HL Deb 23 February 1875 vol 222 cc719-37

Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.

LORD LYTTELTON

, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said: It has been my lot on more than one occasion to bring this question under the notice of your Lordships, and perhaps, therefore, I may be only expected to dwell on the circumstances which induce me to bring it forward again after the lapse of some years; but as several noble Lords whom I now address have taken their seats in the House since the occasion to which I refer, it will, I think, be more respectful of me now to address you on a few of the more important points bearing on the general question. Not that I can undertake to argue against those—those, I mean, if such there be, who are friends of the Church Establishment—who broadly oppose this measure on the ground that there is no need for any increase in the Episcopate, any more than I can argue in support of the Rule of Throe. But I say, "if such there be," for I cannot but doubt their existence. It may remind one of the opposition to church rates, which, I conceive, never could be objected to, on the general ground of justice, except with arguments which are really directed against the principle of an Established Church. Now, the general case is this. The population of this country is constantly and indefinitely increasing. No one questions that concurrently with that increase should be a corresponding increase in the number of clergy, Churches, and the other appliances of the Church below the Episcopate—along with which for the present I reckon Capitular Establishments—and that by a process self-acting in this sense, that recourse to Parliament is not needed for each particular step. Why not the same in the case of Bishops under due regulation? Why are they alone to be reckoned either, as they used to be in evil times of old, for mere ornament or routine, or, on the other hand, raised in some mysterious manner so much above the rest of the clergy as to be subject to such wholly different treatment? And now I must make every apology if I presume to speak of what I cannot well know in the presence of those who do—I mean the actual work of a Bishop. But it is of the essence of the case, and, as I have been requested by so many persons to take charge of it, I cannot wholly avoid doing so. Is it not, then, desirable—is it not what all the right rev. Prelates do as far as they are physically competent—that a Bishop should have time to be on as familiar and friendly terms as possible with his clergy? That he should have not more power and authority, but more leisure to see them in a quiet way, "drop in" casually and without the parade of preparations and dinner-parties, go about their parish with them, look into the schools and talk to the children, advise about difficulties and offer and, and be as well known in any part of the diocese as now they are necessarily to be rarely seen. And this I say without any of the feeling which some have, of dislike in itself, to seeing Bishops giving part of their time to work less precisely spiritual or diocesan. I am glad, as we all are, to see them in this House: I am glad to see them in London attending to meetings and the like, and occupied as they must be in the formal and prescribed functions of their office: I only wish to see them have more time, and ample time, for those other duties more purely spiritual and paternal, of which I spoke. So far, as a specimen of their direct personal relations with the clergy. Next, do we not know that no step in that continual development of the organization of the Church of which I have spoken can be made without an addition to the proper duties of the Bishop? Not a new church can be built, not a new district formed, of which he is not the Ordinary, and invested with new responsibilities accordingly. But I cannot stop here. I apprehend a Bishop acknowledges his proper relation to every individual, clergyman, or layman, down to the very humblest in his diocese. It is an old saying that he has the cura curœ anima-rum; and, as a matter of fact, I am sure that any of the right rev. Bench would feel bound to give his best attention to any inhabitant of his diocese who might wish to consult him, whether for spiritual counsel or any other matter suitable to his high office. Well, then, if I may now assume the need of more help for the work of the Episcopate, I presume I am bound to advert to what is sometimes alleged in qualification of this need, the appliances and improvements of modern discovery—railways, telegraphs, the penny post, and, I suppose, even post-cards. Now, I do not wish to use too strong language on any part of the case; but I must need say that this argument is beneath notice. Is it not obvious that all these things make far more work than they save? What good does it do me that I can go 100 miles much quicker than formerly if I am called on to go the 100 miles twenty times oftener than I used to be? If I get forty letters in a day to answer, is it much advantage that I have half-a-dozen posts by which to reply, and self-sealing envelopes to do