§ LORD LYTTELTON, in presenting a Petition of Clergy and Laity of the Church of England for the increase of the Episcopate, said, the petition was so respectably and numerously signed by about 1,500 persons, clergy and laity in about equal proportions, that he had felt bound to give notice of his intention, in order that in presenting the Petition he might draw the attention of their Lordships to the subject of its prayer. He had not intended to say more than a few words upon the subject; but, as the most reverend Primate had requested him to delay the presentation until he and some of his right rev. Brethren could be in their places that there might be the opportunity for a full expression of opinion on the subject, he thought it would be expected that he 697 should do a little more. He would, therefore, briefly advert to the few events of importance which had occurred since last he alluded to the subject. One of those events was the fact that both Houses of Convocation had concurred in opinion that an increase of the Episcopate was desirable, and the Upper House had gone so far as to specify a certain number of new sees which it was desirable should be created, and addressed the Crown to that effect. Thus the opinion of both Houses of Convocation had been in accordance with the views which he had expressed on a former occasion. Some time since a journal, highly distinguished for its zeal in the cause of the Church, had said that Convocation ought to be suppressed, because it did nothing, but confined itself to discussion, and the public cared nothing for what was said in Convocation. The first objection was natural, but not, therefore, reasonable. They first debarred Convocation from going further than discussion, and then sneered at it because it did nothing but discuss. Whether any one cared for what Convocation said was, no doubt, a question of opinion and observation. His own belief was that people did care, and much more than formerly, for the expression of the opinions of Convocation, and that it was precisely for that reason that those who desired that there should be no action by the Church of England, except as a branch of the State, were jealous of the degree of influence which Convocation had obtained. The Upper House had recommended the formation of three additional sees. One was to be the division of the see of Exeter by the severance from it of the county of Cornwall. So far, it was connected with the other main event to which he had alluded—the presentation of an address from the county of Cornwall to one of Her Majesty's Ministers, in favour of a bishop for that county being appointed. He believed that neither the address of Convocation nor the memorial from Cornwall went into the question of how the object should be attained. He did not complain of any Government for declining to undertake to bring in such a measure of its own motion. He himself had presented a petition from the diocese of Winchester in favour of a subdivision of that diocese; but he then expressed his opinion, which he still retained, that it was for those who desired to see such a measure carried into effect in their own 698 district to indicate the means to be provided, and to lay the details specifically before Government and Parliament. All these addresses had suggested that one great means of endowment for the new sees should be looked for in the fund in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, which used to be called the Episcopal Fund, but which was now merged in the general funds of that body. That was certainly a reasonable suggestion in itself, but yet he did not advocate its adoption in the present state of public feeling. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners were now becoming for the first time in their existence a popular body, because they seemed likely to be able really to deal with the spiritual destitution of the country, by increasing out of their general funds a large number of small endowments to a fair and reasonable amount; and he did not maintain that that process could now be interrupted. He certainly could not agree in the answer which had been given by the Home Secretary, or by some clerk in his Office, to these addresses, that railways and the penny post had greatly diminished whatever necessity might have existed for an increase of the Episcopate. It was a wonder he had not added telegraphs, elastic bands, and envelopes. He was ashamed to answer such an argument. Railways of course had increased the facilities of getting about for bishops as well as for everybody else; it did not take so long to get from Exeter to the Land's End as it used to do; but, at the same time, they brought more people to see and consult with the Bishops, and thus increased their work. Had any noble Lord found that the penny post had diminished the labour of correspondence? It made it easier and cheaper, but it multiplied it tenfold. Such an answer was totally unworthy of the subject. Some time ago the late Sir James Graham, in the other House of Parliament, had given a description of a bishop. He said he had to preside at certain committees and to answer certain letters, and that was all. This Grahamic model of what a dignitary of the Church of England ought to be had excited a