Sitting of 11 July 1851

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Local Acts (Preliminary Inquiries); Victoria Park; Metropolis Buildings.
3° Court of Chancery and Judicial Committee.

METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY BILLS.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, in proposing the question of which he had given notice to the right hon. Baronet the Chairman of the Committee on Water Supply (Sir James Graham), he begged to assure him that

561
nothing was further from his intention than in any way to hurry or to embarrass the proceedings of that Committee. It was a matter of very great importance to this city, and he thought the House and the country were much indebted to the Committee for the manner in which they had pursued their labours. But the House was well aware that considerable irritation, and perhaps alarm, existed in the public mind from the belief that it was the intention of the Government, whether the report of that Committee was made early or not, to force legislation on the subject during the present Session. He believed the apprehension on the part of the public was unfounded; but he believed it would be much better if the right hon. Baronet would favour the House as to the prospect of the proceedings before the Committee closing, that they might come to some understanding with the Government as to their intentions during the present Session. The question he had to ask was, whether, in the event of the present Session of Parliament terminating about the usual period, there is any probability of the Committee completing its inquiry within sufficient time to enable this House to give any measure for an improved supply of water to the metropolis that consideration which so important a question demands?
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, that the Committee of which he was a Member had prosecuted their inquiry with all the diligence and attention which they conld apply to the subject. The House was aware that many Bills had been referred to them, the first to which their attention had been given being that of the Government, and there were four or five others which remained to be considered. The preamble of the first Bill was now under consideration. The promoters of that Bill had closed their case, and the opponents of it had been divided into two classes. The first class was that of those who contended that if there he a new control to be exercised over the supply of water, it ought to be exercised by a principle of self-government, by local bodies chosen by popular election. The first class of objections were now being heard, and their case had not yet closed. The second class were the existing water companies, who were dissatisfied with the plan of the Government, which was an amalgamation of the companies, and that second class had not yet opened their case. His hon. Friend's question really resolved itself into a nice
562
speculation upon two remote probabilities—first, the contingency of what time the case would be closed; and, secondly, the duration of the Session. He might say that the labours of the Committee would be pretty nearly co-extensive with the ordinary duration of the Session; and that branch of the case now under consideration was showing to them evidence of the water question being necessarily and intimately connected with the sewage question. What would be the probable duration of the inquiry under those circumstances, his hon. Friend could form as good an opinion as himself.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, he must express a hope that the answer which the right hon. Baronet had been allowed to give, would not be drawn into a precedent. Both the question and the reply were irregular.

REGISTRATION OF ASSURANCES BILL.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMthen rose and said, he had to present a petition which he considered of very great importance. It was from the Incorporated Law Society of Solicitors and Proctors throughout the United Kingdom, and it was against the further progress of the Registration of Assurances Bill. It set forth that they had been charged with having an interest in this Bill adverse to the landed proprietors. They disclaimed having any such interest, because, although the Bill would diminish the number of transfers of land, yet the cost of each transfer would be considerably greater than heretofore. They then set forth that this Bill, as it had come down from the House of Lords, would render it necessary to have all deeds in duplicate, and that it would lead to a disclosure of family arrangements and settlements, which they considered unsafe; that the experience of the registration in Middlesex afforded a very doubtful example; that the Bill would be adverse to the sale and purchase of small properties in laud; that it involved a principle entirely at variance with the stream of modern legislation on real property; that the machinery provided by the Bill was inadequate; and under all these circumstances, considering the advanced period of the Session, they requested that the Bill should be postponed, or at all events that there should be some inquiry before a Select Committee into its merits. He wished to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether he in-

563
tended to proceed with the Second Reading of the Bill that evening; and, if such were his intention, whether he proposed to press the Bill through to its final consummation this Session?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that it was not his intention to move the Second Reading of the Bill that evening. It was a Bill of such importance, that it was desirable to have its nature and objects clearly stated to the House on the Motion for the Second Reading; and he had therefore asked his right hon. Friend the Master of the Rolls, to move the Second Reading. He proposed that it should be taken on Monday, the 21st inst., and it certainly was his hope, considering the very great importance of the subject, after it had been considered by a Commission for a very long time—after it had been before the House of Lords, and had obtained the general consent of those Members of that House who were learned in the law—it certainly was the intention of the Government to press that Bill this Session. It might be convenient that he should state the arrangement of public business for next week. They would have a Committee of Supply that night, and he should take Supply again on Monday, after the third reading of Bills not likely to lead to discussion, and again on Thursday next. If they were enabled to get through Committee of Supply on Thursday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would move on Friday the Third Reading of the Customs Bill, on which occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford (Mr. Herries) would, according to his notice, make a statement to the House by way of amendment to the Bill. He (Lord J. Russell) did not propose, however, that they should move the Third Reading of the Customs Bill until they had got through Committee of Supply, and it would only be in case they got through it on Thursday that he would proceed with the Customs Bill on Friday.

THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION AND THE INCOMES OF BISHOPS.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLbegged to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government the several questions, of which he had given notice, respecting the incomes of the bishops; and which were as follows:—
"The septennial period having arrived for the revision of episcopal incomes by the Ecclesiastical Commission, and it appearing by Parliamen-
564
tary Paper No. 400, that during the last fourteen years the Bishop of Durham has received 79,658 l. mnre than the income assigned to his see; and, during the last seven years, the Bishop of Chichester has received 1,230 l. more than the sum assigned to his see as net income, and has taken from the Ecclesiastical Commission 4,550 l. to make up an imaginary deficiency of income; the Bishop of St. David's 6,626 l. more than the income assigned to his see, and has taken 11,200 l. from the Commissioners; the Bishop of Oxford, in five years, has received 1,918 l. surplus, and has taken 17,567 l. from the same fund; the Bishop of Rochester, in four years, 2,279 l. surplus, and 14,000 l. from the same fund; the Bishop of Norwich, in seven years, has received 8,075 l. more than the income assigned to his see; and the Bishop of Salisbury 6,972 l., being a total of 27,100 l. more than the incomes assigned to their several sees—to ask, 1st, Whether is is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose any legislative measures for obviating the inconvenience and occasional hardship resulting from the present uncertainty of episcopal incomes, and prevent the episcopal body from receiving a larger amount of income than the sum assigned to their sees; to ask, 2ndly, Whether the bishops who have received larger incomes than were assigned to their sees have paid the surplus over to the common fund, or whether they have retained it for their own uses? 3rdly, It appears by the Parliamentary Paper No. 400, that the Archbishop of York is indebted to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners 2,317 l.; the Bishop of Ely 9,242 l.; the Bishop of St. Asaph (notwithstanding great deductions) 1,661 l.; total 13,220 l.: and it appears also by the Parliamentary Paper No. 153, the Ecclesiastical Commission have failed, by correspondence, to obtain the payment of those sums—to ask whether the Ecclesiastical Commission intend taking legal proceedings for the recovery of the sum due, and, if not, what course they propose to take in order that the Common Fund may not be deprived of the amount so long due, and so repeatedly demanded. 4thly, Whether it is true that the Bishop of Salisbury has intimated to the Ecclesiastical Commission, that he will surrender the property of his see to the Commissioners, and receive from them the income assigned to his see; and whether any other bishops, who had received more than the income assigned to their sees, have acted in a similar way?"
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, the House must be aware that an Act of Parliament was passed several years ago, by which the bishops were required to pay over certain sums which were beyond the sums that were assigned as the proper income of their sees, and that other of the bishops were to receive certain sums which were proposed to make out the income of their sees. Such being the case, all those bishops who received from that time their bishoprics were under the provisions of the Act of Parliament. Lately, a Bill passed which provided another mode, namely, that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should make an arrangement by

565
which the incomes of the bishops should neither exceed nor fall short of the sum assigned to them, and that was to take place from January 1848. With regard to these latter bishops, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had been considering, and were now considering, the means of carrying that provision and the law into effect, so that the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the other bishops who received their sees since January 1848, will receive exactly the income which Parliament had assigned to them. With regard to the other bishops, as to the propriety or justice of the arrangement, of course it was not a matter on which he was then called on to speak; but it was quite evident that those bishops who received their incomes under the provisions of the former Act had just as much right to them as any person had to an estate settled on him for life, and that there would be no more justice in Parliament interfering with those incomes than with any other private property. With regard to the facts, he believed that, generally speaking, the bishops who had received more than the sum assigned to them under the Act, had retained it according to their rights by law. At the same time, he should state that the Bishop of Durham was an exception, because he had paid over a larger sum than he was compelled to do. It had been supposed, that if he gave up 11,000 l. a year, and surrendered an estate of 2,000 l. a year, it would have reduced his income to 8,000 l.; but he had paid to the Commissioners an additional sum of 8,766 l., and he had also intimated to the Commissioners his intention to pay a sum of 3,000 l. a year more than was specified by the Act, so long as he held the see. It should likewise be stated, that he succeeded a bishop whose income was 23,000 l. or 24,000 l. a year, and whose charities, and expenses in his diocese, including contributions to new churches, increasing the incomes of the poorer clergy and the like, were commensurate with it. Thus very considerable demands had been thrown upon the present bishop, and he had contributed no less a sum than 45,460 l. in this way. The next question of the hon. Gentleman related to those bishops who were obliged, according to the Act, to pay over certain sums which it was supposed wsuld be in excess upon the incomes assigned to them. Those bishops, generally speaking, had complied with the law; but at the same time there were some who had
566
received much less than it was expected, and the consequence had been, they had been unable to pay over the entire sum due from them. Thus the Bishop of Ely was indebted to a considerable amount to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; but at no time had he received more than the income which was assigned to him originally by the Commissioners, and by the Act of Parliament. The arrangement made by the Commissioners was certainly not to proceed by law against these prelates, but to inform them from time to time in what sum they were indebted, and request them to pay as soon as they could what was due. He believed that the Archbishop of York had already paid all he owed; and the Bishop of St. Asaph's had been for some time engaged in reducing his debt, which in a very short time would be paid off. There remained, therefore, only the case of the Bishop of Ely; and there was every reason to suppose that the Bishop of Ely, if he lived, would, from the emoluments of his see, be able to pay the sum due from him. The Commissioners, certainly, seeing that he did not receive the amount assigned him, had forborne pressing him, being quite convinced of his willingness to pay over the sum due when income would allow of it. The further question of the hon. Gentleman was with regard to the Bishop of Salisbury. He was the only bishop whom he (Lord John Russell) had seen since his hon. Friend had given notice of his Motion; and the right rev. Prelate had put into his hands a letter, which he had written in the month of February last, and in which he proposed to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners that his income should be in future that which had been assigned to his see by the Commission, namely, 5,000 l. a year. The right rev. Prelate had therefore voluntarily come under the provisions of the Act of Parliament. The Commissioners had accepted the proposal, and in future he would receive a fixed income, like the Archbishop of Canterbury, who was by law under the Act. He (Lord J. Russell) did not know whether any other bishop had followed the example; but in the course of time all the sees would come under the operation of the Act of Parliament.

