HL Deb 14 May 1878 vol 239 cc1855-67

Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord Steward.)

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY rose to move, as an Amendment— That, in the opinion of this House, any necessity that may exist for additional Bishops should he met by an addition to the number of suffragan Bishops. The noble Earl said, that in moving his Amendment, he would not occupy the time of their Lordships more than was absolutely necessary. Their Lordships would observe that the proposition contained in his Amendment was not aimed at the principle of the Bill—it raised, on the contrary, a very simple question—simply a question between Bishops and Bishops. If their Lordships looked at the Bill, they would perceive that the Bill proposed one kind of Bishop, and his Amendment proposed another kind; and the few remarks he would make in support of his Motion would be more conservative than any, he thought, which would be made against it. In the first place, he must say that there were several objections against the Bill as it stood. The first was, that it was founded, he believed, on the theory that the population of this country was larger in proportion to the number of Bishops than it had been at any previous period. He ventured to question that—he thought it was a fallacy. It was, no doubt, correct to assert that the number of right rev. Prelates having seats in that House was not so great relatively to the population of the country as it was some years ago; but he ventured to say, on the other hand, that there never were so many Bishops as at the present moment. This might well be due to the cause that, as Christianity and civilization spread throughout the Empire, numerous and important Sees had been created. Many of those Sees, indeed, did not fulfil the conditions on which they were founded. Many of those which had been founded in the Colonies possessed a disagreeable climate and a disagreeable population, and did not invite a very prolonged residence. Consequently, there was a very great number of ex-Colonial Bishops—Bishops in partibus, as they might almost be termed—and his proposition was based on the consideration that there was an ancient and constitutional method of utilizing those of them who were still anxious to serve the Church, which was much preferable to the method proposed by the Bill of the Government. It was not only that there were at present so many Bishops, but that there were so many classes of Bishops. There were too many classes of Bishops already, but the Government were seeking to create a new class in addition. There were the Archbishops and the Bishops who presided over the Sees of Winchester, Durham, and London, who held seats in that House by virtue of their Dioceses. There were the other Bishops who had seats in their Lordships' House, and who were taken by rotation. There were next three Bishops who were Peers expectant, who would enter the House on vacancies occurring; and next, those four Bishops whom this Bill proposed to create—there would be, therefore, seven Bishops without seats in the House, and who would have to wait until a vacancy arrived for them to enter. There were, then, the large class of Colonial Bishops, or Bishops who had held Colonial Sees, but who were resident in this country. There was also the Bishop of Sodor and Man—a Bishop who stood alone, a recognized Bishop, but one who had no seat in that House; there were Suffragan Bishops, there were Coadjutor Bishops, and there were Bishops of the Episcopal Church of Scotland. He must, therefore, say, that he considered the Government would be doing a serious thing if they added a new class to the numerous and different classes of Bishops already existing in this country. But there was a graver objection than that. They were not only instituting a new class of seven Bishops, who would have no seats in that House, and who would have to wait for seats in it, but these Bishops would have no chapters or deans, and they would have reduced incomes. What would be the result of a comparison between them and the right rev. Prelates who did occupy seats in their Lordships' House? People would say that these Bishops, without chapters, without seats in that House, without large incomes, were quite as efficient as those who possessed those advantages, and would wish to see all Bishops reduced to the same level. He had assumed that these new Bishops were not to have deans and chapters. They were not to have them at first; if they were ever to have them, the expense would be greatly increased, and expense in this case meant delay. It was proposed to raise £14,000 a-year to endow a certain number of Bishoprics, and of that sum £12,000 must be raised by voluntary endowments. If that sum were capitalized, the amount could not be put at less than £300,000. This was a large sum. It was only the other day that a meeting had been held in the proposed Diocese of Liverpool, by far the wealthiest of the new Dioceses, and the greatest disappointment was expressed at the small result of the subscriptions for endowing the new Sees. It would, therefore, clearly appear, that to raise £300,000 by voluntary subscriptions in order to carry out the scheme of the Bill must tend to great delay. But, even supposing that the sum of £300,000 was raised, a contrast would, no doubt, be drawn between the good which was to be got out of it compared with the good which would be done by adding to the income of the very large number of holders of benefices in this country who were in receipt of less than £200 a-year. The sum which they proposed to raise, with great labour and with long delay, for the endowment of the new Bishoprics, would, he maintained, double the income of 3,800 livings, which were below £200 a-year value, and so enable their incumbents to maintain themselves and their families in decency and comfort. Therefore, he could not see that, even looking at this question in a Church point of view, their Lordships had any plea for dealing with it in the manner proposed by this Bill. At any rate, he conceived that the Government ought to bring forward some more weighty argument than they had yet adduced in support of the proposition that they should adopt this expensive process, and, in some respects, objectionable method, instead of adopting the ancient and constitutional means offered by the Statute Book. But not merely would this Bill be injurious to the Church—it would seriously impair their usefulness in this House. He would explain his reason for saying so. When this Bill was passed, they would