it with, if I am no better able than before to decide the questions brought before me, and which used to come in much smaller numbers? Another objection to the Bill is of a different kind. Admitting that in many cases more Bishops may be wanted, it is said that the matter is so important that Parliament ought to judge of each separate case as it arises. This opinion may no doubt be fairly held, and, indeed, I do not well know how to argue against it. It is, of course, saying that nothing shall be done, for in all matters Parliament is able at any time to interfere if it pleases. I can only give the general answer which I have already done, that I conceive the whole of our Church system, not omitting the highest part of it, may properly be made capable of self-development. But one special point maybe suggested. The object, by common consent, is to be attained by voluntary effort; the endowments are to be provided or promised before the arrangements are made. But we cannot expect any one to do so for a given new See if the Act constituting that See has to pass through the ordeal of a separate transit through Parliament. The only new Sees have been those of Ripon and Manchester, and they were not provided by voluntary contributions. But it would be very different if Parliament had once, by a general measure, given its sanction to the principle, and recognized the pro- bability that such Sees may be called for, and the parties would only have to deal with such bodies as the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Privy Council, acting under the guidance of a statute. In the next place, the necessity for the Bill is questioned, because of the substitutes for additional Bishops, upon which so much light has been thrown by our proceedings of late years. Those substitutes are two, but they may both be described by the term Suffragans, or quasi-Suffragans. Episcopal duties are performed either by Suffragan Bishops properly so-called, appointed under the Act of Henry VIII., or by retired Colonial Bishops acting under licence. I desire to speak with satisfaction of both these experiments. The latter is no doubt a curious and unexpected result of the immense development of the Colonial Church. No doubt it was hardly supposed that we should see what we do; considerable numbers of Bishops who have worked in the prime of life in the tropics for 16 or 20 years—as long a time as most men's health will bear—and, when unable to continue there, returning home, and still able to work in their natural climate for many years as dignitaries, and oven as parochial ministers. It is not, however, every one who can have the good fortune of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Lichfield), who on returning homo and undertaking an English diocese, was able to bring back with him, or to attract to him, his two most intimate friends, who had worked with him at home and abroad nearly through his whole clerical career, and to establish them as his coadjutors in his Episcopate, no doubt greatly to his comfort and advantage. The revival of the Suffragan Act, too, had been a great advantage—that revival, in spite of the sneers and prophecies of failure which attended it. It might remind us of similar imagined difficulties as to two other measures of late years—the one the revival of Convocation, which was said by no less an authority than Sir Francis Palgrave to be impossible. The other was the possession of self-government by the Colonial Churches, which was fruitlessly attempted to be conferred upon them through Imperial legislation, promoted by many eminent men, such as Mr. Gladstone and Lord Westbury. In both these cases the difficulty disappeared— according to the old saying, solvitur am-bulando. Convocation did revive; and the Colonies, finding the difficulties at home insuperable, simply took the matter into their own hands and did it. And so it has been with the Suffragan Act. But as to the present question, the answer in both cases is the same. Suffragans are good, and may at any time be introduced; but they are no equivalents for Diocesan Bishops. They cannot relieve the ancient Bishop to the full, as they act under his control; and invariably the clergy are found to prefer that their own proper Bishop shall come among them. The Bishop of Lincoln, who has an excellent suffragan, Bishop Mackenzie, writes to me to this effect. He says— My dear Lord,—It is a very great disappointment indeed to me to be unable to come up and vote for the second reading of your Episcopate Bill, having an engagement for a church opening near Grantham, but I earnestly hope and believe that there is no doubt of its success. I should like to have been able to state that the system of Bishops Suffragan, which was first conceded on my petition for this diocese, though very valuable in some respects (especially for increase of confirmations), is no adequate substitute for, what you propose, the subdivision of dioceses. Perhaps you will have the kindness, if you think fit, to say this is the result of my experience of it for five years. Yours, my dear Lord, very faithfully,

"G. LINCOLN."