THE LAW OF QUARANTINE—GREECE—PERSIA.
MR. URQUHARTwished to ask the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary—first, whether any steps had been taken by the

567
Government with regard to the proposed conference at Paris on the law of quarantine in the Mediterranean; secondly, whether any thing had been done respecting the settlement of the claims of Greece; and, thirdly, whether he proposed to lay on the table the orders, and returns to the orders, passed by the House as to the Turco-Persian frontier?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, in answer to the first question of the hon. Gentleman, that the Government had been invited some months ago by the Government of Prance to take part in certain conferences to be held somewhere in Prance, probably in Paris, on the subject of quarantine, to which conferences all States having territories bordering on or within the Mediterranean were invited to take part. Her Majesty's Government were sensible of the extreme importance of the matter, and were very anxious to obtain certain modifications and improvements in the existing regulations of the law of quarantine, and, therefore, had no hesitation in accepting that invitation. The conference was to be held in the course of a few days, he believed, at Paris, and the Government had appointed a medical man and a consular officer to attend it. As to the claims on Greece, they were all settled last year, with the exception of that of Don Pacifico, on account of alleged losses occasioned by the destruction at Athens of certain documents connected with claims he purported to have against the Government of Portugal. The House would remember that the principle laid down by the British Government on the matter was, that to whatever extent Don Pacifico could show that he had been prevented, by the loss in question, from substantiating any claims of his against the Portuguese Government, to that extent the Greek Government was bound to indemnify him. This principle had been adopted by the Government of Greece and by the Government of France, and accordingly Commissioners on the part of England, France, and Greece respectively, had met at Lisbon, where, after close inquiry, they found that all the documents upon which Don Pacifico grounded his claim, existed, in original or in duplicate, in the archives of Lisbon, so that the destruction of any copies at Athens did not at all prevent Don Pacifico from substantiating his claim. The Commissioners, however, in consequence of the inconvenience and expense to which Don Pacifico had been subjected in prosecuting
568
the matter, recommended that a sum of 150 l. should be paid to him by the Greek Government, which sum Don Pacifico had accordingly received. As to the hon. Gentleman's third question, he rather thought that the papers the hon. Gentleman sought had been already presented; but, if not, they should be laid on the table.

COURT OF CHANCERY AND JUDICIAL COMMITTEE BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a Third Time."
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that he did not mean to object to the third reading of this Bill, but he protested against the mode adopted of paying the Judges, who ought not to be paid out of the Suitors' Fund, but out of the Consolidated Fund. He protested also against this measure being considered as a reform in the Court of Chancery. He did not deny that two new Judges might not palliate some of the evils which arose from the delay of business in that Court; but he hoped the Government would bestow their serious attention upon the evils of the present system, and devise some speedy remedy. Don't let the Government imagine that, having passed this measure, they had settled the question of Chancery reform, or any thing of the sort. The present fee system, with its 100 fees, and its 40 feetakers, was one of the grand bases of the mischief, and must be utterly removed, and an end must be put to the anomalies and mystifications, and corruptions, and extortions of the Suitors' Fee Fund and the Suitors' Fund. It was but last year that he had presented the petition from the Corporation of Hastings, stating that an unopposed claim for 136 l. cost them 189 l.
MR. HUMEwas of opinion that the Suitors' Fund and the Suitors' Fee Fund might be consolidated with advantage.
SIR GEORGE STRICKLANDprotested against this Bill being considered any answer to that demand which was now so universally made for the reform of the Court of Chancery. He quite agreed with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir J.Graham), who had stated that this was beginning at the wrong end. It was necessary to reform altogether the system which caused such ruinous delay. His opinion was that, instead of being any real benefit to the people, this Bill would only

569
add to the grievance of which they already complained. He knew of an instance in which the Court of Chancery took nine years to decide whether it had jurisdiction over a cause. The matter was ultimately tried in a Court of Common Law, and the whole merits of the question were absolutely disposed of in nine hours. The preliminary point of jurisdiction would have been decided by a Judge at Chambers in ten minutes or a quarter of an hour.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLhad not at all put forward this measure as the Chancery Reform Bill which was required to meet the case. The question of fees was one which merited the amplest consideration, and he should be most glad, when the materials were before him, to apply his best efforts to remedy every evil connected with that and all other branches of the system.
MR. ALCOCKsaid, he felt bound to complain that no provision was made by the Bill respecting the Church patronage of the Lord Chancellor.
MR. SPEAKERintimated that the hon. Member was out of order, as the patronage of the Lord Chancellor had nothing to do with the question before the House.
MR. SLANEYsaid, he did not mean to oppose the Bill. But as he had been the Chairman of a Committee for inquiring into the mode in which the suits of persons engaged in commercial transactions were conducted, he felt it his duty to warn the House and the Government of the pressing necessity of passing some measure for facilitating the settlement of those suits. No judicial arrangements could be more cumbersome, expensive, and unsatisfactory, than the present mode of terminating before the Court of Chancery disputes which arose out of commercial partnerships.
Bill read 3°, and passed.

THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S.
On the Question that the Speaker do leave the Chair to go into Committee of Supply,
MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, he was requested by the Bishop of St. David's to give his unqualified contradiction to an assertion which was made the other evening by the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall). The hon. Baronet asserted, without any proof, that that distinguished prelate had prohibited his archdeacons from visiting that diocese. Now, he (Mr. M. Milnes) was authorised to state that the right rev. Prelate had never forbidden them to visit
570
any portion of his diocese. When the Bishop of St. David's came into the diocese, it was true that the archdeacons were not in the habit of visiting. One of them was the vicar of Carmarthen, a large parish with a very poor living; and another was the master of an academy in Edinburgh, and therefore lived out of the diocese and the jurisdiction of the bishop. A third (Mr. Davies, he believed) was in the continual habit of visiting his archdeaconry. He (Mr. M. Milnes) was quite sure that the distinguished Prelate would be the last man in the world to wish to impose upon the House in any way, as to the condition of the diocese. He (Mr. M. Milnes) believed that the right rev. Prelate was agreed on all fundamental points with the hon. Baronet as to the miserably neglected condition of a large portion of his see; but this arose from circumstances over which the bishop had no control. The archdeacons had not been appointed by him, nor could he dismiss them; and therefore the hon. Baronet really had no grounds for bringing an accusation against a prelate not more distinguished by his European reputation for learning, than by the simplicity and frugality of his life, and his genuine Christian charity. On a former occasion the hon. Gentleman had made an attack upon the right rev. Prelate, which, however, on further reflection, he had withdrawn, namely, that he (the right rev. Prelate) had appointed himself Dean of Brecon; and he (Mr. M. Milnes) therefore hoped that the hon. Baronet would also withdraw this assertion, which was equally unjustifiable.
SIR BENJAMIN HALL: I have been asked by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract to withdraw this assertion. I decline to do any such thing. The statement I made to the House was this. In describing the condition of the diocese of St. David's, and quoting from the Report to the House of the Commission which was appointed by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham) to inquire into the state of education in Wales, and which had reported on the most lamentable condition of the churches in that diocese, I said, that notwithstanding this Report had been laid on the table of the House, and that the greatest publicity had been given to it—notwithstanding that it had been brought under the notice of the right rev. Prelate himself, and notwithstanding that there were four archdeacons in the diocese—

571
there had not, to the best of my belief, and I believe so still, been a single visitation during the eleven years Dr. Thirlwall had been in the diocese. I also stated, that I was informed in conversation with one of the archdeacons, that the bishop had prevented himself from holding an archidiaconal visitation. That was the statement I made to the House, and by that statement I will abide. It is for the right rev. Prelate to settle the matter with the archdeacon who gave me the information upon which I founded my statement; but it so happens that this very morning I received a letter from the archdeacon, inclosing a communication from the bishop, in which he desires to know the circumstances of the case. It would certainly have been more convenient, I think, both for the bishop and for my hon. Friend (Mr. M. Milnes) if he had followed my advice, and had first looked at my answer, which I was prepared to place in his hand, and which I would have brought down to the House had I been informed that he was about to introduce the subject. In my answer to the archdeacon, I have recalled to him the conversation which I had with him at my own house, and in which I expressed my regret at the lamentable and disgraceful state of the diocese of St. David's, and also that he, being one of the archdeacons, should not have had a visitation. In reply he told me that he was prepared to make a visitation, and had got ready his charge written in the Welsh language, to read to those who should have come to hear it, but he was prevented by the bishop from making that visitation. That is my statement, and to that statement I will abide. I declare that I never saw any diocese, or any place in the United Kingdom, in so disgraceful a condition as regards the state of the churches, as may be seen by a reference to the report of the Government Commissioners. If any hon. Gentleman will go himself into the diocese, he will find churches without windows and without roofs, and yet an archdeacon is not allowed to make visitations.
MR. MORRISwas a resident in the diocese of St. David's, but he had never heard that the bishop had prevented archdeacons' meetings. On the contrary, he had regularly seen notices of the visitations in the country papers, and therefore he supposed they had been regularly held. He would venture to say that there was not in the whole diocese a clergyman who
572
worked harder than the bishop who presided over the see.
Subject dropped.

CATHEDRAL TRUSTS—THE ROCHESTER GRAMMAR SCHOOL.
Order for Committee of Supply read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. MOWATTsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the case of the Rochester Cathedral Grammar School, and to the administration of the Educational Trusts confided to the Cathedral Establishments of the Kingdom. The subject was not altogether alien to that just discussed, and was one of the greatest reproaches to the Church of England. Though his Motion related to the oppression which had been suffered by an individual in a good cause, it was intimately connected with the question of education generally, in which all parties and classes in this country had of late interested themselves. The particular case he would dismiss in few words. Early in 1848, the Rev. Mr. Whiston, then head master of the Rochester Cathedral Grammar School, applied by letter to the dean and chapter, under whose more immediate authority he held his office, representing to them that the fittings and other ordinary necessaries of the grammar school were defective, and pointing out that the four exhibitions attached to the school—which he hoped to make one of the great inducements to the gentry of the neighbourhood and the middle classes to send their sons there—were altogether insufficient, and unsuitable to the necessities and wants of the parties holding them. He pointed out that, although in 1542, when the school was endowed, in common with the cathedral institution, of which it formed a part, the sum of 5l. allotted to each exhibitioner was amply sufficient, being equal to about 80 l. at the present day, yet that it was now palpably inadequate for the purposes for which those exhibitions were originally established. But without the smallest reference to the manifest intention of the donor, or the increased value of the estate, the literal 5l. only was continued to be doled out. The dean and chapter answered, to the effect, that although they admitted the facts to be substantially correct, he (Mr. Whiston) was wrong in the inference drawn as to the obligation imposed upon them by the statutes. Mr. Whiston replied

