although it had been made by the Lord Chancellor. This was also shown by the fact that there was no difference in the form of presentation, whether it was by the King or the Lord Chancellor, saving, for the most part, one

  123
  was mandantis and the other rogantis—the confusion of winch words was of no moment. That the Lord Chancellor should have formerly appointed to those livings without taking the pleasure of the Crown was not to be wondered at, when it was remembered that in early times the Lord Chancellor was also a bishop and the keeper of the King's conscience. With regard to the present Bill, he believed the course taken was incorrect; and if the Legislature passed the Bill, and the Crown consented, that would Cure any irregularity; but he believed, strictly and correctly, it would be found that the consent of the Crown should have been obtained before any Bill had been brought in which proposed to take away any of the rights of the Crown. The principle of this Bill had been received with universal approbation, and nobody approved more than he did of increasing the value of those small livings. But the question was whether this was a proper measure for effecting that important object. While assenting to the principle of the Bill, he maintained that it was only by a due under standing of its details that their Lordships could hope to carry the spirit of the measure into effect. It was singular enough to observe, that great as had been the approbation given to the principle of the Bill, no two persons were agreed as to the grounds of their approval. Some said the livings were small, and were not worth having; others, that the Lord Chancellor was not well qualified to find out the characters of the persons who might apply for the benefices. Now, it had always appeared to him that it was a great advantage that a large part of the ecclesiastical patronage of the country was not in the bands of the Episcopal Bench—it was highly important that in a country like this ecclesiastical promotion should not all proceed from the same source; and if it had not boon for the Church patronage vested in the Lord Chancellor, many valuable clergymen would have failed of the advancement they had obtained by that means. But could any one suppose that those who were demanding great changes of this character would be satisfied with the present Bill? Would they not say, why do you not give us in addition to the crumbs some of the large fat joints —the pièces de résistance upon your table? Was it to be supposed that the Prime Minister could, after this Bill became law, retain the patronage of his small livings? It was
  124
  not, however, the question by whom the patronage was to be given—the question was, how to enlarge the means of living of the clergyman. Why should not the livings in the gift of the Prime Minister be subjected to the same process? Why should not the small livings in the gift of Deans and Chapters and other corporate bodies be dealt with in the same way? Nor was there any reason why the right rev. Bench should not give up their small livings. Was it right that the bishops should go on exercising their present patronage while they were applauding the sacrifice made by the Lord Chancellor in giving up his small livings? What would become, also, of private patrons? He was anxious to know what the Government really meant to do—were they prepared, like the Lord Chancellor, to sell the advowsons of the small livings in the gift of the Crown? He did not say that the augmentation of all the small livings would not be beneficial; but he wished their Lordships to consider whether the consequences of this Bill would not be more momentous than some might anticipate. There were 320 livings at this moment in the rightful patronage of the Lord Chancellor. If any one could be found to dispense that patronage in an honest and earnest manner, it was the dignitary who might hold the Great Seal. There was therefore no fear at present that the patronage was not properly dispensed. The capital value of these advowsons amounted to several hundred thousand pounds. The income of all these livings in round numbers was £50,000 a year, which had been left by previous Kings of England to be doled out as an absolute gift to the clergy. It was not a vast deal for each, but there were thousands of clergymen who desired to possess these livings. A clergyman often preferred to be Hector and Vicar, so that he could be master of his own parish, rather than accept a curacy of greater value. A Lord Chancellor was frequently asked to present to a living, and was told that his refusal would prevent the union of two fond hearts, and that the whole future happiness of two persons depended on the exercise of his patronage. At one fell swoop the Lord Chancellor was going to take the whole of this £50,000 from the class on which this patronage had hitherto been bestowed, and to carry these livings into the market and sell them to the highest bidder. Those who bought these livings would sell them; and thus this Bill, intended for the benefit