have seven Bishops outside the walls of Parliament, but waiting their time for their admission to seats therein. Consider what this meant. The right rev. Prelate who had this evening taken his seat (the Bishop of St. David's) had to wait four years for his admission. He (the Earl of Rosebery) did not say that 28 years must elapse before the last of these seven took his seat; what he said was, that a considerable period must necessarily elapse before the junior Bishops could succeed to seats in that House; and that, therefore, they could not, in the ordinary course of things, obtain that experience of Parliament which made the bench of Bishops so valuable a constituent of that House. Why, then, were their Bishops to have no Parliamentary experience, which seemed to be so very desirable? Why should they not be able to take their seats as soon as possible after their elevation? He knew there was a large class of persons in this country who were anxious to see the law so altered, that the right rev. Prelates should be altogether relieved from their functions in this House. But there had always been one answer to that. It was, that the right rev. Prelates had supplied some of the greatest ornaments that ever sat in that House; and he hoped the most rev. Primate, who presided over the Province of Canterbury, would forgive him if he stated in his presence, that they regarded his Grace as one of their greatest ornaments. But the most rev. Primate had had great Parliamentary experience, for he had been 22 years in their Lordships' House. The late Bishop Wilberforce, one of the most eloquent Parliamentary speakers of his time, was in that House for 27 years. Another ornament of that House—the late Bishop of Exeter—sat for the long period of 38 years He hoped that would not be regarded as a reflection on the most rev. Bench, when he referred to their ages. The Archbishop of Canterbury was 45 when he came into this House. The Archbishop of York, also one of their most effective orators, entered at the age of 42, and Bishop Wilberforce at the age of 40. These right rev. Prelates came in the prime of life, and, therefore, were enabled to acquire all the advantages of Parliamentary experience. Then there was the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough), who, he regretted, was not present. Supposing he had been the junior of these seven Bishops, and a vacancy had occurred every 18 months, he would not yet have sat in that House, and the House would have lost the most eloquent speeches of the last 10 years. Even the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Redesdale), who was not at all a revolutionary person, must have seen the danger which lurked in this Bill; for he brought in, after its introduction, one of the most desperate remedies ever submitted to the House. He proposed that every Bishop who had attained the age of 75 should be allowed to resign his seat in that House, while retaining his See. Well, when they found the noble Earl hoisting the red flag of revolution, and found him introducing a Motion which implied that a Bishop, although not fit to retain a seat in that House, might be still capable of presiding spiritually over his Diocese, their Lordships might take it for granted that the case was not a good one. The proposal he (the Earl of Rosebery) submitted in his Motion was, that they should have recourse to an Act passed in the reign of Henry VIII., for the institution of Suffragan Bishops. That Act happened to fit in exactly with the case in which they found themselves, and enabled them to have more Bishops for their population. He claimed that, as compared with the proposition of the Government, it was more economical, more efficient, more elastic, more immediate in its operation, and entirely unobjectionable in regard to the seats in that House. It stood to reason that an Episcopate of this kind must be cheaper, and he said it was more elastic and efficient; more elastic in this way—that they could at any moment use the machinery without coming to Parliament, and without raising all these questions and debates. He would here notice one objection which had been raised to his proposition, and it was this—They said that the proposition was all very well so far as it went, but that it did not go far enough; because there were only 26 towns mentioned in the Act of Henry VIII. which could give titles to Suffragan Bishops, and they were not situated in the regions where Bishops were wanted. In answer to that, he would suggest that it was not a legislative feat beyond accomplishment to bring in a Bill to add certain towns to those enumerated in the Act. For simplicity, they could find no method to be compared to that. But, further, the highest authority on this question—as he supposed—Sir Robert Phillimore, said— There is no necessity at all that a Suffragan Bishop should take his title from any town in his own Diocese. He may take his title from either of the towns mentioned in the Act, whether connected with the Diocese or not. Therefore, the Act of Henry VIII. was amply sufficient. He said, then, that they required very strong grounds before passing by the machinery ready to their hands. He could not understand why anyone wishing to deal in a comprehensive way with this question should pass by the Statute—the 26 Henry VIII.—to which he had alluded. He had now stated briefly his objections to the Government scheme, and had set forth the recommendations of his own. The difficulty in regard to his own scheme was, that he did not know what to urge against the objections to it—when he could not understand that any objections existed. What he urged against the Government plan was, that it was calculated to injure indirectly the interests of the Church, and seriously to impair the efficiency of that House. On the other hand, he claimed for his proposal, that it was more elastic, efficient, and economical, and did not interfere with the seats in that House. He claimed for it that which, should recommend it to noble Lords opposite—namely, that it was the ancient, historical, constitutional way of dealing with the question. The Act of Henry VIII. was not obsolete; for under it, within the last 10 years, three Suffragan Bishops had been created. If the Primate and the Bishops of Lincoln and Winchester were prepared to say that the Suffragan Bishops of Nottingham, Dover, and Guildford had been failures, it might detract from his argument; but, in the absence of such a declaration, he had, he hoped, said enough to recommend his proposition to the unbiassed consideration of that House.