And now I think I have said enough on the general case, and must advert a little to the history of the question since it was last before this House. There are three grounds in that history, which seemed to warrant the re-introduction of the Bill. After it had failed the last time, the Association which exists for this object thought it would be well to attempt to procure support to the measure from below—from the parochial clergy. We did so by inquiring into their individual opinions by means of queries addressed to the Rural Deans. Some few of the right rev. Prelates found fault with us for presuming to address their servants the Rural Deans otherwise than through themselves. I cannot, however, regret having done so. The object was to obtain the independent opinions of the clergy; and it would have been said that we were bringing influence to bear upon them if we had consulted them through their superiors, the Bishops or Archdeacons. The result of this inquiry was remarkable. There are 740 rural deaneries in England and Wales. Of these, 477 have sent replies, and it may, perhaps, be assumed that those who have not replied, if not clearly in favour of the Bill, are not actually opposed to it; and of those, 468 were decidedly, for the most part unanimously, in favour of the principle of the Bill. The fact is remarkable, as exposing the vulgar notion—sometimes, I believe, entertained even by men calling themselves High Churchmen—that the clergy are jealous of their Bishops, and desire to see little of them. The next fact was, the formal assent to the Bill of the Upper House of Convocation, which we had not had before, though many Bishops had individually favoured it. The subject was referred by that House to a Committee, which reported in 1873, and on that Report was founded a Resolution of that House itself, which recommended a measure with which the present Bill is in entire accordance. The Resolution was as follows:— That we concur in the recommendation of the Cathedral Commissioners of 1852, that a general Enabling Act of the Legislature should be obtained, empowering the Queen in Council, through a scheme to he proposed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, with the consent of the Bishop, to form a new See by the division of any existing diocese; the scheme for carrying this into effect in each case being laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament for a certain period, and, if no Address against the same be carried in either House of Parliament, to become law.

The Resolution, however, was general, and did not commit those who passed it to immediate and practical approval of such a Bill. Our next step, therefore, was, under the advice of the most rev. Primate, to address each Bishop separately—knowing as we do how rarely they are able to meet in full numbers. I have here the written replies of every single Prelate, including, indeed, the bearer of an illustrious name who is still living, but whose functions in this life, it must be feared, are over—Bishop Thirlwall. And the opinions of the Bishops, with only two exceptions, are expressly favourable to the introduction of the Bill; indeed, the writers promise their support—that is, to the second reading—beyond which, of course, we can expect no one to go. And on this I will only presume to express a hope that that support will be a hearty support. I have had, on former occasions, support from certain right rev. Prelates—whether living still or not I do not say—support to which the wettest of wet blankets, the most damning of faint praise, is no unfit language to apply. I have every reason to hope for better things now. The Bishops, however, made it a very reasonable condition that the political prospects of the measure were such as to make its passing in the Session when it was introduced fairly certain. And this points to the third material circumstance to which I referred—the political changes since the Bill was last here. At that time, and when afterwards I consulted the Bishops, the Liberal Party were in power; and to fulfil the condition mentioned, it would have been requisite to obtain the consent in both Houses of the Leaders of Opposition as well as of Ministers. Now, with a strong Conservative Government, with an adequate majority in both Houses, the case is different. I do not, indeed, consider that the Liberals are at all bound to regard the Bill with less favour than the Conservatives; but still, it is a measure which must naturally, I hope, be regarded by Conservatives as one which they specially should support, and if it does not pass now I cannot imagine how it ever should. I have to thank Her Majesty's Government for the great forwardness with which, through the Prime Minister, their consent has been promised to me. I have now only to advert to some of the more material details of the Bill; and here I cannot but say, if I may be excused a bit of conceit, that if every one was as reasonable about these details as I think I am myself, I should have little fear as to the fate of the Bill. To my mind a Bishop is a Bishop; and if I can secure a due number of independent Bishops, in the full spiritual and ecclesiastical sense, for the Church, I am content to leave all details to the wisdom of Parliament and of Government to settle. Well, the first point is as to the provision of funds. I have proposed that they shall be entirely found by voluntary subscription, and in particular that the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commission shall not be touched. In itself, I think this most unreasonable. I do not go on any technical ground about the Episcopal Fund: I am content to take the very ground of those who hold that the funds of that Commission ought