BISHOPRICS OF SOUTHWARK AND BIRMINGHAM BILL [H.L.] (Hansard, 22 June 1903)

§ LORD BELPER
My Lords, the Bill which I have to ask your Lordships to read a second time is for the purpose of giving powers for the founding of two new Bishoprics, the Bishopric of Southwark and the Bishopric of Birmingham. I believe I am right in saying that that part of the Bill which deals with the Bishopric of Southwark is identical with the Bill which has passed your Lordships' House on two previous occasions. The diocese of Rochester, as it is at present constituted, is not only unwieldy with regard to its population, but most inconvenient as to its area and for all purposes of organisation. It is separated into two sections differing very much as to the conditions of their population. One part consists of the South London Parishes and the Suburban and County Districts of East and Mid Surrey, and the other of Gravesend, Rochester, and Chatham, and between these two portions runs part of the diocese of Canterbury. The present population of the whole diocese is 2,250,000. The Bill proposes that the populous district of the diocese in South London, with a population of about 2,000,000, should be formed into the new Bishopric of Southwark. The present difficulties are also somewhat accentuated by the fact that the residence of the Bishop is in South London, whilst the cathedral is in Rochester. The other part of the diocese will have added to it a small portion of the diocese of Canterbury, and will, I understand, with that addition have a population of about 400,000. It is also proposed that the existing residence of the Bishop of Rochester should become the residence of the Bishop of Southwark.
With regard to the new Bishopric of Birmingham it is proposed to constitute it of parishes taken from the dioceses of Worcester and Lichfield. The diocese of Worcester now contains a population of 1,400,000 and comprises 500 parishes, many of them very populous. The population of the diocese of Lichfield is about the same, and it contains 475 parishes. I believe the area taken from the diocese of Worcester is one-third of the whole area of the diocese and a still larger proportion of the population, and it will be recognised that the spiritual needs of the population of that important area could be much more conveniently 33 met by the formation of the new diocese. The wishes of the locality are shown in the fact that already a very large sum of money has been subscribed to establish a fund for the new Bishopric of Birmingham. I believe there has already been subscribed £92,000 out of the total sum required, namely, £110,000. The Bill revives the provisions of the Bishoprics Act, 1878. Under that Act the Bishoprics of Liverpool, Newcastle and others were founded, and authority was given for the establishment of a Bishopric Endowment Fund for each of the new Sees, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners being required to hold those funds for the special purposes for which they are to be used. These two Bishoprics of Southwark and Birmingham may be founded under that Act by an order of His Majesty in Council as soon as the endowment funds are reached, and I believe it is laid down that the incomes must amount to £3,500 a year. There are a large number of incidental questions with which I might occupy the time of the House, but I will content myself by saying that the new Bishoprics proposed in this Bill have the approval of the Archbishop of Canterbury and of the right rev. Prelates whose dioceses are affected, and who will deal with any question, of detail that may arise at this or any subsequent stage of the Bill.