Amendment moved, To leave out all the words after ("that") and insert ("in the opinion of this House any necessity that may exist for additional bishops should be met by an addition to the number of suffragan bishops.")—(The Earl of Rosebery.)

THE BISHOP OF LINCOLN

My Lords, I should not have ventured to trespass on your attention at this early stage of the debate, if I had not been in a position, from special and exceptional circumstances, to corroborate a great deal that has fallen from the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) in moving his Amendment, at the same time that I am constrained to dissent from his conclusions. I am emboldened, also, to crave your indulgence, because I am thus enabled to express publicly my sentiments of loyal and dutiful gratitude to the Crown for complying with the prayer of a Petition which was presented by me eight years ago; and which, I am thankful to remember, was cordially supported by the then Prime Minister (Mr. Gladstone) for the assistance of a Bishop Suffragan in the Diocese with which I am connected—the Diocese of Lincoln—under the provisions of the Act of Henry VIII., to which the noble Earl has referred. In consequence of that Petition, a Bishop Suffragan of Nottingham, in the Diocese of Lincoln, was appointed in 1870—the first Bishop Suffragan in England for more than 250 years. For a period of nearly eight years, the duties of that office were discharged in the most exemplary manner by my dear Friend and right rev. Brother, Bishop Mackenzie, to whose valuable services, in the name of the Diocese and my own, I feel bound, in your Lordships' presence, to bear a grateful and honourable testimony. And when, inconsequence of failure of health, he was compelled to retire from that office, I received from the noble Earl, the present Head of Her Majesty's Government, a generous assurance that the benefit of that assistance of a Bishop Suffragan would be continued to me. My Lords, I frankly and fully acknowledge the great blessings which the Church derives from the services of Bishops Suffragan. May I be allowed to illustrate this by an example? In the spring of this year the present Bishop Suffragan of Nottingham, Bishop Trollope, has been holding Confirmations in the county of Nottingham, while I have been engaged at the same time in confirming in the other county of the Diocese, the county of Lincoln. Each of us has thus confirmed about 2,000 persons. This could not have been done without a Suffragan. Pardon me, my Lords, for saying that in this way a great benefit has been conferred upon that Diocese. I do not merely refer to the spiritual blessings imparted in the Apostolic rite of Confirmation itself, but I speak of the benefits which arise before Confirmation in stirring up the parochial Clergy to prepare their young people for it, and which also arise after Confirmation in exciting them to prepare their young people for Holy Communion. Your Lordships will not, therefore, imagine that I depreciate and disparage the office of Bishops Suffragan. I go quite as far as the noble Earl in magnifying that office in its proper functions. But then, my Lords, I must beg leave to add that it is not adequate to the needs of the Church. And why? Because a Bishop Suffragan has no Episcopal jurisdiction. He cannot relieve the Diocesan, in the least degree, from the heavy burden of administering that jurisdiction. It greatly increases the amount of good work done in Confirmations; but he cannot provide any relief for the other anxious and arduous cares which press so heavily on Bishops as Diocesans, especially in a restless age like the present. My Lords, pardon a personal reminiscence. The Church of England has just sustained a very heavy loss. She has been deprived of the greatest missionary Bishop of the Anglican Communion—perhaps even of Christendom—in the present age, the Bishop of Lichfield, Bishop Selwyn. Nearly the last time I was present in your Lordships' House I was seated here at his side, and he then showed me, with honourable pride, a letter which he had just received from the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon), the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, announcing to him the royal recognition of his services as the great missionary Bishop of the English Church and of the British Empire, and nominating him to the distinguished rank and title of Prelate of the Order of St. Michael and St. George. The last time that I saw Bishop Selwyn on a public occasion was when he was decorated with the insignia of that Order. My Lords, it is not too much to say that if the present Bill for the increase of the Episcopate, which provides for the division of the Diocese of Lichfield, had been passed five years ago, Bishop Selwyn might probably have been spared to us. He might have been assisting at our deliberations to-night. Let me remind your Lordships that Bishop Selwyn had the advantage of two coadjutor Bishops—two Eton schoolfellows of his own—Bishop Hobhouse and Bishop Abraham—he had, we may say, the benefit of the assistance of two Bishops Suffragan. But, not with standing this advantage, he sank beneath the over whelming pressure of the labours of his enormous Diocese, containing a population of 1,300,000 souls. It may be almost said that he fell a martyr to his Episcopal work. Your Lordships will forgive one word of reference to the Diocese of Lincoln, which is also dealt with in this Bill. It is the largest in England in territorial area. It extends over more than 2,250,000 acres; it contains 800 benefices, and more than 1,000 Clergy. It is proposed in this Bill that it should be divided; that the county of Nottingham should be taken from it and be added to the county of Derby, withdrawn from the Diocese of Lichfield, and that a new Diocese should thus be formed. There can be no doubt that the Diocese of Lincoln, as well as that of Lichfield, ought to be divided; and I thankfully accept this Bill as an instalment in the right direction. At the same time, I venture to think that the important county of Nottingham ought to form a distinct Diocese by itself. Indeed, I should be glad to see English Dioceses, as a general rule—of course, there are exceptions—made conterminous with English counties. But I will not say more. For the sake, not only of the Church, but of society at large, which will derive great spiritual and moral benefits from a division of our larger Dioceses, let me entreat your Lordships to give your cordial assent to a third reading of this Bill.