to go solely to the relief of spiritual destitution. I hold that it is a narrow and dim-sighted view of the subject to call it such relief when you put down a poor man, with £150 and £200 a-year, to do the best he can, single-handed, in a destitute district, and that it is not so when you found a new See. Experience both at home and in the Colonies has abundantly proved that one of the very best means of promoting the very objects commonly reckoned among the remedies to that destitution, is the provision of a due number of Bishops. But I have got to pass the Bill; and I know well enough the power of the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), and of his enormous following, to be assured that I cannot pass it other than it is in this respect. Nor do I mean that it ought to cause any difficulty. I appeal to the immense wealth of this country, and of its Churchmen, who are still the chief and the wealthiest in it; and I say that if they do not care enough for this object to be ready to pay for it—as Lord Palmerston said, "They may have a Bishop if they will pay for him"—they may go without. In this country resources to any amount are at hand for any secular object of amusement, of use, of luxury, of ornament—and surely there will be the same for such a purpose as this Bill deals with. At Manchester, quite lately, it has been proposed, without parade and without appealing to any one outside the town itself, to raise £250,000 to purchase the best site in the whole town, and another £250,000 to build there a great cathedral; and no doubt they will do it if they choose. This Bill, too, will partly work through mixed motives. There are large towns and accumulated populations in the country which see their neighbours with the advantage of an Episcopal See, and who will say, Why should not we have it as well as they? Nor need the endowment be all in money; land may be given and advowsons, as was once actually offered in Cornwall. Then I have been asked what Sees I look to founding? a question involving misapprehension of the Bill. I reply that I do not know: it is for the local parties who feel the need of a Bishop to find funds which may be thought sufficient by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, with whom it will rest to decide whether the scheme should proceed. I have only to hope that they will judge in any case according to a standard right in itself, and not on a relative comparison of one district with another. The case of Cornwall may, perhaps, he the strongest in the country. But if the Cornish people cannot or will not raise the needful funds, and the people of Norfolk can, for a second See, it would he hard on Norfolk—assuming that Norfolk is in itself a proper case—to say they should not have it because Cornwall cannot have it first, or as well. It would he as hard as to deprive Chichester or Hereford of its See, because Southwark or Southwell may want a Bishop more than they do. So about incomes. I leave that to the proper authorities. I neither desire to diminish the income of any existing See, nor do I desire to see anything like a rigid uniformity in this respect. Let it be considered according to the circumstances in each case. The next point is the one on which I the most fear difference of opinion. I mean the question of seats in Parliament. I certainly much prefer and strongly press what I have proposed, the simple extension of the present system of rotation. The main practical effect of it would, in my opinion, be absolutely good; it would enable a larger number of the Bishops to spend the early time of their Episcopate in becoming acquainted with their dioceses, instead of dancing attendance on this House, as to read prayers, in a way which I believe they have themselves very generally regretted. I desire to see all the Diocesan Bishops on a level as far as possible, instead of having two separate classes of them, as the other plan would do. As for the doctrine that they sit, not as Bishops, but by baronial tenure, I leave it to the black-letter lawyers and antiquarian authorities. The people know nothing of it; they think of the Bishops as sitting in this House as representatives of the Clerical Order, and not in any other light, and so I believe they desire to see them continue. The last detail is that of the congé d'élire. I know many persons will desire to see the existing system extended to the new Sees—I cannot pretend to share that feeling. It is at present a mere sham. If Parliament thinks fit to make it a reality they will do so; but it is not for me as a private Member of Parliament to make any such attempt, and as it now is I cannot think it worth while to call into existence the congé d'élire when it does not exist. And generally, I have not been able to attend to the many suggestions I have received, that I should engraft on the Bill various supposed amendments in our present system, such as some limitation on the free choice of the Crown in the appointment of Bishops. My belief is, that while the Church is established the appointment of all its Bishops ought to be in the Crown, as even that of Deans has been made by recent legislation. The following words are the concluding ones, and with them I also conclude, of an eloquent article in a Review now 31 years ago— The time is not far off when the tumult and triumph of our barbaric wars, and the renown of fine diplomacy, and the praise of financial skill, and the names of those who have achieved and advanced these exploits and successes of earth, shall weigh light in the hearts of the fathers and mothers of England against the names of those who shall first gain for the millions of our 'poor destitute' the long-delayed boon of one additional Bishopric.

