HL Deb 22 April 1869 vol 195 cc1329-51

Order of the Day for the Second Heading, read.

LORD LYTTELTON,

in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that there being a new Parliament and a new Government, he had consented once more to raise this question, though it would easily be believed that he wished some one else had undertaken the task, having failed so often in the attempt that his appearance seemed an emblem and symbol of failure. The measure was substantially the same as that which he had introduced in previous Sessions on the same subject, but was somewhat simpler in its provisions. He had been termed an enthusiast in this matter; but he had no desire to be particularly enthusiastic on this or any other subject, and he had always argued it, not on any grounds of enthusiasm, but as a simple question of arithmetic and common sense. He had seen it urged that, whatever the state of the Episcopate might be, the Church and society would accommodate themselves to it; and no doubt they would do so, just as a man might accommodate himself to the loss of an arm or a leg; but according to an old saying, the prejudice was in favour of two, and so there surely ought to be some proportion between the numbers of the Bishops and those of the population. This Bill was analogous to existing enactments for the subdivision of parishes, for it provided a self-acting machinery by which, under proper regulations, sees might be divided; and he had received a letter from the Bishop of Lincoln, who, being the junior Prelate, had not at present a seat in the House, expressing an earnest desire that it might become law, his own diocese being far too large to be properly administered; and he said that, having travelled over the whole of that large comity, he had heard but one regret and one desire expressed—regret that the Bill of 1867 had not passed into law, and desire that the Bill of 1869 should become law. He did not himself care much for the details so long as the substantial object of increasing the number of sees was attained, and in framing the measure he had sought to conciliate differences of opinion and to give it the best chance of being passed. He had omitted the long Preamble reciting the testimony of various Ministers of the Crown and of Royal Commissions to the fact that an increase of the Episcopate was required, and the main provision was one empowering the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to prepare schemes for the division of dioceses on their avoidance, or previously with the consent of the respective Bishops, and for the union of portions of several dioceses into a new diocese, and to provide, if they thought proper, a capitular body. Any such scheme must be approved by Her Majesty in Council, and must be laid on the table of both Houses of Parliament, the disapproval of either House within a given time being fatal to it. Short, therefore, of requiring a distinct enactment for every scheme of the kind, no more effective safeguards could be devised. As to the endowment of the new sees, he proposed that it should be raised entirely by voluntary contributions. He thought it, indeed, the merest superstition to maintain that this was not a reasonable charge on the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; but he was bound to consider the shape in which the Bill would have the best chance of success, and he knew it could not pass with such a provision. Considering too the enormous wealth of the country, which, according to his noble Friend (Lord Overstone), was increasing at the rate of at least £100,000,000 a year, he thought it in itself most reasonable and most according to primitive example that this wealth should be first appealed to for the supply of the necessary funds. He admitted, indeed, that unless the people of Cornwall or any other county wore prepared to bear the expense, they did not deserve to have an additional Bishop. It was well known that some years ago a clergyman offered the whole income of a parish in Cornwall, amounting to about £1,600 a year, towards the creation of a new see; but, unfortunately, the opportunity was lost, and that liberal gentle- man, engaging in speculation, lost a great part of his property. This instance, however, was a specimen of what might be done by voluntary contributions; and the amount required was really not very large. It was sometimes suggested that if a bishopric was divided, the income should be divided also; but this was an entire fallacy. It was assumed that a Bishop did his utmost, and his income was not too much according to the work he could get through; but, in some of the dioceses, the work was much more than a Bishop could possibly perform. On a former occasion it was proposed that the smallest income of the existing dioceses should be the minimum for the new sees; but, on consideration, he thought it expedient to depart from that principle, partly because of the difficulty there would be in raising so large a sum, and partly because he saw no necessity for it. The social, political, or ecclesiastical position of Bishops did not depend on their financial position; their incomes always had differed very much, formerly much more than now, and his proposal was to fix the minimum at £2,500 per annum. Considering the possibility of future augmentation from further contributions, and of persons of private means being appointed, he believed this arrangement would work very fairly. He should not, however, insist on this or any other point of detail. Warned by experience, he had not introduced the question of suffragan Bishops; for though this step would partly answer the same object, that of increasing the working power of the Episcopate, it was a difficult question, and ought to be handled separately. Overworked Bishops, no doubt, required suffragans, and the present state of certain sees in the South of England, the Bishops of which were wholly or partially disabled, was much to be deplored; but no provision for the appointment of suffragan Bishops would meet the case of overgrown and populous dioceses. With regard to seats in Parliament, he proposed that the number of Bishops sitting in the House should not be increased, but that the principle of rotation should be extended to the increased number of Bishops. He did not attach much weight to the objection against the temporary exclusion of some Bishops from Parliament, and against an inequality of income based on what he might call the "hush" argument. When an alteration was proposed in any old institution people sometimes said—"Hush! you had better say nothing about it. The institution is rotten, but it may last our time if left alone. If you say anything about it it will tumble down." On this ground it was feared that, if some of the Bishops were excluded from Parliament, all would be excluded, and that, if some had only £2,500 a year, all would be reduced to that sum. Now, if this argument was well founded, he should think it idle to attempt to maintain the present system. No institution in these days could or ought to last unless it would bear free discussion. But he did not share those fears, and he believed that the system of Bishops sitting in Parliament worked very well, and that the country was well content that it should continue, if it were but for the common-sense view of Paley, that it was only an equivalent for the exclusion of the clergy from the House of Commons. At any rate, he could not see that the system would be prejudiced by the rotation principle being extended to the new sees. Their Lordships would remember that, in 1867, the House of Commons decided that the Bishops to be created under the Bill should not sit in the House of Lords, and that under the direction of the then Archbishop of Canterbury, this House disagreed with the Amendment; the result being that the Bill fell through. Should the House of Commons pursue the same course on this occasion, he trusted that the Bill would come back to their Lordships at an earlier period than was the case in 1867, when, it being near the end of the Session, there was a thin attendance, and the House, under those circumstances, guided by the right rev. Bench, thought it undesirable to reverse their former decision. He trusted that, if the two Houses again differed on this point, their Lordships would hesitate before they allowed the Bill to fall through on that single ground. He hoped no objection would be offered to the Bill at the present stage.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Lyttelton.)