good deal of remark. But the true theory of a bishop's duties was that he had the cure of souls of the whole of his diocese. There were Bishops who had a personal and accurate knowledge of every parish in their diocess, who had been in them all, could tell what was going on in them, and know many of the leading 699 people in them. Some time ago be had seen a complaint from a layman in the diocese of Oxford, in a pamphlet, that he could not go anywhere in the diocese but that the Bishop had been before him; he could not get anywhere out of the reach of ecclesiastical activity. No amount of railways or other accommodation of that kind could increase the powers of the human mind or facilitate the work of a Bishop in dealing with the souls of his diocese. In a diocese like London, where the population was increasing at the rate of 40,000 or 50,000 souls a year, facilities of this kind were not of the slightest advantage and no one could suppose that it was possible for one man to perform the duties of such a diocese in a satisfactory manner. On the general question he had really nothing to add to what he had said formerly. He was not about to attempt again to legislate on the subject, certainly not without receiving assurances of greater support, whether from open enemies or professed supporters, than he had received before. He considered that nobody could legislate on the subject but the Government; but he hoped that serious consideration would be given to the subject, and that the result would be some practical move in the direction pointed at in this petition.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he felt very much indebted to the noble Lord for having brought forward this subject, and was only sorry that the noble Lord did not propose to submit a legislative measure to their Lordships. When he had requested the noble Lord to postpone the presentation of the Petition until his Episcopal Brethren could be present, it was not in the hope of being able to bring forward any additional arguments in favour of the increase of the Episcopate, for, in truth, the arguments had been used so frequently that they would not bear repeating, but because he thought the subject was one deserving of the fullest discussion. It seemed to him very hard that while the population of England had increased four-fold since the time of Henry VIII., every attempt to increase the number of bishops should meet with such opposition. Though it was his earnest wish that the most perfect harmony should exist between the clergy and the Government, of whatever party it might be composed, he could not refrain from saying that the discouragement which had been given by the Go- 700 vernment to these efforts had created the greatest disappointment and dissatisfaction. He wished to express the opinion, most emphatically, that in places where the population had multiplied in an extraordinary degree enlarged episcopal supervision should be supplied. As to finding endowments, undoubtedly there were some difficulties to be encountered. He was far, however, from thinking that by devoting a certain proportion of the ecclesiastical revenues under the management of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to the endowment of new sees they would be withdrawing from the effectiveness of the funds applied to the relief of spiritual destitution. On the contrary, they found that where a large diocese was divided there followed a large increase in the means provided for supplying spiritual need. If he wished to employ a still more striking exemplification of this truth he should find it in the case of the colonial dioceses. Let their Lordships endeavour to realize what were the duties cast upon the Bishop of Calcutta when the see was first founded, and when his authority extended over the whole of the peninsula of India, Ceylon, and the whole of Australia. Was it possible to suppose that there would have been the increase of churches, of clergy, and of souls gathered into the fold of Christ's Church which they had witnessed, unless there had been successive divisions of a diocese formerly so vast? The Address presented by Convocation prayed for the erection of only three new dioceses—Bodmin or Truro, Southwark and St. Albans—a plan of most moderate dimensions when the great spiritual necessities of the country were taken into consideration. A great anxiety on the subject existed in the districts themselves, and the document which had been entrusted to the noble Lord was signed by persons varying very much in some of their theological views, and comprised representatives of almost every shade of political opinion, and he should be very glad to see legislative provisions introduced for carrying into effect the prayer of the Petition.
§ EARL RUSSELLsaid, that as the most rev. Prelate had made an allusion to the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in that matter, he wished to observe that they had not shown themselves indifferent to the wants of the Church in respect to episcopal supervision. He might refer to the creation of the Bishoprics of Ripon and Manchester in support of his assertion. 701 There were difficulties in the matter which could not he overlooked, and which it was impossible for them altogether to control.