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

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to make two or three observations. It is not my intention to oppose the Bill either on the second reading or in any of its details—though I am far from thinking it necessary or even desirable. I must plead guilty to holding still some narrow and bigoted opinions ascribed to me by my noble Friend. I still hold that the common fund must be used for the provision of the living agent and the full completion of the parochial system. The main objection I always urged against measures of this description has been taken away by the insertion of the 10th clause, which provides that— Nothing in this Act shall authorize the Commissioners to apply any portion of their common fund towards the endowment and maintenance of any Bishop, Dean and Chapter, Chapter, or other office erected or created under the provisions of this Act. That the Church Establishment is in some danger, and that it requires a good deal of succour, no one will deny; and, indeed, the noble Lord is to be thanked for the effort he is conscientiously making on its behalf. But one may fairly question whether this plan is in any degree adequate, or whether, in fact, it is in the right direction. I doubt whether the extension of the Episcopal order, with all its train of Deans and Chapters, Diocesan Courts, Registrars, Apparitors, and the like, all of which appear under the 6th clause, will give much assurance to the country. I cannot but believe that the existence of the Establishment may yet be prolonged for many years; but it must be by reforms far more wide, deep, and searching than the one here before us. Its great, and, indeed, sole purpose is the "increase of the Episcopate;" but, my Lords, the multiplication of Bishops is one thing, the multiplication of Prelates is another. I think I might venture to state that the answer of the country to an appeal for the first would be favourable; but I do not pretend to say what will be the reply to the second. But I have no opposition to offer either now or in Committee, so I shall not trouble your Lordships with any further remarks.

THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

said, he would venture, on the strength of his experience in several dioceses, to address a few words to their Lordships on this subject. While working for many years in the Diocese of Exeter, where there were two distinct populations occupying different counties, he could not help remarking the need there was for the division of the See into two distinct dioceses. Its area was far too large to be adequately dealt with by a single Bishop. As matters now stood the Bishop was 100 miles removed from the further parts of Cornwall, and consequently the people saw far less of him than was desirable; the Bishop was overworked, and in some instances the spiritual interests of the people were looked after only at the risk of great sacrifices. He afterwards presided for 10 years over the Diocese of Ely, which consisted of four counties, and there, again, he thought that another Bishop was very much needed;—the diocese compared with others was a small one, and yet it had taxed all his powers. But after going to the far larger Diocese of Winchester, he began to think he must have been unreasonable in wishing for help when in Ely. He then found out what a really large See was. Winchester included besides South London, where there was a work- ing-class population of about 1,000,000, the suburban and rural parts of Surrey, the whole of Hampshire, the Isle of Wight, and the Channel Islands almost on the Coast of Prance; the area of its surface was so immense that it was almost physically impossible to visit all its details: and within the present generation the population of the diocese had increased almost threefold. If 50 years ago there was ample work in it for a Bishop, what must be the case now? The noble Lord who had introduced the Bill—and whom he thanked most heartily for having done it—had referred to Suffragans as a means of lessening the Bishops' labours, His (the Bishop of Winchester's) experience was that a Suffragan did not in the slightest degree lessen those labours. He ventured to say that he worked as hard now as he would have to do without a Suffragan. No doubt, by having such an assistant there was more work done, but the labour of the Bishop was not thereby lessened. Moreover, as a rule, people did not care for Suffragans. What the people wanted was their own Bishop, and when they were asked whether they would wait a little, or have the services of the Suffragan, they always said they preferred to wait. This was the case in Winchester, although the Suffragan of that diocese was chosen as one who was peculiarly beloved by the population. He know it to be a common cause of complaint among the people that the occasions were so rare when they had their Bishop among them. He thought that in providing for an increase in the Episcopate care would be taken that it should be suited to the wants of the several dioceses, and that there should be no new See instituted merely because there happened to be a fine church in the district. Under the circumstances, it would be a great boon to the country to have an increase of the Episcopate such as the present Bill proposed. He hoped that their Lordships would read the Bill a second time, and make such alterations in it in Committee as they deemed to be necessary.