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

My Lords, I have to thank the noble Lord for his courtesy in postponing the Bill last week. I must, however, re- mark that I was obliged to request the postponement, from the fact that no Member of the Episcopal Bench had been consulted as to the details of the Bill; and I cannot help thinking that, if we had been consulted, some of the difficulties in the way of it might have been removed. I cannot say that I can give the Bill a hearty support; for though I grant that an evil exists, I do not feel that it exists to the full extent that has been stated, and I do not quite feel that this measure meets the evil that does exist in the best possible manner. The evil is, that there is no efficient episcopal superintendence for some of the large populations. When I had the honour of presiding over the diocese of London, I was instrumental in carrying a Bill which transferred from London to the see of Rochester a population of 300,000, and also in arresting the operation of an Act, passed twelve or fifteen years previously, whereby, at the next vacancy in the see of Winchester, the diocese of London would have been increased by about 500,000 additional souls. Now, though rejoicing that the see of London was saved from such an overwhelming responsibility as must have devolved upon it had not that change been made, it was impossible not to see that there remained an enormous population for that diocese, and that the dioceses of Rochester and Winchester were becoming too large for the management of a single Bishop. Hence it has, I think, been for a long time the opinion of the Episcopal Bench that Earl Russell was right in stating, now many years ago, that it was desirable to erect several additional sees. At the time of the foundation of the see of Manchester the proposal, I think, was that four additional sees should be created; and the subject has since been discussed both in this House and by a Select Committee, on which I had the honour to sit; the opinion as well of the House as of the Committee being that some increase of the Episcopate was necessary to meet the vast increase of population. I believe, too, that I am right in saying that the clergy, represented by the two Houses of Convocation, have expressed their opinion that additional sees should be created. I can speak of my own feeling with regard to a new diocese in the immediate neighbourhood of London, and I am ready to accept the testimony of others better informed than myself as to a division of Exeter and Lincoln. I am convinced, however, and so, I think, are most of my Brethren, that an indefinite extension of the Episcopate is not desirable. Now, there is something indefinite in the proposal of the noble Lord. Supposing his Bill to take effect a great number of sees might be created, thereby doing no particular good; while, on the other hand, there is the possibility that no sees whatever may be created. If successful it goes beyond what is required; if not successful, it does nothing at all. To trust to the chapter of accidents or to voluntary contributions to remedy an acknowledged evil is hardly the way in which Parliament should deal with this important question. I am also of opinion that there is a difficulty in the way of creating two different sets of Bishops. We had much discussion on that point in 1867, and the difficulties then suggested have not, I think, been removed by the provisions of this Bill. I should have preferred to limit the number of new Bishops to the number really required, and to take some steps by which we should have an assurance that those required would be really secured. Another difficulty attaches to voluntary contributions. It is of the utmost importance, in a constitutional point of view, that the nomination should remain in the hands of the Crown—and of course the noble Lord does not propose to place the nomination in other hands; but if a person conies forward with a gift of £60,000 or £70,000 for the creation of a new see, must he not exercise a great deal of influence, at any rate, in the first instance, in the nomination to that see? The case of colonial Bishops has often been appealed to: they are created at much less expense, and yet my experience as to the first appointment to colonial sees has been that, in almost every instance, the persons who were the movers in the creation of the bishoprics were the real patrons, in whatever hands the nominal patronage rested. That is one of the difficulties which prevent my giving so hearty a support to the Bill as I should have wished. I do not feel that the noble Lord has sufficiently grappled with the subject, and that there are other modes of meeting the evil before us. The House of Commons, in 1867, rejected the proposal that money should be taken from the common fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the creation of new sees, and perhaps they would again take the same view; but I do not think full consideration has been given to the question whether funds might not be found from cathedral revenues for the creation of a certain number of new sees. The noble Lord, however, has come forward in an honest and straightforward way, and proposed a plan, and as nobody else has proposed one, and as we are all agreed that an evil exists and should be remedied, I can offer no objection to the second reading of the Bill, though I should certainly desire Amendments to be made in it in Committee.