  125
  of the Church, would bring into operation a most objectionable description of speculation—for many men would become buyers, in the hope of getting more for a living than they gave for it. The Lord Chancellor provided that these livings should not be re-sold within five years; but it would be impossible to prevent speculation and jobbery. The Bill provided that only half the money should be paid at the time of the purchase, and the other half when the actual vacancy occurred. The result would be that poor curates would be urging their friends to buy these livings, that subscriptions would be made in some parishes for this purpose, and that clergymen would in some cases incur debts from which they would never recover. Speculation there must be, and the Lord Chancellor would, during the next fifteen or twenty years, he constantly engaged in selling these small advowsons under circumstances of great anxiety. On a former occasion, in dealing with the advowsons which belonged to municipal corporations, they devolved the duty of selling them upon the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; but in this case the Lord Chancellor would have the biddings made to him, and make regulations which might damage the sale. It had not boon explained what was to be done with those livings that became vacant, between the time of their becoming vacant and of finding a purchaser. The noble Lord dealt with existing laws in a manner which was quite unparalleled, for he not only imposed on the Ecclesiastical Commissioners the duty of endowing these livings with a sum equal to the moiety of the purchase money, but notwithstanding that the law made it simony to deal with the sale of advowsons, he actually authorized the sale of these 320 small livings. He should not offer any opposition to the appointment of a Committee, but he had made the remarks he had offered to the House because he conceived that the subject required the most serious attention of their Lordships' House.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I wish to take this opportunity of suggesting some doubts which have occurred to my mind since the Bill was read a second time. I concurred so fully in the general approval of the Bill by your Lordships' House, and in the general principle of augmenting the value of small livings by the interposition of private patronage, that I felt, myself precluded from offering any objection to the Bill when it was read
  126
  a second time, although the Bill was not actually in the hands of any of your Lordships. But I am bound to say that the more I consider and examine the provisions of this Bill, the more apprehensive I am that the noble and learned Lord takes too sanguine a view of the probable extent to which this Bill will be operative. I doubt very much whether it will always operate in the sense which is intended; and, above all, I entertain very considerable doubt whether it is a legitimate course, in favour of these livings, of which it is proposed to divest the Lord Chancellor, to make any deductions from that limited fund known by the name of the Common Fund, which is applied to the augmentation of the poorest and most distressed livings. At the time the second reading was moved we had only the very clear statement of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, as to the objects which he proposed to accomplish, and the intentions he meant to fulfil by this measure; and it is no disparagement to the clearness of that statement, or, I hope, to the quickness of your Lordships' apprehension, to say that it involved many intricacies and nice calculations which it was not easy at the moment to follow. Into the details of the scheme I do not pretend, at the present moment, to enter; but I wish to call attention to some of the principal features of the Bill, which, as I said, seem to me open to grave objections. And first, with regard to the application, for the purposes of this Bill, of a portion of the Common Fund at the disposal of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. If I am not using too strong an expression, the vice of this measure is that it takes into consideration only the absolute payment to the clergyman, and does not take into account the relative value of the payment, and the responsibility and labour imposed on the incumbent. It does not draw the slightest distinction between a living of £100 a year, with a population of fifty, and another living of £100 a year, where the population numbers 5,000 or 6,000. Your Lordships may recollect that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are bound, and are endeavouring to perform their duty by gradually raising the livings of smallest amount, and at the same time with the largest populations. I think I have heard it stated, that in the course of the present year, or, at all events, in a short time, they hope to raise to the amount of £300 all the livings in the

  127
  country having a population of more than 10,000. If the whole of the funds at their disposal will but enable them to make this increase, I ask, whether we are justified in withdrawing from the limited means under their control the sum requisite for the purpose of augmenting other livings, which, though small in pecuniary value, in many cases (I will not say in all) owing to their scanty population, involve but a small amount of duty and responsibility. I have been at the trouble, with the assistance of The Clergy List, of going through the whole of the schedules appended to this Bill, and of investigating the value and population of every one of the livings proposed to be dealt with. I will not trouble your Lordships by going through the lists in which these livings, amounting in the aggregate to 320, are contained; I will shortly state the results at which I have arrived. In some cases, indeed, I have been unable to ascertain the population of particular livings; in one or two instances I have failed in discovering the particular benefice in The Clergy List at all; and the noble and learned Lord, I fear, has fallen into the error of including one living of the value of £350, in the list, which I understood from his statement, he wished to restrict to livings of £200 or £250. I find that in 314 of the 320 livings proposed to be augmented in value, the average population is only 376, and in as many as 130 cases the population falls below 300. Now, in endeavouring from any public fund to augment the poor livings, we must always take into consideration the duties the clergy have to perform, and the responsibilities that devolve upon them; and if the Ecclesiastical Commissioners only find themselves able, from their resources, to raise to the value of £300 livings where the population is above 10,000, you can hardly say that from these same funds you ought to deduct the means of raising the incomes of small livings when the population varies from 50 to 300. Seven of these parishes have a population of less than 50; there are 23 more having populations of between 50 and 1.00. It surely cannot he said that these are suitable livings to be increased at the expense of the Common Fund. The average population of 314 livings is, as I have said, 376; the average value of 319 of them is £159 and a fraction, or, in round numbers, £160. But the livings which have been selected by the noble and learned Lord with a
  128
  view to the improvement of their condition are actually not the smallest and most heavily burdened of those in the Lord Chancellor's own gift. I should be glad to hear from the noble and learned Lord why these 320 livings, averaging £159 a year in value, and with an average population of 376, have been selected, and why he has omitted sixty five other livings, the average produce of which is £137, and the average populations of which are not 376, but 2,112? The great bulk of these very poor livings lie in towns, and it may be said they consequently do not offer the same temptations to purchasers as rural benefices. But to draw away the funds applicable to their gradual increase, and to leave them not only without augmentation, but without the prospect of obtaining assistance either from the Commissioners, from private benevolence, or through the instrumentality of immediate purchase, is clearly the very height of injustice. In the case of thirty four of the benefices selected for augmentation the number of the population is less than the number of pounds sterling that the clergymen receive. The average value of those benefices is £170 per annum; the average population only 111, Certainly, if you make a selection, you ought not to select those livings the endowments of which, though small in themselves, yet bear a much better proportion to the population than do those of a vast number of other livings in the Church. I am also afraid that the course which the noble and learned Lord has adopted in making the selection will, to a great extent, defeat the object which he has in view. Although I am afraid that, especially with regard to the smaller, poorer, and more laborious livings, he has over-estimated the amounts which he will receive, I will, for the sake of argument, assume that all his figures and calculations are correct. He calculates that, upon the average, he shall realize ten years' purchase; one third of this sum is to be invested I with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who will have to pay upon that third an interest of 7 per cent, which, according to the noble and learned Lord, will be equivalent to the addition of another third to the living. But I believe that change can only be effected by transferring the money to a new fund from another fund in which it can be most usefully employed; and the provision as to the application of that purchase money is the part of the Bill to which I most object, because I am afraid