THE BISHOP OF EXETER

remarked that the diocese over which he presided was particularly interested in the subject-matter of this Bill, inasmuch as it required sub-division more than any other, it was the largest in area and containing the largest number of clergy; while from its unwieldy shape it was impossible for the most active Bishop properly to discharge its work. It was longer than the distance from London to Bristol. In consequence of its extreme length and from the fact of the Cathedral city being situated at one of its extremities, he had often to travel for some eight or nine hours to his work and as long home again after he had done it. In addition to that inconvenience, there was a very heavy amount of correspondence with the clergy, and this work increased faster than the facilities for communication did. Men were much more active at the present day than they used to be, and it would not be borne for the Church to be as slack as it was 17 or 18 years ago, and there was much more doing in county parishes which no one would have thought of a short time ago. He had sometimes heard it said that it was not a good thing that the Bishop should be perpetually interfering with his clergy; but in reply to that statement he must remind the House that it was from the clergy themselves that this demand for an increase of the Episcopate emanated. They felt the want of advice and support. The chief argument in favour of this measure was that it was at present impossible, owing to the pressure of work, for the Bishops to discharge their duties properly. In support of that allegation, he might say that during the first year after Ms appointment to the Diocese of Exeter he was at work every day from an early hour in the morning until a late hour at night; so much so, that when the late Government asked him to allow his name to be put upon a Commission of some importance, he was obliged to refuse on the ground that until the end of the year he had only 11 days at his disposal; and afterwards even those days were filled up. Although the pressure of work was not quite so heavy at the present time as it was formerly, it was as much as he could do to get not quite six weeks in the year for rest. The consequence of this great pressure of work was, that when the clergy came to the Bishop for his advice he was compelled to give them a hasty opinion on the spur of the moment, not having time to weigh and consider his reply. But there was a still stronger argument in favour of a division of his diocese, which was that from its extent he was unable to go to his clergy and his clergy were unable to come to him. It was quite as important that the clergy should be able to get at their Bishop as that the Bishop should be able to get at them. Whenever any of his clergy required his advice on any difficult or troublesome question, the responsibility with regard to which they were anxious not to take upon their own shoulders, they had frequently to travel 100 miles in order to see him personally. This was a very heavy tax upon their purse and their time, and the clergy felt it would be a great help to them if they could consult the Bishop upon easier terms. Beyond this, it must be remembered that a great deal of the diocesan work had to be done through united action, and it was important that the clergy should have ready means of meeting for that purpose. Thus, when the Elementary Education Act was passed, and the Government ceased to examine in religious instruction in elementary schools, a general feeling prevailed that it was the duty of the clergy to take up the work which the Government had dropped, and it was resolved to raise funds for the appointment of diocesan inspectors of religious instruction, and a committee of the clergy was appointed to control those inspectors; but it was found almost impossible for it to work on account of the extent of the diocese. If he named Exeter as the place of meeting for the committee, the clergymen of Cornwall were unable to attend; and if he named Truro, the Devon clergymen could not come; while, if he selected some middle place like Plymouth, he lost half the clergymen from each county. It was under these circumstances that a perpetual demand had arisen on the part of the clergy for the division of the diocese, in order that their work might not be hindered and that it might be better done. The noble Lord (Lord Lyttelton), in framing this measure, had taken the inevitable course in providing that the money necessary for carrying out its object should be raised by voluntary subscriptions; but he confessed that this would operate very hardly upon very poor dioceses like that of Exeter, in which it would be very difficult to raise the necessary funds, and therefore he hoped that it might not be found impossible to admit of certain modifications in the proposition of the noble Lord which would go some way towards meeting the difficulty he had indicated, without interfering with the general principle of the Bill. For instance, in cases where the income of the diocese to be divided was in excess of £4,200 a-year—the minimum sum that Bishops were to receive—the surplus might be appropriated towards the income of the new diocese to be carved out of it. The present total income of his own Diocese was £5,000, and as it was reduced to £4,200 there was £800 a-year to provide for the new Bishop. It would also be reasonable that a canonry in the cathedral of the original diocese should be assigned to the new diocese, or one large living in the gift of the Crown or of the Bishop. As regarded the voluntary principle itself as applied to this subject, he thought that it was a mistake, being satisfied that from the demands made by the clergy for the increase of the Episcopate they felt that they should be better able to perform their duties if the number of Bishops were increased, and that it would be for the sake of the efficiency of their work that new Sees should be created and properly endowed.