LORD PORTMAN moved that the Bill be read the second time that day three months. The subject was too important to be dealt with by a private Member of their Lordships' House—if an increase of the Episcopate be desirable it should be taken up either by the Bench of Bishops or the Government; but he thought by the latter, because they would be able to say where the funds should come from, and. ensure the operation of the scheme. He objected to the establishment of subscription Bishops, on the ground that it would be injurious to the Church of England, believing, as he did, that endowment was the best mode of maintaining an Established Church. He objected to the scheme in the Bill, because these Bishops would, in turn, become Peers of Parliament, created by subscription, without the creation by the Sovereign. He objected, also, because these Bishops would infallibly be partizan Bishops, as, in these days of division in the Church, the subscriptions would be given for the purpose of obtaining a Bishop in unison with the special views of the subscribers. He could not consent to the establishment of two different classes of Bishops, and ask the House to agree to the creation of new Bishops to be paid an income of £2,500 per annum to be raised by subscription. He did not believe that any Bishop could perform the duties of his diocese and sit as a Peer in that House upon that income. In conclusion, he asked their Lordships not to affirm the propositions in the Bill of his noble Friend; and in order to afford them the opportunity of expressing that opinion he moved that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.

Amendment moved, to leave out ("now,") and insert ("this day three months.")—(The Lord Portman.)

THE EARL OF CARNARVON

I am surprised that the noble Lord (Lord Portman) should object so strongly to subscription Bishops, for there is not a single colonial bishopric which has not been endowed or supported by subscriptions, and, indeed, not a bishopric in the Christian Church which has not at some time or other been so supported. It was with deep regret I heard the most rev. Primate state that he could not give a hearty encouragement to this measure, for it must always be your Lordships' wish in ecclesiastical matters to be very much guided by him, both on his own account, and on account of the high position he holds. I must frankly confess, however, that I cannot quite agree with the arguments he used. The most rev. Primate deprecated an indefinite extension of the Episcopate. Now, my fear is that a measure, guarded with such restrictions and conditions hard to satisfy, must prove nugatory. The endowment, moreover, is to be a voluntary one; and it is quite clear that at the present day persons will think twice before subscribing very large sums for ecclesiastical or educational endowments. The sum required, too, is not less than £2,500 a year, in addition to which an episcopal residence has to be provided, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are empowered to provide for the appointment of a dean and chapter. All this expense is an obstacle to the success of the Bill; and any scheme is to be framed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to be then submitted to Her Majesty in Council, and, lastly, to be subject to the veto of either House of Parliament. Whether the new Bishops should sit in this House by rotation or not is a point of detail on which my noble Friend said he would not insist, and as the Bill now contains no provision as to coadjutor Bishops, and as no question is raised of retiring pensions, the simple question is, whether Parliament will give the power of dividing overgrown and enormous dioceses, by voluntary endowments costing the nation nothing. England has been vastly increasing in population, in wealth, and in everything that taxes the resources and strength of the Episcopate, while Bishops have not increased in number absolutely, and relatively have greatly diminished. Look at the condition of the South of England at this moment, owing to the unfortunate circumstances of three, if not four, of its Bishops. The Church of England is suffering from an evil from which no other religious denomination in the country is required to suffer. Bishops are officers essential to her organization, yet you deny her that number which she affirms to be necessary; while, with the utmost inconsistency, the country insists upon the Bishops getting through their work. It is like asking them to make bricks without straw. You require them to do their work; yet refuse them the materials with which alone the work can be done. It is as if, in the large towns, you were to keep to the old parochial system, and insist on a single parish church as sufficient for the wants of the population. You have been enforced there to enlarge your machinery by means of the voluntary subscription—to which so much exception is taken—and the result has astonished everybody, and has advanced the interests of the Church in a wonderful degree. Even if Bishops were the mere ornamental fringes, so to speak, of the Establishment it might be a different matter; but if you look at the duties they have to perform—if you look upon them as confirming, as ordaining, as preaching in the Churches in their dioceses, as giving counsel to their clergy by word and letter on every conceivable subject on which their advice is required; if, further, you consider that they ought to know personally the clergy and principal laymen, and to give counsel to the laity on all points on which the laity naturally turn to them—if you consider all this, and yet limit them to the existing number, you are imposing on them an impracticable and impossible task. More than one opportunity of increasing the number of sees has been neglected. A chance of endowing a bishopric for Corn-wall has gone by, and if this Bill is thrown out or shelved other such opportunities may be irretrievably lost; but I, for one, will not share the responsiblity of thwarting a measure which, though imperfect, and dealing only with part of the question, deals with a very vital and essential part of it, and from which, if passed, I anticipate most useful results.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