573
by quoting at length and verbatim various extracts from the statutes by which the cathedral and grammar school of Rochester were founded and endowed by the munificence of Henry VIII. The dean and chapter cut the matter short by desiring Mr. Whiston, as one who was in their service and employment, and consequently from whom they had a right to expect deference and obedience, to close the correspondence. He, having at heart the welfare of the school, appealed instead to the public. He first, however, made some further efforts to arouse the dean and chapter to a sense of their duty; and, amongst other steps, he submitted a case to the then Attorney General, Sir John Romilly, and another eminent lawyer, Mr. W. D. Lewis of the Equity bar, inviting their opinion as to the construction of the statutes. Finding, however, single-handed and powerless as he was, that he was unable to obtain redress from that wealthy body, he ultimately published a work, entitled, Cathedral Trusts and their Fulfilment, having for its object to arouse the attention and invite the sympathy of the public on behalf of a cause so well advocated, and its interference between himself and the Dean and Chapter of Rochester. For this offence, as they were pleased to term it, they dismissed him from his office, alleging that a man capable of making statements reflecting indirectly so grossly upon the character of the clergymen composing the deanery and chapter of Rochester was altogether unworthy to be entrusted with the instruction of boys at that grammar school. Such a conclusion as that would altogether depend on the truth or otherwise of the facts put forth in the rev. gentleman's work, and on the spirit in which he commented upon those facts, supposing them to be true. If any obloquy attached to the dean and chapter, it was simply because the facts were true and undoubted, and not because of any comments which he had thought it his duty to make. The facts themselves were of so damning a character to that body, that any comment on them was superfluous. This case was of necessity mixed up with the question of the administration of educational trusts by the cathedral bodies of the kingdom generally; and it was impossible to treat of this single case without touching on the grammar schools connected with other cathedral bodies. The preamble to the general statutes regulating cathedrals stated, amongst other things, that these bodies had been founded and endowed for these purposes—
574
"That youth might be liberally trained, old age provided with things necessary for living, that there might be liberal largesses of alms to the poor—for the repairs of roads and bridges—and that other offices of piety might thence flow abroad far and wide to all the neighbouring places, to the glory of Almighty God, and the common welfare and happiness of the subjects of these realms."
The words of the Rochester statutes plainly showed that the grammar sshool boys, and the four exhibitioners, had a claim upon the foundation for their "sustentation," in the words of the statutes. In page 89, it was stated, "We ordain that there shall be for ever, in the founder's church at Rochester, twenty poor boys maintained out of the cathedral revenues." That was repeated in the statutes half a dozen times, in one shape or another. A few lines further was the following: "We will that these boys be maintained, or have their alimony at the cost of our church at Rochester." In page 10, again, it spoke of those boys as "those who are maintained at the charge of our church." At page 96, they were spoken of as "the boys learning the grammar, and having their victuals or living given them for nothing." Subsequently, in page 107, it spoke of "the four students or scholars sent with exhibitions to the two universities." It said, "We ordain that out of the funds of our Church four poor scholars be always maintained in our universities." The revised cathedral statutes of Elizabeth, confirming those in all essential points, had these words, in reference to the same subject:—
"Moreover, we ordain that out of the whole number of the grammar boys who have their sustentation in our Church, there be for ever maintained of those who have made greater progress than the rest—where fifty scholars, ten students; where forty scholars, there eight students; where twenty-four scholars, there four students; where eighteen scholars, there two students in our university at Cambridge, and the same number at Oxford, to whom let the usual stipend be paid annually, for six years, unless they shall have gained a fellowship in any one of the colleges."
Again, in the 25th chapter of the Elizabethan statutes, relating to the duties of the dean, were these words: "Let him also look after the health of those boys, whose liberal bringing up, both in learning and at the table, we commit to his honour." It was to be regretted that the founder had not provided a better security for the fulfilment of his wishes than this frail reliance. The fresh statutes of Charles I. and II. were to the same effect. These were again ratified by Act of Parliament, 6 Anne, cap. 21, confirming the rights of