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

My Lords, the noble Lord (Lord Lyttelton) has brought before us a very important practical question, and I should not be doing my duty if I did not, in fulfilment of the pledge I have given to him, express my hearty concurrence in the measure which he has brought forward. I am quite aware that, as the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) has said, this is but a small reform among the many which we desire to see effected in the Church of England; but I believe that the best way of promoting real practical reforms is by taking, one by one, such reforms as may be proposed to us; and, for my part, I think that this is a very important practical reform. The noble Lord referred to the manner in which members of the Episcopal Bench had dealt with his former efforts in this direction; but I may be allowed to say, on their behalf, that when the noble Lord made his previous efforts there did appear to be something unpractical in his proposed legislation. That, I believe, cannot be said on the present occasion, as many of the matters which raised discussion, and were likely to shipwreck the former efforts of the noble Lord, are now removed. The question of appealing to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, for instance, to give any portion of their common fund for the purpose in view is now out of the way, and not likely to be introduced into the debate which may occur when this Bill goes—as I hope it may—into Committee. Again, I cannot help observing what is going on around me, and the symptoms which show that there is a feeling in the community now, such as there was not then, that some effort of this kind ought to be made. It is impossible even to read the newspapers without seeing that in the large towns efforts for the extension of the Episcopate are now being made which were not made on previous occasions. I cannot doubt that your Lordships, both when this matter was previously before you and now also, were convinced of the necessity of carrying some such measure if it should be practicable. When I came to the See of London, I was called upon to consecrate what I was told within a few days of my own consecration was the 200th church built since the beginning of Bishop Blomfield's episcopate—and 200 churches are of themselves a diocese; and thus far it is clear that the efforts of Bishop Blomfield had created what was equivalent to a new diocese in the Diocese of London. My esteemed predecessor in the See of Canterbury was, as your Lordships are aware, engaged for 20 years in laboriously building up the See of Ripon, and everyone who is acquainted with the North of England knows how his labours have been crowned with success, and what a great cause of satisfaction it was to those who were interested in the spiritual welfare of that part of the country that the See which he was the means of thus building up had been called into existence. Your Lordships are, perhaps, also aware that his immediate predecessor while Bishop of Chester, with that mild wisdom for which he was remarkable, by his unhasting, but unresting zeal during the 20 years he presided over the Diocese of Chester, consecrated one church for each month of his episcopate, constituting by those 240 churches what was equivalent to a new Diocese. And the Diocese of Chester, during the time when he first laboured in it, contained what is now the new Diocese of Manchester, and a part of the present Diocese of Carlisle, My Lords, these labours show what can be done by earnest men, when they are called to exercise, as these men exercised, the office of a Bishop. And no one can doubt that when the Church of England is thus developing itself with such rapid strides, there must be a necessity for extending the governing power as well as the common pastoral power of the Church. Why, my Lords, we live in a metropolis which, when I had the honour of presiding over its spiritual concerns, was stated to increase at the rate of 40,000 souls a-year:—so that during the 12 years I presided over it, it maybe said to have grown by 480,000 persons. This alone, my Lords, shows that it is madness to sit still while the population is thus increasing, and while the demands on the Church to meet its wants are so great. I by no means think that the step taken by the late Government was an unimportant or an unpractical one when they enabled us to call in the assistance of Suffragan Bishops. I quite feel with