Lords Sitting of 20 May 1867

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod appointed.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Bunhill Fields Burial Ground* (105).
Committee—Increase of the Episcopate (96); Customs and Inland Revenue* (93); Fortifications (Provision for Expenses) (84).
Report—Office of Judge in the Admiralty Divorce and Probate Courts* (102); Customs and Inland Revenue* (93); Fortifications (Provision for Expenses) (84).

THE COLONIAL CHURCH.—QUESTION.
Lord LYTTELTONhaving put a Question,
THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAMwas understood to say that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill dealing with some of the questions affecting the Colonial Church during the
762
present Session; but that as a Conference of all the Bishops was to be held in a short time at Lambeth it was not intended at the present moment to deal as largely with the subject as would otherwise have been done.

INCREASE OF THE EPISCOPATE BILL.
(The Lord Lyttelton.)
INCREASE OF THE EPISCOPATE BILL.

  (NO. 96.) COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, that whe the Bill was before the House on the last occasion, he was not aware of a circumstance which went far to strengthen his case. That circumstance was that, on the 21st of February, 1865, the following Resolution was unanimously agreed to by both Houses of Convocation of the Province of York:—
  "That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to take into Her Royal consideration the need which exists, from the vast increase of the population of England, for an increase in the English Episcopate, and humbly to submit that there should be constituted three additional Sees—two in the Province of Canterbury—namely, at Southwark and at Bodmin or Truro; and one in the Province of York—namely, at Southwell."
  When the Report upon the Bill was brought up, he should again raise the question of the income of the new Bishops, upon which he had been defeated on a previous occasion by a majority of 1 only, and he was not sure that all the noble Lords who voted knew what they were voting about.
  House again in Committee.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, that as far as he was aware, the only point in the Bill that remained for consideration was the last clause, upon which two Amendments had been proposed—one by a right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford), and the other by the most rev. Primate. In his opinion, the clause might well be passed as it stood; but as he was anxious to pass the Bill, he should be willing to accept either of the alterations proposed.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, that having found great difference of opinion to prevail among his right rev. Brethren with regard to the Amendment he was about to propose, he should be glad if his noble Friend (Lord Lyttelton) would allow the question to be postponed. He might, perhaps, bring forward his Amendment upon the Report; but he required further time to confer with the Bishops upon the subject.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he was glad to hear the most rev. Primate propose the postponement of the Amendment, which appeared to him to be open to grave objection, inasmuch as it would give every Bishop the power of appointing a suffragan to assist him, instead of their being appointed only in case of age or infirmity. He desired to see a moderate increase of the Episcopate; but he believed the proposal of the most rev. Primate would be fatal to the Bill.
  LORD PORTMANconcurred in the suggestion for postponing the question until a future occasion, seeing that it was one which required a very great deal of care in its consideration.
  EARL STANHOPEwished to know whether it was intended that the suffragan Bishop on his appointment was to have full and entire authority in the see. If that were so, he asked in what respect would this arrangement differ from the appointment of the Bishop of a diocese, and what possible motive could there be for continuing the Bishop if the whole of the episcopal functions were performed by another person? If, on the other hand, the suffragan was to exercise co-ordinate authority with the Bishop, and was not to supersede the authority of the Bishop, he wished to know which was to prevail in the event of a difference of opinion arising between them?
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he was glad that the most rev. Primate had thought fit to postpone his Amendment, because there were various intricate matters connected with it which should be very thoroughly considered before the subject came directly under the notice of their Lordships. With regard to the question of the noble Earl (Earl Stanhope) he thought there would be no difficulty in the point to which he had alluded. According to the Act of Henry VIII. and according to the proposal of the most rev. Primate the suffragans would act under the commission of the Bishop of the diocese, and this commission would distinctly state what the functions of the suffragan were to be. There were Episcopal acts which could be as well performed by men in old age as in the vigour of youth, while, on the other hand, there were certain acts which could only be performed by men of great bodily vigour. He thought that when the Bishop was advanced in years he should be empowered to appoint some person to discharge the duties which he was unable to
  764
  perform. With regard to the other points which had been urged, he might mention that he presumed the Act which abolished pluralities would hold good in spite of the Act of Henry VIII.; and therefore he was not of opinion that there was any danger of re-establishing pluralities by the reference made in the clause to the Act of Henry VIII. The suggestion of the noble Earl at the head of the Government, with others, would receive the greatest attention from the right rev. Bench. In most cases the necessity for a suffragan would arise only where a Bishop was disabled by old age or infirmity; there were other cases, however, which might well be provided for in dealing with this question. Their Lordships were aware that the Continent of Europe was nominally under the charge of the Bishop of the metropolis. Some time ago the Southern part of the Continent was withdrawn from his superintendence by the establishment of the see of Gibraltar; but the other portions of the Continent were still supposed to be under the see of London, and the Bishop exercised a certain amount of superintendence over the chaplains of the Continent. One great difficulty had arisen in connection with this branch of duty. Of course it was impossible for the Bishop of the metropolis to hold a triennial visitation on the Continent, and the consequence was that confirmations had not been regularly performed. Arrangements had been made to meet the difficulty by taking advantage of the occasional visits of the colonial and other Bishops, and the expenses had been partly borne by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel and partly from other sources. Why should means not now be taken whereby these purposes might be more effectually attained than they had been in former years? The Act of Henry VIII, was passed by persons whose knowledge in ecclesiastical matters was not to be despised. It had received the sanction in later times, among others, of Bishop Gibson, a famous authority on ecclesiastical law, who expressed his regret that the system of acting by suffragans had been discontinued. He hoped his noble Friend would consent to give time in order that the whole subject might be carefully re-considered by the episcopal Bench before it was again submitted to their Lordships.
  EARL GREYsaid, he thought it very well worthy of consideration whether it would not be better to take the assistance