575
the boys, and repeating the very words of the statute. The Durham statute contained the following:—
"We direct and ordain that there be for ever in the said church one dean, twelve prebendaries, twelve minor canons, one deacon, one subdeacon, ten clerks, one master of the choristers, ten choristers, two teachers of the boys in grammar, and eighteen boys to be instructed in grammar."
The words of the Canterbury statutes were similar, the number of scholars varying. He would now cite the part of the Rochester statutes allotting precise amounts to each of these classes:—
"The dean is to have 100 l.; six prebendaries, each to have 20 l.; six minor canons, each 10 l.; the master of the grammar school to have 13 l. 6s. 8d.; the master of the choristers, 10 l.; the second grammar master, 6l. 11 s. 10 d.; twenty grammar boys, each to be allowed 1l. 13 s. 4d.; four students at Oxford and Cambridge, each 6l. 13 s. 4d., or 26 l. 13 s. 4d.
These sums, though small in the present day, were of about sixteen times the value in 1542, and thus formed an adequate remuneration to the respective officers. The House must admit that the fact contended for by Mr. Whiston as to the construction of the statutes was established—that the endowment of Henry VIII. in 1542 made express provision, foremost among other things, and only second to the more important spiritual objects contemplated, for the training and education of youth. The educational trust was, beyond all question, contemplated as one of the most important committed to the care of these bodies. Though he had specified the Rochester case particularly, his facts and arguments applied to all similar trusts. The charters were in the form of deeds of trust, requiring them to undertake the care of the schools, which was then, as now, thought a subject of vital importance. The effect of twelve or thirteen trained grammar schools upheld by these cathedral bodies, would, were the trusts properly executed, form a nucleus in all the large towns whence the most beneficial effects would flow. The cathedral of Canterbury was required to provide sustentation for fifty boys, for which 4l. each, or about 60 l. at the present day, was allotted. Those boys, in the skeleton of a school at Canterbury, had been cut down from 4l. to 1l. 8s. 4d. Westminster had funds, and was enjoined to provide for forty boys. It had carried out to a great extent the intention of the founders, although of late years it had levied 3,500 l. from the boys, on the plea of extending the building—notwithstanding that in the endowment express provision had been made
576
for all wants relative thereto. Worcester had reduced the stipend of its forty boys, and probably the number, from 2l. 13 s. 4d. to 5s. 10 d. Ely, which had no less than 300 scholars in the 16th century, had now only twenty-four; Peterborough had twenty, and Rochester had either eighteen or twenty, making in the whole 212 free scholarships, and between fifty and sixty exhibitioners to the universities. There were, besides, twenty-four scholars at Chester; twenty at Bristol; twenty at Carlisle, where a few years ago the school was shut up altogether; and twenty at Gloucester. The whole number to be provided for by the statutes of these eleven cathedral bodies was 296, and about fifty-six exhibitors. Such a provision as this could not possibly be overrated in the present day, when the want of education was so much felt. Had the cathedral bodies carried out their trusts? He would now refer to the opinions of the Master of the Rolls and Mr. W. D. Lewis, who was an ornament to the legal profession. The questions and answers were as follows:—

"1. Are the Dean and Chapter of Rochester under a legal obligation to allow the four university students, created by their cathedral statutes, a yearly sum of money out of the common funds of the cathedral, sufficient for the 'alimony' or maintenance of the said students, so long as they comply with the conditions of the statutes, in respect of residence at the university, and provided they take the degrees of B. A. and M. A. at the usual times?

"2. Are the said dean and chapter under a legal obligation to provide for, or to defray the costs of the maintenance of the twenty foundation scholars created by the said statutes, out of the common funds of the cathedral?

"3. Does not the word 'alere,' used in those statutes, impose upon the dean and chapter the legal obligation of providing for the said four students and the said twenty scholars what may be called 'alimony' to the extent of board and lodging at least?

"4. Do the terms of the grant by which the cathedral lands, &c., are given to the corporation of the dean and chapter, or does the fact of 5l. being assigned as a pension or stipend to the said four students, and 10 d. a week for commons, with 8s. 4d. a year for livery, and 1s. 8d. for stipend to the said twenty scholars, or does desuetude, or any other legally valid plea, release the dean and chapter from the obligation of providing for the maintenance of the four students, and the twenty scholars, to the extent of board and lodging at the least?

"5. Is an appeal to the bishop of the diocese the proper step to take in the event of the dean and chapter refusing to provide the maintenance aforesaid?"

"We have met in consultation on this case, and are of opinion—

"1. That the Dean and Chapter of Rochester are, by virtue of the letters-patent and charters

577
of Henry VIII., respectively called the 'Fundatio,' 'Dotatio,' and 'Statuta,' under an obligation in the nature of a trust, to allow, out of the common funds of the cathedral, to the four university students nominated from time to time, pursuant to the statutes, a yearly sum of money sufficient for their maintenance at the university, subject to their complying with the conditions of the statutes in respect of residence at the university and taking their degrees. The treasurer of the cathedral is, by the statutes, the officer appointed to make these payments.

"2. We are of opinion that the dean and chapter, upon the same letters-patent and charters, are under an obligation in the nature of a trust, to provide for, or to defray the costs of the 'maintenance' (according to the language of the statutes) of the twenty foundation scholars, nominated pursuant to the statutes, out of the common funds of the cathedral. The treasurer is also the officer appointed to make these payments.

"3. We think that the proportion of the increased income applicable for the maintenance of the university students and foundation scholars is to be regulated by the proportion which the statutable stipends assigned for their benefit, bear to the other stipends assigned by the statutes. Should the share thus ascertained be found more than adequate to provide board and lodging for the four university students and twenty foundation scholars, it may be doubtful whether the surplus would go in augmentation of their 'maintenance,' or in the extension of the limits of the charity, to other students and scholars.

"4. We are of opinion that, in this case, desuetude would not constitute a valid plea to release the dean and chapter from the obligation which (as above stated) the statutes impose upon them. With regard to the terms of the grant (dotatio), we think that there is nothing in it to conflict with what we have already stated to be, in our opinion, the proper interpretation of the statutes. On the contrary, as the grant was made in puram et perpetuam eleemosynam, and as the dean and chapter were empowered to hold lands by the "Fundatio," subject to the observance of the ordinances which the founder then had in contemplation, and as the then annual value of the estates was exhausted by the statutable allowances and apportionments, we think that the increase of the rents became applicable to the augmentation, pro rata, of the various specific payments directed by the statutes, or to corresponding purposes, upon the principle of cy-près applied to charities.