My Lords, if anyone entering the House this evening entertained a doubt as to the future of the Church of England the speech of the noble Lord (Lord Lyttelton) would have gone far to dispel such an impression. At the same time I am obliged to demur to some of the hopes which he held out before us so pleasantly. He looks forward to the creation of five of six bishoprics; but let us consider what probability there is that this Bill will do any useful service in supplying a great and pressing need. It will, I think, be admitted that something like £70,000 or £80,000 would be required to endow one of these sees, with the addition of a house of residence, and it is also contemplated that there should be the complete apparatus of a dean, canons, minor canons, and other more humble officials. I should not be extravagant if I suppose that nearly double the sum I have named would be required for the complete equipment of a diocese. I admit that all this machinery is not absolutely required, but it is within the compass of the Bill, and therefore within the hopes of the noble Lord. To equip a single diocese, and put it on the same footing as the others would require, then, about £150,000. Now, I do not think that the laity of the Church of England will be ready to come forward and subscribe any such amount for such an object. No doubt the laity of the Church of England have been extremely liberal—beyond what we could have expected or hoped; that is to say, they have given to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, since 1854, an amount always increasing up to 1867, and ranging somewhat over £250,000 a year. But the barometer in Whitehall Place experienced in 1868, a sudden fall, which denoted the approach of stormy weather. The sum offered, in 1868, was less by £80,000 than that given in the year previous. Now, I do not share in the apprehensions which that fact represents, but nobody can doubt that this falling-off in the amount given is due to a want of confidence on the part of the public in the stability of endowments. I do not share that impression to the same extent; but the feeling of the public was fairly represented by that reduction in the amount of grants. During the most prosperous year, how- ever, and during the time when the laity of the Church were most liberal towards the parishes, we heard little talk of any offers for the purpose of founding a bishopric. In the diocese of Lincoln, I believe, the late Bishop, who is now here among us, finding that the Bishop was enormously overcharged with work, took pains to ascertain the state of public feeling there, and he came to the conclusion that there was no disposition on the part of the laity to establish a second bishopric by voluntary subscription. My, Lords, I believe that the Bill before us, if passed, will be quite inoperative. Judging by the facts I have just mentioned, and by what I hear on all sides, I believe that no one will contribute these large sums for the purpose of founding a bishopric. Bear in mind that the large endowments of a bishopric would, in the case of any change, be likely to be the first affected by it. The humble parish might happen to be spared, but the large endowments of the bishopric certainly would not. Therefore, I believe, that the public will hold its hand, and, for the present at least, will do nothing. But if the Bill proves inoperative, it will be worse than inoperative. It has been admitted over and over again that there is a real need, and that in this country several dioceses, of which Lincoln is one, have grown beyond the compass of one man's labours; yet we are about to pass a measure, which, as I maintain, will do nothing at all, and which, however favourably you may view it, is not certain to do anything towards satisfying this need. While, therefore, it really does nothing, it will enable us to sit down, and say—"We have passed a measure; let us wait and see how it may happen to work." For this reason I am unable to regard the measure with much favour. It has been said by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon) that the most rev. Prelate who spoke before me anticipated an indefinite increase of the Episcopate; but the most rev. Prelate said nothing of the kind. He said it would either lead to an indefinite increase of the Episcopate or to no increase at all; he argued upon both suppositions; and it must not be supposed that I differ from him when I say that, in my opinion, not one bishopric will be founded under the Bill. It has been said by the noble Earl who spoke last (the Earl of Carnarvon) that the state of the southern dioceses shows that this Bill ought to pass. Now, the state of the southern dioceses has been the subject of some comment—and I, for my part, wish to speak very tenderly, on the one hand, of those who have, in the course of nature, become too infirm to exercise that vigilance of eye and vigour of mind which once they displayed; and, on the other hand, of those who, struck down by disease in the prime of life, are compelled, for a time at least, to desist from their labours. I am not going into that question; but let me ask the noble Earl how it comes within the four corners of this Bill to relieve the southern dioceses?