LORD DENMAN

said, that having, on the second reading, praised the then existing arrangement for the Diocese of Lichfield—before Bishop Selwyn's life was shortened by overwork—he might explain why he thought the Amendment of the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) unnecessary, and now gave entire support to this Bill. He believed that Suffragans might exist notwithstanding this Bill, as they did before; and having, in 1856, protested in favour of the re-institution of Suffragans, and desiring an increase of their powers, he might urge that the subscription of the large sums required for each new Diocese would prove the concurrence of its inhabitants in the necessity of each extension; and he hoped that the coadjutors, or separate Bishops, might have such powers as greatly to relieve the Bishops—whom they aided—from anxiety and overwork.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

congratulated the noble Earl who had moved the Amendment on his industrious occupation of the Recess—so that, during his researches, he had discovered the Act of Henry VIII., and was now prepared to act upon it. But he must remind his noble Friend, that neither the state of the country nor the conditions of the population at present bore any relation to what they were in the reign of Henry VIII.; and, therefore, that the partial relief afforded by the creation of Suffragan Bishops at that day was not sufficient to meet the emergencies of the Church at the present. Those needs it was the object of the Bill the Government had introduced to supply. As to the regret of the noble Earl that the scheme for erecting the new See of Liverpool progressed but slowly, he had had a letter from a gentleman occupying one of the highest official positions in that town, which expressed the fullest confidence that the requisite funds would be raised in a very short time. In proposing this measure, Her Majesty's Government were not embarking on any idle or extravagant schemes. They had the experience of the Colonial Churches to guide them, by which it appeared that the most effectual method of organizing the Church and providing adequately for the Clergy was to establish a Bishop as the head of the organization, and that through his influence it invariably resulted that endowments were provided on a more liberal scale than where the Clergy were unsustained by direct Episcopal authority. It had been objected to their proposals that these new Bishops would have no deans and chapters, and that they would be without seats in the House. It was, no doubt, a misfortune that they were not in a position to provide deans and chapters for the new Sees, and that the new Bishops should not all have seats in their Lordships' House. The whole question was beset with difficulties and dangers, but the greatest difficulty and danger was in leaving things as they were. Those living among the dense masses of population which were comprehended within the districts affected must be convinced that benefit would result from the proposed scheme. Greater efficiency would follow from the development of the scheme. The principle of the Bill was to bring about a better organization in the Church; and, as that principle would be interfered with by the Amendment of the noble Earl, he felt bound to oppose it.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