  129
  that under it funds will be applied to livings which do not require them, which ought to be reserved for those which really stand in need of augmentation. I am afraid that of the 320 livings those which would most readily command purchasers are those which you would least desire to augment. Of course, the livings of which any one would desire to become the patron are neither the very small ones, however little duty the incumbent may have to perform, nor those which, although the income may amount to £250, involve the administration of a large district with a population of 5,000 or 6,000 persons. Those livings which have the largest amount of income under £250, in proportion to the amount of duty, will be those which will be most readily sold, and which will be augmented partly out of the purchase money and partly out of the public fund. A living of £60 a year will be raised to £88, while one of £200, which approaches to a fair, reasonable, and decent maintenance for a clergyman—that is, if the parish is not very populous, or the duties very onerous, will be augmented to £296. So that those livings which are, comparatively speaking, the most richly endowed, will derive the greatest benefit from the operation of the Act. My noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) expressed a reluctance, which I do not share, to divest the Lord Chancellor of this patronage. I entirely agree with him that it is a great advantage and signal benefit to the Church that there are various different sources of ecclesiastical patronage. I think that it would be very objectionable if all the patronage were in the hands of the Crown, or of the Lord Chancellor, or of bishops, or of private individuals, or of universities, or colleges, or corporations. It is a great advantage that there are a number of sources from which persons who would have but little chance of obtaining preferment from any one, may have a chance of gaining it. And, with regard to the purity or impurity, I do not think that there is much difference between public and private patronage. Patronage in the hands of public bodies may be, and I am afraid sometimes is, perverted to political purposes; while that which is in the hands of private individuals is often swayed by family interests and family connections. The worst kind of patronage is that possessed by colleges, according to which livings which are not accepted by the senior fellows are left to the juniors, without the
  130
  slightest reference to their qualifications for the performance of the duties attached I to the benefices. I do not think, that if these 320 livings, the patronage of which I has by every Lord Chancellor been felt to be rather an incumbrance than an advantage, are transferred into private hands, there is any fear that the appointments to them will be made with less care and less judgment than if they remain in the hands of the Lord Chancellor; and in saying this I do not mean to cast any imputation either upon the present or any previous Chancellor—all I mean to say is, that patronage in private hands is not, in my opinion, less conscientiously administered than is that of public bodies; and therefore I think that if the patronage now in the hands of the Lord Chancellor is transferred into private hands, there is any likelihood of its being better or worse administered than heretofore. The real question is not in whose hands the patronage shall be, but how you will best attain your great object—the augmentation of the smaller benefices of the Church. I am afraid that there are great difficulties in the way of the operation of the scheme proposed by the: noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, He lays great stress on the augmentation of the particular benefice which is to be sold; and thinks that it will be an inducement to persons to purchase livings when they obtain not only the value of the living, but also that of the additional endowment, I do not think there will be many offers to purchase these livings, except where peculiar circumstances exist; and those peculiar circumstances would arise in the case where a small living is situated on the property of some landed proprietor, and he, because of his family and tenants, wishes to have it in his own hands. In such a case he would, perhaps, be willing to give a fair price for the advowson. But that advantage will be dearly purchased under the scheme of the noble and learned Lord. cannot, I might add, help desiring that the noble and learned Lord had, in introducing his measure, adopted a different principle, and had sought to carry into effect some plan for the augmentation of the smaller livings in the gift of the Lord Chancellor. I will venture to state a plan which I think would be desirable in substitution for that of the noble and learned Lord. It is said that the livings that most readily command purchasers are those which vary in value from £150 to £400 or £500 per annum; but I do not