THE EARL OF CARNARVON

The most rev. Prelate must allow me to say that I never used the argument which he now is putting into my mouth. In alluding to the overgrown state of certain dioceses I merely observed, in passing, upon the position of the southern dioceses, which, I said, was one of the causes which I deeply deplored.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

Well, I will treat that argument as though the noble Earl had not used it; but I say that, whoever uses it, the Bill would do nothing whatever to remedy the need which exists in the southern dioceses. If a Bishop breaks down and can no longer administer the affairs of his diocese, how is that state of things provided for by the Bill we are speaking of to-night? The question is, how are we to meet the difficulty arising from the want of additional Bishops? The need exists—a need not, perhaps, often Bishops, but of three, or it may be of more. Now, I submit that any Bill which professes to supply this want must do so by showing us a certain prospect of obtaining the necessary funds, from some quarter or the other. My own belief is that if you leave the present sees untouched within the Church of England, there is only one source from which the funds can come, and that is from the deans and chapters. Unless the laws that regulate cathedrals are much improved, it would be of no advantage to increase their numbers. If we were to have ten new Bishops, there would be a clear gain to the Church of England; but if we had ten new deans and chapters, the gain would be small, unless you had some means of enforcing residence. Upon this point Clause 4 in the Bill is very cautiously worded. It speaks of "residence, if any;" so that, whereas the canons must now reside three months, the noble Earl seems to contemplate as possible a state of things under which canons need not reside at all. Now, I should deplore that state of things. What is the theory of a dean and chapter? You may take the old theory, and say it arose from the gathering together of the clergy of the town by the Bishop, and his using them as his council in matters of difficulty and delicacy. But, how can we say that that purpose is at all served by the state of things we find now existing? The dean is there for several months in the year, but he is a distinct person with separate duties and powers. The canons are not there at all; and by your costly endowments of £6,000 or £7,000 a year you do not always secure that which you have in any parish church throughout the kingdom—the presence of at least two clergymen to celebrate public worship. By whatever theory you test the functions of deans and chapters, I think some means might be found to make their revenues more useful; and my own Convocation passed unanimously a resolution to the effect that it might be possible for one or more canonries to be used for the foundation of a suffragan Bishop, whose power should only last as long as the commission of the Bishop who first put him in motion and caused him to be consecrated. The only evil would be that you would have a few canons bearing episcopal orders, while their episcopal functions were at an end; but I should prefer some scheme of this kind, which afforded the prospect that something would be done, and in which we determined beforehand how the thing should be done, rather than trust to the caprice of promiscuous benevolence which might possibly spring up in Cornwall or in Devonshire, where it was wanted, but which, on the other hand, might not be displayed at all. I must, therefore, express my disapproval of the Bill, not because I am opposed to its object, but because I believe that that object will not be attained by such a measure.

THE DUKE OF SOMERSET

I am anxious to state very shortly the reasons which will induce me to vote against the Bill. In the first place, I do not approve of Bishops by subscription. I doubt whether the necessary funds will ever be raised; but supposing you make a Bishop, with £2,500 a year, who in his turn is to be a Peer of Parliament, you will then not only be making a Bishop by subscription, but a Peer of Parliament by subscription. Then, are these Bishops when made to be translatable or not? For many years it has been thought much better not to move Bishops from one see to another; but it would be somewhat hard if you had a Bishop in an inferior position, with £2,500 a year, to say that, if he were a distinguished man, he should never be appointed to a higher bishopric. There is another objection to the Bill, and I think it is a strong one. If you send down this Bill to "another place," I know quite well what they will say. "The House of Lords," they will say, "think that £ 2,500 a year is enough for a Bishop. Very well, then; there are plenty of revenues out of which to increase the Episcopate. Let us put together in a lump all that the Bishops have. We can immediately increase the Episcopate in an admirable manner by dividing the whole of these revenues into portions of £2,500 a year, and the House of Lords can offer no objection to such a plan because really it will be their own Bill." My Lords, I think this is a most inopportune time to go to the country for subscriptions for more Bishops. In the West of England, at all events, people would say—"There are ample revenues for Bishops all the way from Canterbury to Cornwall, and yet we have not a single efficient Bishop." Surely that was a state of things which must be looked to before the begging-box was sent round, and the country informed that the Episcopacy was in such a condition that funds must be raised for the purpose of creating new bishops. He objected to having the voluntary system applied to their case, and he was, therefore, not disposed to listen to the proposal embodied in the Bill.