§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYhoped their Lordships would consider the question for a few minutes before they gave their assent to the prayer of the petition. With every respect for the episcopal bench, there was a higher and a holier interest to be considered—the high and holy interest of the mass of the people. If there was one thing more than another which the people of England believed they had a right to, it was the full development of the parochial system; and yet, except in the rural parishes, that system was at present a delusion. As far as the great towns were concerned, certainly it was not carried into effect. Their Lordships knew that the parochial system was not carried into effect owing to the want of funds, and the most strenuous efforts of the friends of the Church ought in the first instance to be devoted to supplying that great deficiency. The Committee of 1858 moved for by the Bishop of Exeter, speaking in their Report of church accommodation, and referring to the statement in the Census that 58 per cent was sufficient for the entire community, said—
Looking at the actual provision made in London, considered in the large and popular sense as the metropolis, it appears that the population being 2,362,236, and the sittings actually provided for by all denominations being only 713,561, or 29.7 per cent, no fewer than 669,514, or not much less than half of the whole number, are required to raise the sittings to 58 per cent of the population.Their Lordships knew what was being done in London to extend the parochial system, and there was scarcely a diocess in the kingdom in which some such efforts were not made. For instance, in the diocese of Rochester, it is so stated in an appeal now in circulation, out of 601 benefices, 128 were without a residence for the pastor, and 181 yielded an income of less than £200. Under these circumstances he deprecated any proposal for taking from the Episcopal Fund in the hands of the Commissioners money for the proposed new bishoprics.
§ LORD LYTTELTONexplained that he had not advocated practically the taking of the necessary money from the fund alluded to by the noble Earl, though it might be his own private opinion that the money ought to come from that source.
§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he had a right to comment on the proposi- 702 tion, even though the noble Lord had not actually called upon the House to adopt it. He would ask their Lordships to bear in mind the private efforts which were being made for the extension of the parochial system. There was the Church Pastoral Aid Society, for the appointment and payment of additional curates in populous parishes, which Society raised with difficulty £40,000 a year. There was the Curates' Aid Society, having the same object in view, and raising about the same amount annually. He ventured to say that there was scarcely a day on which each of their Lordships did not receive one or more letters applying for assistance to Churches. Their Lorpships were aware of the judicious exertions being made by the Bishop of London and the Bishop of Winchester to meet the spiritual destitution of their respective diocesses. Other right rev. Prelates were working in the same direction; but he believed that it would be with difficulty, if at all, they would succeed in raising the necessary amount from private bounty. He remembered Bishop Blomfield saying that he wanted for London alone 250 additional clergy, which, at £200 a year for each, would require an outlay of £50,000 annually. And surely 1,000 additional clergy would be wanted for the Provinces, a demand which, at the same rate, would amount in the whole to £250,000 a year-He would direct their Lordships' attention to a passage in the fourth Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. It was in these words—
That the property and revenues to be vested in and paid to the said Commissioners, under these propositions, be (after a due consideration of the wants and circumstances of the place in which they accrue) applied, except as herein specified, to the purpose of making additional provision for the cure of souls in parishes where such assistance is most required.He would admit, but only for sake of argument, that the episcopal service was insufficient. Better it should be so than that the parochial service should be insufficient. If they could not have an increased episcopacy without spiritual destitution, let them not have it. The late Archbishop of Canterbury had said that he should not be satisfied till he had a fold for every sheep, and a shepherd for every fold. He thought his Grace was right; and he now protested against this petition for an extension of the Episcopacy at the expense of the parochial system.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDgave the noble Earl who had just sat down (the Earl of Shaftesbury) credit for the purest motives in the conclusion to which he had come on this subject, and he agreed with him that this question was to be considered with reference to what was for the benefit of the whole of the people. The noble Bail seemed to represent that the petition had been brought forward in the interest of the episcopal order; but that order existed only for the benefit of the mass of the people, and consequently it might be that, in consenting to the increase of the episcopacy, their Lordships would be promoting the interests of the poor and of the mass of the people. Therefore an assertion that their Lordships ought to have regard to the wants of the people was no argument, because the noble Earl must go one step further, and show that by concurring in the prayer of the petition they would not be promoting the