"5. Should the dean and chapter or the treasurer refuse to provide for the purposes above specified, application should, in the first instance, be made to the Bishop of Rochester, as visitor, to correct the evil: but probably the visitor, in the exercise of his discretion, would think it proper that the matter should go to the Court of Chancery, to be adjusted there, and would so act as to effect that object.

"JOHN ROMILLY,
"WILLIAM DAVID LEWIS.
"Lincoln's Inn, November 25."
He thought if any doubt had existed in the minds of hon. Gentlemen, they should be put an end to by these plain, decided, and unequivocal opinions, coming from such high legal and equitable authorities. That
578
being the case, he would now state what had been the conduct of the Dean and Chapter of the Rochester Cathedral with respect to the education confided to their trust. The sum of 53 l. 6s. 8d., allotted to that school in 1542, would, at the present day, amount to about 853 l. 6s. 8d.; that was to say, that if the dean and chapter had allotted pro rata the funds intrusted to them, it would have been their plain duty to have allotted at least that sum to the support of the two masters, the twenty boys, and the four exhibitioners; or, if they had increased those stipends in the same ratio as they had increased their own, the sum to be allotted would amount to 1,812 l. 13 s. 4d. But during the years 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834, 1835, 1836, 1837, and 1838, the sums which they had paid for this purpose out of their prodigiously increased revenues were severally 9l., 6l., 5l., 5l., 6l., 3l., 1l., and 1l., until at last, in 1839, there was neither scholar nor school at all. They had pulled the building down, sold the site, and there was no boy to receive anything. That was the manner in which these gentlemen discharged the trust confided to them; though, as he had before stated, they had increased their own stipends by thirty-four times the amount originally intended for them. In a short time subsequently, being alarmed by the commentaries of the press on the subject, they built another school, and gave as a reason for disposing of the old one, that it was out of repair. He believed that during the present century the Dean and Chapter of Rochester had divided among themselves the sum of 5,000 l. which ought to have been devoted to educational purposes. Now, he felt bound to observe that the Dean and Chapter of Rochester had not disputed any of these facts; and he could not help thinking that the mere statement of the facts, as far as they went, by any person, could not form a sufficient justification for the dismissal, by the dean and chapter, of the individual who might give publicity to them. But it so happened that the dean and chapter did dismiss Mr. Winston, the head master of the school, for publishing these facts, stating that, in their opinion, the man who could make use of the language which he did in his work on the subject, was unworthy to discharge the functions of head master of the Rochester grammar school. Now he (Mr. Mowatt) referred with confidence to that work, and defied any hon. Gentleman to point his

579
finger at any phrase therein not justified by the facts of the case. It was true that it characterised the conduct of the dean and chapter as unbecoming that of gentlemen, much less clergymen and trustees, bound to administer money placed in their hands for educational and charitable purposes. Mr. Whiston certainly did make use of strong language; but then that language was pertinent, and strictly applicable to the facts brought forward. No remedy whatever existed for this case of oppression. First, the dean and chapter had the power to dismiss Mr. Whiston; and next, it was impossible for the bishop to interpose in his behalf without bringing on himself the most signal condemnation, since the Bishop of Rochester was himself previously Dean of Worcester, and, in that capacity had sanctioned similar misappropriation of the funds of that Church. Whilst Dean of Worcester, he had cut down the stipends allotted for the support of the scholars from 2l. 13 s. 1d. to 5s. 10 d. However, Mr. Whiston having made an appeal, not with reference to his dismissal, but with reference to the dean and chapter declining to fulfil their proper functions, the bishop, after keeping him some months in correspondence, and in suspense, finally said, "I think, after all, your best way is to go to Chancery," meaning, probably, by that, that he might go to some other place not mentionable to ears polite. So that it was no far-fetched deduction to say that it would be idle to apply to a man to decide as a judge whose antecedents made it impossible for him to decide without condemning himself. Fortunately for the scholars, Mr. Whiston was a man not disposed to yield tamely to such proceedings, and he consequently appealed to the public, through his work entitled Cathedral Trusts and their Fulfilment, which had, however, meanwhile the effect with his self-constituted judges of confirming his dismissal. In that state of things he applied to the Court of Queen's Bench, and obtained a mandamus, compelling the dean and chapter to restore him to his office, or to show cause for not complying. He might observe that Mr. Whiston adopted that course more with the hope of inducing his opponents to meet him on the merits of the case, than with any other intention. But they abstained from putting in their case the opinions of their counsel in relation to the matter; and, therefore, he thought he might conclude that these opinions were
580
confirmatory of those which he had already quoted as expressed by the present Master of the Rolls and Mr. Lewis. The dean and chapter met him, however, on technical grounds, stating that he should have applied in the first instance to the bishop, as visitor, and in case of his refusing to entertain the case, then he (Mr. Whiston) would have been justified in going before the Queen's Bench. Now, in his (Mr. Mowatt's) opinion, that was an admission of the substantial merits of the case. He would refer to a table showing the comparative value of the cathedral endowments in 1542, when they were founded, and at the present day, with accounts of the sums drawn by the dean and chapter for their own emolument, and also of those expended upon schools. The original endowment of the Cathedral of Canterbury was 2,547 l. 18 s.; the present value, 84,525 l.; gross receipts, as returned by the dean and chapter, on an average of seven years ending 1834, were 15,463 l. In 1542 the sum expended on schools was 430 l., or one-sixth of its total revenue; in 1834 the chapter expended only 1–464th part of its revenues on educational purposes. The original endowment of Bristol was 688 1. 9s. 9d.; its value by the last returns was 24,780 l.; the proportion received in this case by its dean and chapter was 4,489 l. The amount expended upon schools at the period of its foundation was 20 l., or 1-34th of the revenues; it was now only 1–279th part of the revenues. He would not weary the House by going over all the cases. He would take that of Rochester, with which he was more immediately concerned. The original endowment of Rochester Cathedral was 820 l. 10 s.; by the last return the value was 29,538 l., out of which the dean and chapter took directly, 7,099 l. The amount expended in 1542 on the school was 99 l. 18 s. 6d., or one-eighth of its whole revenue; whilst the proportion expended in 1834, before the school was closed, was 1–233rd part. With more or less variation, the same enormous disparity existed in all the other cases. He would refer to the return of the Cathedral incomes for the two periods, because it showed the distribution of the revenues amongst the different dignitaries and officers of the chapters. In 1542 the Dean of Canterbury received 300 l.; in 1831–1849, his income averaged 2,050 l. In 1542 the Dean of Rochester received 100 l., in 1840 he received 1,426 l. In 1542 the Dean of Peterborough received 100 l.; in