EARL NELSON

said, that, although he was not entirely in favour of the Bill as it stood, he was most anxious for the second reading of the Bill. The opinions which he and others with him entertained upon this subject had not frequently, if indeed they had ever, found full expression in that House. They did not ask for the increase of the Episcopate in order to add to the out- ward glory of the Church, but only in order to add to her efficiency; and they only came to Parliament because, as the Church was an Established Church, they were bound to do so—for he believed that but for this the matter could be more easily accomplished some other way. In order to show the importance of an increase in the Episcopate, he wished to refer to two great grievances affecting the Church and her work in England, which he considered would be materially diminished by such a measure. In the first place, it was now a cause of complaint, and a just cause, that the clergy were drifting away from episcopal control; and, forgetting the lessons which history clearly taught us of the utter futility of maintaining unity by compulsion, many of their Lordships were seeking to remove that evil by putting more stringent laws upon the clergy, and drawing tighter still the Act of Uniformity. Now, he was perfeetly certain that the only real way to remove the evil was to increase the Episcopate, so that the Bishops might be able more thoroughly to enter into the work of their clergy, and to dispose of the difficult questions that frequently arose in parishes. As an illustration of what he meant, he might mention that a short time since he was staying with a clergyman who was a friend of the Bishop of the diocese, and had been appointed by him to his living. The clergyman consulted him (Earl Nelson) the first night of his stay, upon a very difficult question that had arisen from some occurrences in the parish. He naturally said, "Why do you not go to your Bishop?" But the reply was, "It is of no use; he has no time to come here and go through the case with me and sift the feelings of the people in the parish, and therefore, before I go to him, I must make up my mind what is best to be done—for what I advise he will tell me to do." Now that case seemed to show, to some extent, how if there were more Bishops they and the clergy might act more thoroughly as friends together, to the great benefit of the community under their charge. Another evil under which the Church of England laboured was the inefficiency of its work among the masses in our great towns, and he considered that every large town required a Bishop at its head in order to secure that the work should be done with completeness. He did not expect their Lordships generally to accept these views; but, feeling deeply upon the matter, he had thought it his duty to mention them to the House. If we were not an Episcopal Church, it would be a different thing; but Bishops were our only leaders, and you could not get the parochial clergy to work under each other, and thus make combined efforts against the infidelity that in great cities surrounded them. But there would be little chance of a real increase of the Episcopate until people realized that it was just as absurd for the Church to go to war against infidelity without Bishops as it would be for an army to be sent against the enemy with a deficiency of officers. He would not go into the details of the Bill, though he should be glad to do so in Committee; but as it was possible, from what had fallen from some Members of the Episcopal Bench, the Bill might not reach that stage, he might say that he objected very much to any extension of the rota system. He always, from the first, considered that this system was a great mistake, that it was unconstitutional; and, he believed, that if they waited until the see of Manchester should again have the junior Bishop, the country would not object to that see having a barony attached to it; and thus restoring the constitutional principle of baronies being attached to episcopal sees. He considered that there ought to be a very great increase of Bishops for the sake of carrying on the work of the Church, but he saw no reason why the new Bishops should not be as freely appointed to any of the other sees as the other priests of the Church.

THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL

said, that although he could not, as the noble Earl had done, give a cordial consent to the Bill, no one felt more sincerely how much the Church was indebted to the noble Lord who had brought it forward for his constant and unwearied labours with a view to promote her efficiency. He objected to the measure on the ground that it was tentative, and even something worse. In answer to the noble Earl (Earl Nelson) he must add that he should be sorry their Lordships should come to the conclusion that there were many such cases as that which he had mentioned, or that the clergy experienced any difficulty in procuring a careful investigation of matters of importance in their parishes. Speaking in the name of the whole Episcopal Bench, he thought he might safely state that, if any clergyman in a parish brought under the notice of his Bishop a question which he deemed it necessary to be inquired into, the probability is that it would be personally investigated by the Bishop within a very short time. As to the allegation that the masses in our great towns were at present deprived of that spiritual superintendence which it was so desirable they should have, and that the efficiency of the Church would be much promoted if there were in each great town a Bishop who could bring his influence to bear upon the clergy, he could only say that the Bishop of the diocese in which their Lordships were assembled had been enabled to work it most successfully, notwithstanding its immense size. It might be said that in this instance the Bishop was resident in the city; but he could point to many other places, of large size, without a resident Bishop, in which, nevertheless, the Bishop of the diocese was able to co-operate effectually and successfully with clergy and laity in bringing spiritual influence to bear on the masses of the population. It was a source of much comfort to him to be in a position to state, by way of example, that in the City of Bristol the municipal authorities and others were cordially joining with their Bishop—though that Bishop was residing thirty or forty miles off—in the endeavour to do what lay in their power in that direction. He was of opinion that there were grave objections to the formation of bishoprics dependent upon subscriptions in an old country like our own, and felt convinced that a Bishop supported upon the voluntary system would not be called to this office upon the best principle. The voluntary system was wholly unsatisfactory, and in nothing would it break down more signally than in the case of subscriptions for new Bishops. Again, he had a strong objection to a party and sectarian spirit wherever he found it, and under this Bill we should not only have Bishops on voluntary principles, but also be in danger of having Bishops on party and sectarian principles. Men of extreme opinions would endeavour most earnestly to get a portion of a suspected diocese into other and, in their judgment, better hands. Each of the two great religious parties into which the Church—it might be for its good—was now divided would strive against each other, and the result would be that, through the agency of the Bill, sectarian Bishops would be created. Some of the more recently formed religious associations had vast sums of money at their disposal, and certainly would not lose a chance of endeavouring to procure the appointment of Prelates who would take their side in ecclesiastical matters; and it must be clear that, though the actual appointment would be in the Crown, these associations as being, perhaps, to a great extent, the actual finders of the money, would commonly carry their point. He was afraid he had spoken very openly and frankly, but he had deemed it right to set forth the reasons which prevented his giving a cordial support to the measure. He acknowledged that some of the dioceses in the South-west of England were crying out for help. The need was indeed extremely pressing, and he trusted their Lordships would turn their attention to it. He trusted, however, that the Church of England would be spared the infliction of either subscription, voluntary system, or party Bishops.