§ LORD TWEEDMOUTH
My Lords, I desire to say a word or two with regard to this Bill on behalf of my noble friend Lord Spencer. The noble Lord, Earl Spencer, asked on Friday that this Bill should be postponed till to-day, because it deals with a subject in which he takes great interest, and he felt that he had not had sufficient time to master the details of it. Unfortunately, Lord Spencer is not able to be here to-day. He is kept at home, having been overtaken by the gravest family anxiety, in which I am sure he has your Lordships' deepest sympathy. I think it right to say that Lord Spencer had no intention of opposing the Second Reading or of thwarting the Bill in any way, but there were details he wished to criticise and there was one considerable point of 34 policy which he desired to raise. That point, briefly, was whether it was wise to create two new Bishoprics and endow them with considerable revenues at a time when the incomes of the great bulk of the clergy of the Church of England are extremely small owing largely to agricultural depression and the fall in the tithe-rent charge. It did seem to him that it was desirable to consider carefully whether in those circumstances this was a happy time to create two new Bishoprics and to give them, I do not say excessive but certainly large incomes, when the subordinate officers of the Church are receiving such small stipends. That was the main point my noble friend wished to raise, and I think I have sufficiently served the purpose by shortly stating it. I have no doubt that some right rev. Prelate will have a word to say on the subject.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY
My Lords, I should like to say a few words upon this Bill. Twenty-six years have passed since I began, in the very subordinate capacity of secretary to a committee on this subject, to deal with the almost unsolvable problem of how to divide up the dioceses of Rochester, Canterbury, Winchester, and St. Albans in such a manner as to produce the best possible results with the minimum of inconvenience. The problem is, I say without reserve, the most difficult among the problems of that kind with which I have ever had to do. Anyone who examines a map on which the formation of the diocese of Rochester is marked, must wonder how any bishop, even if he possess all the energy and devotion of my right rev. brother who now presides over the diocese, has found it possible to work it. I am convinced that the solution of the problem contained in the Bill is the best that could be arrived at in the circumstances. I am less personally conversant with the state of affairs at Birmingham, but for many years it has been the universal opinion of those best qualified to judge, that a new diocese, with Birmingham as its centre, is absolutely necessary. That that should now be possible, thanks to the munificence of the people of Birmingham, is gratifying to all who 35 have at heart the welfare of the Church in the Midlands. I should entirely share in the opinion put forward by the noble Lord on behalf of Earl Spencer—the cause of whose absence we all deeply regret—if the money for the new Bishopric was being provided from sources available for the other purposes to which he has alluded, but, as I have said, the money for the constitution of the new Bishopric has been specially subscribed by those who are promoting this particular object. The noble Lord's criticism, although perfectly natural, and, I may say, obvious, to one who may have had no adequate opportunity of studying the details of the subject, is, I venture to think, a somewhat short-sighted one. If we want the general condition of the clergy in the poorest districts and most poorly-endowed parishes to be improved, and there can be no Member of this House who does not share such a wish, the best way of proceeding is to make the working of the Church as efficient as we can make it. When we have a sufficient number of dioceses and the Bishops hard at work in them keeping things on the right lines and making them stir and glow, then the time will have come when we can hope for such support as will diminish the present hardships of the poor clergy. This result will be promoted, and not hindered, by allowing those who desire to give money for the purpose of founding these Bishoprics to do so. The only detail to which this answer to the noble Lord's criticism may not apply, is the application of certain portions of money from the sale of a residence of former Archbishops of Canterbury to the provision of a new See house for the Bishop of Rochester, and of some portion of the endowment of the See, the present See house of that diocese being handed over to the new diocese of Southwark. But it has to be remembered that that particular money has, all through, been applied to the purposes of an episcopal residence; so that even that money is not diverted to any purpose of a different kind from that for which it is at present available. Any further points on which your Lordships may desire 36 information will be readily given in Committee, and I hope your Lordships will now read the Bill a second time.

§ LORD NORTON
My Lords, I heartily endorse what has just been said by the most rev. Primate. He considered that the objection suggested by Lord Tweedmouth was a natural one. Whether it is natural or not, it is the most complete non sequitur I have ever heard in my life, that we should abstain from endowing new Bishoprics because the income of the clergy is small. Why, that is the very reason for doing it. Church feeling in Birmingham has already been considerably strengthened during the tenure of office of the present Bishop of Worcester, and I am certain that when that energetic man is Bishop of Birmingham, no event will have occurred for a number of years so likely as that to increase the incomes of the clergy. Therefore, if the objection of the noble Lord is the only objection that can be raised to this Bill, I think it is the strongest possible reason for supporting it, and I can only hope that no more effective argument against it will be raised in another place. The poor clergy are in any case in nowise injured by a scheme which is paid for out of private subscription. If there is any defect in the Bill it is that the diocese of Worcester is not called upon to make anything like a proper contribution to the Bishopric of Birmingham. The Bishopric of Birmingham will take one-third of the diocese of Worcester, and a great deal more than one-third of the population of that diocese; but the diocese of Worcester is not asked to make a contribution towards the diocese of Birmingham. Naturally, Worcester ought to hand over to the new diocese one-third of her endowment for doing a third of the work, of which she will now be relieved. A city of the size of Birmingham ought to have a Bishop. Already the prospect of getting a Bishop, and such a Bishop as the one who will take over the new See under this Bill, has entirely changed the feeling of the city of Birmingham towards the Church. There are only two men who can fill the Town Hall on any occasion—Mr. Chamberlain and the proposed Bishop of Birmingham.