  765
  of the Deans and Archdeacons in the various dioceses in preference to the appointment of suffragan Bishops? He had ventured to draw up clauses with that view, which he ventured to recommend to their Lordships' attention. The Bishops now availed themselves very largely of the assistance of colonial Bishops who had served in the colonies and had come home. Bishop Anderson, he understood, had largely assisted the Bishop at the head of the metropolitan diocese. He thought it would be much preferable that the Deans should be constituted Assistant Bishops, and as such should perform such duties, and such duties only, as the Bishop of the see deputed to them. Whether it would be better that the House should now resume, and take up this clause again in Committee, or whether his clauses should be dealt with on the Report, he thought there was no pressure as to time, that should prevent them from dealing carefully with the whole of this important subject.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, he was very sensible of the great advantages derived from the care and attention which had been bestowed on this subject by noble Lords and right rev. Prelates. He was only anxious to consult the convenience of the House in the course which should be adopted. He hoped a day would be named when the right rev. Bench would be prepared to state what recommendation they would make for the acceptance of the House, and that no further delay would then take place.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsuggested that this clause might be omitted in the meantime, and the clauses of the noble Earl (Earl Grey) be brought up on the Report.
  EARL STANHOPEhoped his noble Friend who had charge of the Bill would consent to the Chairman reporting Progress. On the Report only one speech could be made, which on a matter of detail might not be very convenient.
  House resumed; and to be again in Committee on Monday next.

NEW PALACE YARD AND THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.—QUESTION.
LORD LYVEDENasked Her Majesty's Government, What arrangement had been made with respect to New Palace Yard and the Roads round the Houses of Parliament? It had been considered by competent judges that a broad thoroughfare
766
from Victoria Street to Westminster Bridge would have formed one of the finest streets in the metropolis; but it appeared that according to the present arrangements the thoroughfare instead of being straight would be angular, and inconvenient in every respect. He believed that the arrangement was still capable of correction, and he wished to know whether the Government would submit the plans to Parliament and the public, in order that an opinion might be expressed with respect to them? Another point to which he desired to call attention was the removal of Canning's statue, which, at the time when a subscription was raised for its erection, it was thought proper to place near the scene of that statesman's struggles, triumphs, and glories. The intention now was, he believed, that the statue should be removed to a small garden near Great George Street, where it would be completely hidden by the trees and shrubs. He was told that the statue had been shunted to suit the convenience of an underground railway. He did not see how a statue placed above ground could interfere with a railway underground. He thought that the statue, of such a statesman should not be removed from the site where it had been saluted by the passers by for forty years without some good reason.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that in the matter referred to the present Government were merely carrying out the plans of their predecessors, for which a Vote had been taken in the other House of Parliament. He did not see that those plans when carried out would interfere with the approaches to Westminster Bridge. At present, persons passing from Victoria Street to the Houses of Parliament had to go along two sides of a triangle, and that inconvenience would be obviated by the alterations now being made. The new street would have a broad footway, and at one end would stand Canning's statue, in a most conspicuous position, and at the other the statue of the late Sir Robert Peel. Both would be quite as open to public observation as Canning's statue hitherto had been. He believed that the alteration would not only effect a great convenience, but would also be a great public improvement, and it was absolutely impossible now to make any alterations in plans which had already received the sanction of Parliament.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, he could not understand how it would be possible to

767
make a straight street from Victoria Street to Westminster Bridge.

FORTIFICATIONS (PROVISION FOR EXPENSES BILL.—(The Earl of Longford.)

  (NO. 84.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  LORD PORTMANobserved, that the fortifications in the Bristol Channel did not appear to be making any progress.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDwas understood to say, that some difficulty had arisen in carrying out one of the contracts; but he hoped that arrangements would be made by which the works would be resumed.
  EARL GREYsaid, that Parliament was guilty of extraordinary inconsistency in passing this Bill. The fortifications were being provided for by borrowed money, and at the same time the House of Commons was trying to reduce the National Debt by means of terminable annuities. The simplest way of paying the Debt was to keep the expenditure within the income, and to apply any surplus to the reduction of the Debt; but to have an elaborate scheme to tie up the hands of Parliament by creating terminable annuities, and at the same time to create new Debt by borrowing money, was a great inconsistency.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, that the money required for carrying out these works had been already voted by the other House.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3a To-morrow.

  OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS AND OFFICE OF THE GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD.
  Select Committee on, appointed: The Lords following were named of the Committee:

  Ld. Chancellor

  V. Sydney

  Ld. President

  V. Eversley

  Ld. Privy Seal

  L. Colville of Culross

  D. Richmond

  L. Ponsonby

  M. Salisbury

  L. Foley

  M. Bath

  L. Redesdale

  Ld. Steward

  L. Colchester

  E. Devon

  L. Wynford

  E. Carnarvon

  L. Stanley of Alderley

  E. Chichester

  L. Cranworth.

  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.