EARL STANHOPE

I do not care to carry any further the arguments which your Lordships have heard in support of the principles of the Bill—my object in rising is to make a personal appeal to the noble Lord (Lord Lyttelton) who has introduced the measure. I think it must have struck him and your Lordships, as this debate has proceeded, that there has been a very general wish that the object of increasing the Episcopate might, under certain limitations, be carried out; while, on the other hand, not a single speaker has, I believe, addressed the House who has not raised objections to some of the details of the Bill now under consideration. One of the strongest arguments which has been directed against the Bill went to show that it is most likely to be inoperative, and that if it operates at all it will not operate in the direction which the noble. Lord desires. Under these circumstances, I think the noble Lord will not do justice to the principle of the Bill if he calls upon us to divide on the present occasion. If he does so he will, I think, mark many as objectors to the measure who, in fact, approve of the general principle he advocates, and will thus greatly damage the interests which he has at heart. It will be far better if he will consent to avoid that, apparent opposition and will yield to the strong objections which have been urged in the highest quarters to the particular details.

THE BISHOP OF LONDON

My Lords, I second the appeal which has just been made by the noble Earl; but, at the same time, I am unwilling that this debate should terminate without my having an opportunity of referring to the arguments brought forward by the noble Lord (Lord Lyttelton) in support of his Bill, which I am bound to admit is an earnest attempt to remedy an evil of which I myself have had considerable experience. I have been long connected with a diocese containing above 900 clergy, who are spread over a large extent of country which is indifferently supplied with means of intercommunication. I painfully felt that, in this diocese, it was impossible for the Bishop to hold a sufficient number of confirmations, or to keep up that acquaintance with his clergy by personal visits which is so desirable and necessary. In my present diocese, with its vast and rapidly increasing population, it is obvious that the duties of a Bishop have multiplied beyond the powers of any ordinary man. This being so, if I am asked why I cannot give a cordial assent to the Bill my answer is that it will not, in these cases, in my opinion, do any good whatever. With regard to the diocese of Lincoln, I have instituted private inquiries for the purpose of ascertaining what amount of funds was likely to be contributed by the laity for the foundation of a bishopric. The conclusion at which I have arrived is that hardly any funds would be raised for that purpose. In my present diocese the case is somewhat different. London is a very wealthy city, where money can be obtained for all objects considered of importance for the welfare of the Church, and. it might be possible to raise funds for the endowment of another bishopric, if a second bishopric were thought desirable. But I believe none of your Lordships will say that it is desirable to have two Bishops for London. It would be contrary to all precedent to have more than one Bishop in one city, and the inconvenience would be obvious; it would be almost impossible to prevent complications arising which would impede the work of the Church in the metropolis rather than advance it if there were two Bishops, one on each side of Temple Bar, governing on different principles and. having different powers and different incomes. At the same time I am grateful to the noble Lord for his attempt to relieve the great dioceses in England and their Bishops of the great evils under which they at present labour. It is true that if the diocese of Lincoln had been divided I should have had, on the whole, just as much work to do as before; but still the work would have been more concentrated and consequently more effective. Under the plan proposed by the Bill the new dioceses would be placed at a very considerable disadvantage. I do not think, however, that the Bishops themselves with smaller incomes will be worse off than those whose incomes are larger, because, in fact, our incomes are given to us in trust. We enjoy them really and truly not so much for our own advantage as for the benefit of the diocese and of the clergy; and a Bishop is entrusted with large means in order that he may be able to contribute liberally to all schemes for the advancement of the Church in his diocese. Therefore, if you take from him half his income, and relieve him at the same time of half his liabilities, he is no loser, although the diocese may be. Under this Bill there will be not only two classes of Bishops, but likewise two classes of dioceses; and is it to be supposed that the inhabitants of the new dioceses would be satisfied with that state of things? In the new dioceses there will arise another disadvantage, as has been pointed out by the noble Duke who spoke from the Benches below (the Duke of Somerset). For, it is obvious that if you have two classes of Bishops you cannot object to translations. The noble Lord, I perceive, shakes his head; but surely, if a man has done his duty carefully and conscientiously, and, if, moreover, he is a man of superior ability, you cannot say to him that, because he is placed in a bishopric of small income and lower position, he is to give up all hope of being raised to a higher and more desirable see. Consequently, if one of the less richly-endowed dioceses has the misfortune to possess a Bishop who is not a man of ability, he will re-main in that see; whereas, if the Bishop is a man of great ability, he will be removed, and the diocese exposed to the inconvenience of frequent changes. These are a few of my objections to the Bill, which, although not without some good points, is not calculated to effect the object at which it aimed, while, in all probability, it would produce considerable inconvenience.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Baron who moved the Amendment (Lord Portman) stated that a measure of this description ought to be brought in either by the right rev. Bench or by Her Majesty's Government. As regards this particular measure, Her Majesty's Government have had no opportunity of exercising any judgment on the matter, for they have not received, either from the noble Baron who introduced the Bill, or from those who are desirous of promoting it, any communication on the subject. The noble Baron who has brought forward the Bill will, I am sure, understand me to speak with the most perfect sincerity when I say that no one has more entirely at heart the object which he seems to have in view in introducing this measure than myself. No one can doubt the evil which exists; and if any of your Lordships were to walk to the other side of Westminster Bridge, and then reflect that you are in the diocese of the same Bishop who presides over Jersey and Guernsey, you would then, I think, feel, no doubt, that the diocese was of too extended an area. But what I would impress on my noble Friend is this—Finding that this Bill, brought forward with an object which he and I have in common, has so far failed to meet with the concurrence of the House in the mode by which that object is proposed to be attained—and I am far from saying that I concur myself in that mode—finding more especially that he has received from the right rev. Bench so little encouragement—or might I not rather say he has received discouragement from them?—I would ask him to consider whether, by persevering with this Bill, he may not rather tend to defeat the object that we have in common than to promote it? I would therefore entreat him to adopt the course which has been suggested to him, and not to proceed further with the measure.