, in reply, pointed out that there were already, without the passing of an Act of Parliament, in four Dioceses, no less than 13 official Bishops. He also observed that the noble Earl have not even touched on his arguments with regard to the bearing of the Bill on the House of Lords.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

said, it was not a question of increasing the number of Bishops, but of increasing the strength of the existing Bishops, who had not shown themselves capable of dealing with objectionable practices within the Church. Some time ago, the right rev. Bench met in Convocation, and condemned the practice of confession in connection with the Church of England; but when, last year, the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, (the Earl of Redesdale) brought the question before the House, only three or four Members of the right rev. Bench condescended to be present. Since then, a very remarkable book had been made public by Dr. Pusey, which advocated confession; but he (Lord Oranmore and Browne) was not aware that the right rev. Bench had said anything against its teaching. He did not think that the people generally—however much some might be disposed to run after strange practices—were at all satisfied with the manner in which the existing Prelates governed their Dioceses, and they would not be anxious that their number should be increased until they saw something like unanimity on the part of the Bishops now existing, in putting the law in force against practices already pronounced illegal. In the present state of things, he felt sure that public opinion and the voice of the people, if it could be taken on the subject, would in no way sanction this Bill, and he should vote against it.

On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 107; Not Contents 33: Majority 74.

CONTENTS.
Canterbury, L. Archp. Nelson, E.
Cairns, L. (L. Chancellor.) Powis, E.
Redesdale, E.
Saint Germans, E.
Manchester, D. Stanhope, E.
Northumberland, D. Verulam, E.
Richmond, D. Waldegrave, E.
Westminster, D. Wharncliffe, E.
Abergavenny, M. Cranbrook, V.
Bristol, M. Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)
Hertford, M.
Salisbury, M. Hardinge, V.
Hawarden, V. [Teller.]
Amherst, E.
Bathurst, E. Carlisle, L. Bp.
Beaconsfield, E. Chichester, L. Bp.
Beauchamp, E. Durham, L. Bp.
Belmore, E. Ely, L. Bp.
Bradford, E. Exeter, L. Bp.
Cadogan, E. Hereford, L. Bp.
Carnarvon, E. Lincoln, L. Bp.
Coventry, E. Llandaff, L. Bp.
Dartmouth, E. London, L. Bp.
De La Warr, E. Oxford, L. Bp.
Erne, E. Salisbury, L. Bp.
Feversham, E. St. Albans, L. Bp.
Fortescue, E. St. Asaph, L. Bp.
Haddington, E. St. David's, L. Bp.
Harrowby, E. Winchester, L. Bp.
Jersey, E.
Mar and Kellie, E. Airey, L.
Mount Edgecumbe, E. Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)
Aveland, L. Hastings, L. (E. Loudoun.)
Bagot, L.
Balfour of Burley, L. Heytesbury, L.
Bloomfield, L. Inchiquin, L.
Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.) Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)
Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.) Leconfield, L.
Lyttelton, L.
Chelmsford, L. Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)
Clinton, L.
Colchester, L. Norton, L.
Colville of Culross, L. Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)
Cottesloe, L.
Crewe, L. Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)
Delamere, L.
De L'Isle and Dudley, L. Rayleigh, L.
Rivers, L.
Denman, L. Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.)
de Ros, L. Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)
Digby, L.
Ellenborough, L. Selborne, L.
Elphinstone, L. Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]
Forester, L.
Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.) Sondes, L.
Stanley of Alderley, L.
Gordon of Drumearn, L. Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Gwydir, L. Strathnairn, L.
Hampton, L. Ventry, L.
Hanmer, L. Winmarleigh, L.
Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.) Zouche of Haryngworth, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Grafton, D. Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)
Saint Albans, D.
Chesham, L.
Ailesbury, M. Foley, L.
Lansdowne, M. Hammond, L.
Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)
Abingdon, E.
Camperdown, E. Kinnaird, L.
Granville, E. Leigh, L.
Grey, E. Oranmore and Browne, L.
Kimberley, E.
Lovelace, E. Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
Morley, E. [Teller.]
Spencer, E. Ribblesdale, L.
Sydney, E. Romilly, L.
Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.) [Teller.]
Cardwell, V.
Powerscourt, V. Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)
Truro, L.
Abercromby, L. Vivian, L.
Belper, L. Waveney, L.

Resolved in the Affirmative; Then the said Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly; Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.