my brother of Lincoln that the Suffragan Bishop cannot exactly do all that is done by the Diocesan Bishop; but I believe that in the case to which he alludes, it will, very probably, be found that the existence of the Suffragan has paved the way for the Diocesan. A most important step was taken in the few cases in which a Suffragan Bishop has been appointed through the exertions of the late Government. As to my own experience of a Suffragan Bishop, though the See of Canterbury is not large in relation to the diocese with which it is concerned, it has, of course, a great many other duties attached to it; and as the Church of England grows in the Colonies, continual appeals to the occupant of that See entail on him new labours; and I am of opinion that it would be impossible for any man adequately to perform the duties of Archbishop of Canterbury from this time forward without the assistance of a Suffragan Bishop. My Lords, I rejoice to think that, in my diocese, I have had the help of a Suffragan who is beloved by the clergy among whom he has laboured, and one effect of his labours among them has been very greatly to increase both my efficiency and the efficiency of the Church in the Diocese of Canterbury. No doubt, it is important that labours which, properly devolve on the Diocesan, should not be put on the Suffragan; but there is room in many dioceses for both, and work for both. Moreover, I do not believe that this work will be diminished by the division of Sees. The fact is, that in all those cases where the labour is sub-divided the better, of course, is the work done; but the person who is called upon to labour does not find any diminution of his own work, while it is better done. It is impossible for a Bishop of the Church of England, in the present day, not to exert himself. I do not exactly see the distinction which the noble Earl who has left the House (the Earl of Shaftesbury) draws between a Prelate and a Bishop. He may perhaps mean by a Prelate a man who enjoys all the good things of this life—pomp, circumstance, and state—and by a Bishop a man who does the work; but, if so, I think we may claim to be both Bishops and Prelates; and I, at the same time, deny that there is any such marked distinction between the two offices as the noble Earl pointed out. Of this I am certain—looking back to those who are gone—thinking of some of those whose names will be longest remembered—that they admirably performed the duties both of Prelates and of Bishops. One name occurs to all who remember in this House a Bishop who was never behind in any of those duties which attach to the office of a Prelate—who held his place on every occasion in your Lordships' House, not only to his own honour, but, if I may venture to say so, also to the honour of this House—and who, at the same time, was the most laborious Bishop who ever, perhaps, worked in a diocese of the Church of England. And he does not stand alone. I remember that my predecessor in the See of London was a man of the same stamp—who was at once able to perform fully, and to the satisfaction of the country, every duty which devolved upon him as a Prelate, and was at the same time a pastor among pastors, honoured by all the pastors of his diocese. My Lords, I have no fear that the Bishops of the Church of England will fail to endeavour, according to their ability, to work as those who have gone before them worked. The only thing I am afraid of in the present day is this—that such unremitting attention to their duties as my right rev. Brother has just spoken of, for example, may leave little time for literary labour. In the past times it has been the glory of the Episcopate of England that the Bishops had time to think and write, as well as to work. In an age like this, when dangers are supposed to threaten the whole social system—not of this country alone, but of all Europe—and when there is a danger of materialism spreading throughout the civilized world, I am reminded that if we are enabled to resist those dangers, it will be through the works of that great Bishop and Prelate of the Church of England, who wrote the immortal "Analogy." That author raised a standard against materialism, which I believe to be as useful in this day as it was in that in which he lived. I trust we may not come to a time when we are to have no learned Bishops. I do, indeed, myself know a learned divine—a friend of my own—who was obliged to refuse the post of a Bishop because he felt that if he accepted it he must desist from those literary and theological labours which I believe will make his name famous; but we have not come to that pass yet. There is one great man who is still living among us, although he has ceased to fill the office of a Diocesan Bishop. I believe that the name of Bishop Thirlwall stands forth to show that the existence of a great learned Bishop is still possible in the 19th century, and I doubt whether the Church of England—I doubt whether the Church Universal—ever produced a man more learned or more able than that distinguished man, who I rejoice to say is still living. I trust that your Lordships will give a second reading to this Bill.

Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday the 9th of March next.