LORD LYTTELTON

, in reply, declined to withdraw the Bill.

LORD CAIRNS

I was under the impression, when the noble Lord rose to reply, that he would yield to the appeal addressed to him from both sides of the House. I regret that he has not done so, because there is always a danger that a vote taken on an issue of this kind may have a tendency to mislead, and to put those who are in favour of an object so excellent as that sought by this Bill in a false position; because, by voting against this Bill, they may be supposed to be voting against the principle of an extension of the Episcopate. My objections to this Bill may be stated in a very few words. I own that I do not at all concur in the observation which has been made that this is a proposal to establish Bishops on the voluntary principle. My first objection is that the measure will be entirely inoperative. The amount of money required to constitute an endowment is so great-more especially remembering the circumstances of the time in which we live—that it would be quite impossible to obtain the requisite funds. My second objection is that I believe the Bishops appointed under a measure of this kind would at once assume a different rank and position from the other members of the right rev. Bench, and the circumstance that there would be two different classes of Bishops so treated and looked upon would be in the highest degree injurious to the interests of the Church. And, thirdly, I think that any measure, having so excellent an object in view, should be of a more general character. I cannot support the second reading of the Bill; but I wish, in the vote I am about to give, not to be supposed to be opposing that for which I am as anxious as the noble Lord—an increase of the Episcopate under proper conditions.

EARL GRANVILLE

wished to make a practical suggestion to the noble Lord (Lord Lyttelton). After the declaration which had been made on both sides of the House, and with the feeling that the noble Lord must have, that, although he might be supported by some Peers, he would be defeated by a large majority, would it not be much better that he should put himself in communication with the Episcopal Bench, and possibly also with the Government, before proceeding farther with his measure?

On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 20; Not-Contents 43: Majority 23.

Resolved in the Negative.

CONTENTS.
Hatherley, L. (L. Chancellor.) Oxford, Bp.
Churston, L.
Bath, M. Colchester, L.
Salisbury, M. Delamere, L.
Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)
Brownlow, E.
Carnarvon, E. Heytesbury, L.
Dartmouth, E. Lyttelton, L. [Teller.]
Nelson, E. [Teller.] Monck, L. (V. Monck.)
Romney, E. Redesdale, L.
Verulam, E. Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)
London, Bp.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Richmond, D. Belper, L.
Somerset, D. [Teller.] Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery)
Exeter, M. Calthorpe, L.
Lansdowne, M. Chelmsford, L.
Normanby, M. Digby, L.
Airlie, E. Foley, L.
Cadogan, E. Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)
Camperdown, E. Houghton, L.
De La Warr, E. Hylton, L.
Ducie, E. Kesteven, L.
Effingham, E. Lawrence, L.
Eldon, E. Lyveden, L.
Grey, E. Monson, L.
Lauderdale, E. Overstone, L.
Morley, E. Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
Shaftesbury, E.
Stanhope, E. Portman, L. [Teller.]
Zetland, E. Romilly, L.
Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)
Gough, V. Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)
Hawarden, V
Sidmouth, V. Suffield, L.
Sydney, V. Westbury, L.