interests of the mass of the people, in the most efficient way of doing so. Taking the main question on the lowest ground—for he thought that, in a great country like this, the ground on which the noble Earl had argued it was the lowest—so far from thinking that the establishment of these three new episcopates would draw away one farthing from parochial purposes, it was his opinion that nothing would do so much to stimulate exertion in that direction as this moderate increase in the episcopal order. The experience of our colonies and our experience at home supported his view. The Bishop having charge of an entire diocess could bring the wants of the parishes home to the holders of property and capital in a way which the clergyman of a particular parish could not. If there had not been a Bishop of London, they would not have had the Bishop of London's Fund. The same might be said in respect of the Bishop of Winchester and other members of the Episcopal body. Where would these funds have been if there had been no Bishop to urge and superintend the collection of the money? That, however, was, as he had already observed, arguing the question on the lowest ground; but if they could show that there were large districts of the country which were not sufficiently supplied with Episcopal overlooking, they might say they wanted, by increasing the Bishops, to increase the shepherds under them, and the folds under the shepherds. The efficiency of diocesan management did not depend 704 merely on the multiplication of clergy or of churches, important as were these elements of success. It depended more on the spirit in which the parishes were worked, in which the pulpits were filled, in which the cottages were visited; and it is the Bishop who must be the main instrument in encouraging the zealous, in stirring up the faint-hearted, in animating the despondent—he must be to his clergy the example and the mainspring of holy living and dying for the people committed to their care. He believed, therefore, that it would be good and not bad economy if they diverted, not public bounty, but some of the money derived from the Episcopal estates, and founded with it the mother centre of future parishes, instead of devoting it to the parishes themselves. But he would argue the matter upon another ground. When he beheld the constantly growing wealth of Great Britain, when he heard the increase, as he recently had done, reckoned by millions by an eminent capitalist, and when he added thereto his conviction that deep in the hearts of this mighty and wealthy people was the love of their God and their religion, he could not believe that if an appeal were rightly made the necessary funds would be wanting. If he understood his remarks aright his most rev. Brother stated that he would be satisfied if the Government would give an assurance that if private beneficence removed any difficulty with regard to the funds no opposition with respect to the erection of those sees should be encountered in other quarters. He would remind the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) in respect to the cases to which he had referred that the aspect of things had greatly changed of late years, and that if the offer were repeated he believed it would now be received in a different spirit. He could not help referring, before he sat down, to an allusion which fell from his noble Friend who presented the petition with reference to the pamphlet published in his diocess many years ago, and in a moment of haste. If he did not refer to that allusion it might possibly convey to the public a false impression, and give pain to a most excellent man. He might safely say that he had not in the whole of his diocess a layman who worked with him more heartily or more cordially than the writer of the pamphlet, nor any one who interested himself more sincerely in the lay machinery of the diocess. He must, in conclusion, express a hope that the Government would 705 receive with sympathy and give their consideration to any proposal which might be made with reference to this subject.
§ THE EARL OF CHICHESTERexpressed his belief that a moderate extension of the episcopate would be in every way desirable.
§ THE EARL OF HARROWBYalso believed that a strong case had been made out for a moderate increase of the episcopate. It should be remembered that the powers of the Episcopal Bench had been much curtailed by law, and that it was chiefly by their personal influence that its members exercised authority. He thought it would oven be advantageous if their legal powers were somewhat increased, because according to the present state of the law a parochial clergyman could, if he wished, act in conformity with doctrines not warranted by the Church of England, without the bishop of his diocese being able to interfere. The enormous increase which had of late years taken place in the work imposed upon bishops naturally called for an increase of their number. It was only by personal communication with his clergy and the people of his diocese generally that a bishop could make his influence fully felt; and that communication would be impossible if his jurisdiction extended over vast and densely populated districts. It was therefore desirable that the personal influence of the members of the Episcopal Bench should be increased by the area of their dioceses being curtailed. He could not but hope, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government would give their best and most favourable consideration to any proposal which might be made in this direction; believing as he did that a moderate extension of the episcopate would tend to promote the welfare of the Church.
§ Petition read, and ordered to lie on the table.