  131
  think there will be a very great demand for the smaller livings in the gift of the Lord Chancellor. I do think, however, that if he were to dispose, at a certain price, and with the sanction of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, of a certain number of those livings, and were to apply the sum derived from their sale to the augmentation of the smaller livings still remaining in his patronage, he would, in the first place, be likely to be taking a course which would be more effective than that which he proposes; while, upon the other hand, he would have a considerable fund at his disposal for the augmentation of those smaller livings which are not salable, and which would therefore, in all probability, remain on his hands. When I look at the schedule of the livings with which the noble and learned Lord proposes to deal, I find that there are at his disposal 240 or 250, the value of which exceeds £300 a year, while the value of about 100 of them is more than £400. Now, I would suggest to the noble and learned Lord whether he would not make his measure more practical if he were to consent to bring into the market a certain number of the comparatively more important livings—the value to be fixed by Parliament—than by proceeding as he proposes. If, for example, out of 350 livings of the value of £300 a year and upwards, the Lord Chancellor were prepared to divest himself of the patronage of 150, averaging say £400 a year each—which is, I think, not taking a very high amount—the purchase money would amount to no less than £400,000, which would place at the disposal of the Lord Chancellor a perpetual annuity of £16,000 a year, for the purpose of increasing the poorer livings which he must retain in his hands. That sum, distributed among the number of poor livings in the gift of the Lord Chancellor would, if it did not make them very valuable pieces of patronage, at all events place them in a position of comparative comfort. I have not followed my noble and learned Friend near me into the discussions which he originated in reference to the position of the Crown with regard to those livings. He has, however, shown that the patronage of the Lord Chancellor extends over 720 benefices, in all; whereas the patronage of the Crown extends over 120, one-sixth of that number. This question I will not enter into; but if the doctrine of my noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) be right,
  132
  then I apprehend the proposal under discussion is, to a certain extent, an inroad on the prerogative of the Crown. I rose, however, principally for the purpose of stating my opinion that the case of those livings was not so urgent as to justify us in withdrawing any portion of the endowments from the Common Fund at the disposal of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; that the schedule does not comprise all those livings at the disposal of the Lord Chancellor which require assistance most, and that of those likely to be augmented under the conditions of the rule proposed there would be many which required augmentation least, while those which stood most in need of it would be left to labour under great pressure. I also ventured, very humbly, to suggest to the consideration of the noble and learned Lord a plan which I think would be likely to prove more effectual in carrying out the object which he has in view, and which, I believe, would afford greater satisfaction than that which he proposes to the vast body of the clergy. I do not, however, presume to set up my plan against that which he has submitted to your Lordships; and if he should see good reason to adhere to his scheme, and I should happen to be a Member of the Select Committee to which it is referred, I should be prepared to do my utmost to carry it forward, with such modifications as would, in my opinion, be calculated to render it more effectual.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am exceedingly glad this discussion has taken place. My great anxiety has been to produce a beneficial measure, whilst dealing with this important subject, and I therefore hail all discussion which tends to throw a light upon it as a most welcome contribution towards the promotion of the end which I have in view. I wish to commence the observations which I have now to offer to the House, by briefly adverting to the topics which the noble Earl, who has just spoken, has introduced. The noble Earl says, and with great propriety, that it is a thing by no means desirable that this Bill should interfere with the course of action which has already been laid down by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, when that course of action is directed to the end of augmenting those livings which must always be regarded as the poorest—namely, those which combine small incomes with large populations. In that view, I entirely concur. Therefore, there is a discretion allowed by the Bill to the Lord

  133
  Chancellor, to select those cases in which he may deem it right to apply to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The number, however, of livings in which I should require their aid is exceedingly limited. I cannot pretend to say that I speak with the sanction of that body, because it was impossible to consult them. But before bringing in the Bill I took steps to ascertain whether it would have their assent, find I was assured that it would not interfere with the action of the Commissioners. It is not part of the principle of the Bill to supersede the functions of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, It is brought in by way of addition; and when making so large a contribution to the object which that Commission was founded to establish, and which, unfortunately, it has done little in effecting—namely, the augmentation of poor benefices—it would have been very wrong in me if I had not sought in some manner their co-operation. There is no desire to interfere with the action of the Commissioners, and it will always be in the discretion of the Lord Chancellor to limit the application of the Bill if it should be found to interfere, for there is no obligation upon the Lord Chancellor to bring any case whatever before the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Another observation was made by the noble Earl as to bringing in a greater number of benefices, so as to give more certainty to the augmentation of the smaller benefices, and I hope some day to see that accomplished, even if I am not able to accomplish it. I shall be extremely happy, after some experience, to make additions to this Bill in respect of including a larger number of benefices. But I must dissent altogether from the plan which the noble Earl wishes to sec adopted, because he would desire the plan adopted by the Ecclesiastical Commission, the working of which has been by no means favourable or encouraging. On the other hand, I prefer the plan laid down in this Bill, because we have the assurance that all the money which the advowson will command will be applied in the augmentation of the particular living. There is, therefore, a certainty that the object which we seek will be accomplished. But if the money were thrown into the Common Fund, applicable to the augmentation of an indefinite number of small livings, there would be great danger of that occurring which has already occurred in the Ecclesiastical Commission—namely, the augmentation of poorer
  134
  benefices being delayed for a time painful to contemplate. Therefore it is that I adhere to the principle which has been adopted in this Bill of giving the living with the certainty that the value will be applied to its augmentation, and I believe the knowledge of that certainty will be an inducement operating with the landowner to make the purchase. All that part of the Bill which relates to the Ecclesiastical Commission may be dispensed with without affecting the principle. I look upon those provisions only as details to be considered in Committee, and I do not regard the House as pledged to the adoption of them in assenting to the broad principle of augmentation. If your Lordships take out the figures in the schedule, you may be surprised to find that the purchaser of an advowson, upon the terms which I have ventured to anticipate, will receive a living of value equal to 10 per cent, on the purchase money, and I think that with such a sufficient inducement even the smallest living will find a purchaser—because you must remember that the rank and status of a beneficed clergyman are things which command a value independent of the mere money return. I am therefore still sanguine, and I trust that my sanguine hope will be fulfilled, that in the end there will be hardly a living which will not find a purchaser; although I quite agree that some livings will be disposed of more quickly than others, and more especially when it is remembered, that whenever a living is augmented to.£300 a year, the surplus of the purchase money is immediately applicable in the hands of the Lord Chancellor to the augmentation of the poorer livings. With respect to the observation of the noble and learned Lord (Lord St. Leonards) that the ownership of these advowsons is in the Crown, the Lord Chancellor is an officer who may be changed from year to year, and it is impossible, therefore, to vest the ownership in him. The actual legal estate of necessity remains vested in the Crown, but it is a mere barren inheritance; and although it would be neither fitting nor right to bring forward a measure like this without being able to assure Parliament of the assent of the Crown, it nevertheless deals with property which in reality is attached to the office of the Lord Chancellor. I accept everything which the noble and learned Lord has said as merely matter of caution and suggestion, with a view to the improvement of the measure, as I should greatly regret if he

  135
  were to throw any impediment in the way of its passing into law. The augmenting the condition of the poorer benefices of the Church is a great question, and one upon which I am sure your Lordships feel deep interest, because the holders of those benefices have always been the great support of the Church in time of danger, and they cannot be replaced by an inferior order of men without lowering the position of the Church itself. This is a small contribution to that end, and, although only a beginning, I hope it will lead to other things which will never lead your Lordships to regret having assented to this Bill.
  In answer to a Question from the Earl of DERBY,
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that he had included in the Bill the poorer livings only, and the proceeds of those livings were to be applied to their augmentation up to the value of £300 a year. No doubt, primâ facie, the town livings seemed to have the greater claims to charity. The point was one which might very properly be discussed in Committee, though, so far as his own examination of it went, he had found it surrounded with great difficulties.
  Then the Lords following were named of the Committee:—

  L. Abp. Canterbury.

  E. Powis.

  Ld. Chancellor.

  E. Ducie.

  L. Abp. York.

  V. Eversley.

  Ld. President.

  L. Bp. London.

  D. Somerset.

  L. Bp. Oxford.

  D. Marlborough.

  L. Wodehouse.

  E. Steward.

  L. Cran worth.

  E. Derby.

  L. St. Leonards.

  E. Shaftesbury.

  L. Ebury.

  E. Stanhope.

  L. Chelmsford.

  E. Carnarvon.

  L. Kingsdown.

  E. Chichester.

  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.