581
1849 he received 1,166 l. In 1542 the Dean of Gloucester received 100 l.; he received 1,100 l. in 1840. In 1562 the Dean of Worcester received 123 l.; at present he received 1,486 l. The canons of Canterbury, in 1542, received 40 l. 2s. 11 d.; in 1849, 1,010 l. At Rochester, the stipend of each prebendary was 20 l. in 1542; whilst, in 1840, it was 680 l. 19 s. At Peterborough it was 20 l., in 1542, and 539 l. at present; and so on all the way through. He might be allowed to read the words of the oath taken by the deans and canons of cathedrals, that the House might see how badly, even according to their own interpretation, they fulfilled the duties that devolved upon them by virtue of their offices:—
"I, A. B., who have been nominated, elected. and instituted canon (or dean) of this cathedral church, having in my hand the Holy Gospels of God, swear that I will keep all and every one of the statutes and ordinances of King Henry VIII., our founder, and will take care that they shall be kept by others, so far as in me lies; and that I will not hinder what may be lawfully done for the profit and honour of this church, but will study and promote its interests. All and every one of these things I will take to mind, study, and observe, so far as in me lies."
By way of contrast, he wished to refer to the management of Trinity College, Cambridge. The sixty scholars in that College were each originally allowed only 3l. 18 s. 4d. per year as their total stipend or allowance; but that sum had been increased to 64 l. 7s. 8d. each. In Winchester school the increase had been from 3l. 6s. 8d. per scholar per annum to 50 l.; and in Durham school the increase was in like proportion. It was not his (Mr. Mowatt's) intention to go into evidence of the other abuses that existed amongst these cathedral bodies, and the violation of their trust in other than educational matters; but he thought he might contrast their conduct to the scholars with that which they pursued in their own individual cases, to show that they were not altogether insensible of the advantage of possessing money. It was remarkable, as an illustration of the value set upon money by the members of these institutions, that a prebendary of I Canterbury, who had put himself forward conspicuously with his comments on the case of Mr. Whiston, whom he accused of forwarding the cause of atheists and levellers, was a pluralist, who, far from being content with his prebendal income of 1,000 l., held benefices and preferments of various kinds amounting to the yearly
582
value of 6,217 l. 5s. With regard to the Dean and Chapter of Rochester, he only wished to add that they—robbed, he was going to say—but not liking to make use of strong language, he would merely say that they appropriated to themselves the funds set apart for the benefit of the students; and although their statutes expressly set forth
—"that in order that the minor canons and priests of the church may diligently attend to the duties of the church, we allow them licence to hold one and only one ecclesiastical benefice with the aforesaid services, provided that such benefice is not more than twenty-four miles from Rochester."
Still, nevertheless, the three prebendal priests of the church held benefices more than one in number, and at more than 100 miles' distance from the cathedral. The value of the livings held by the deans and five canons was returned at 7,740 l., exclusive of their own immediate revenues as deans and canons of that cathedral, amounting to 4,830 l. per annum; or a total income of 12,570 l. They had also appropriated the funds of a lepers' hospital of which they were patrons, as successors of the former priors of Rochester, to such an extent that from 1822 to 1835 the dean received, for fines for the renewal of leases alone, no less a sum than 5,707 l. 7s. 10 d. Besides all this, the value of the patronage in the hands of the dean and canons, and enjoyed by their connections, was 4,940 l. As an additional instance of the rapacity of the dean and chapter, he begged to state the following case to the House. A few years ago, one of the canons died, and his canonry lapsed to the Ecclesiastical Commission, so that a dean and five canons were left for the "spiritual services," at the rate of 4,830 l. a year for what they might do. Accordingly, on their praying to he relieved from the additional duty by the appointment of a substitute, the Commissioners consented, and allowed 50 l. a month for it. The chapter then selected, and the bishop approved as a substitute, the most heavily burthened canon of those who had prayed to be relieved from labours which, for the most part, were now discharged by the minor canons, but without any of the 50 l. He would state another case, reflecting, in his opinion in like manner, on one of the prebendaries of Rochester. The Charter House provided an exhibition of 20 l. a year for eight years "for the children only of such as have not the means to bring them up." Now, one of the pre-

583
bendaries of the cathedral, who enjoyed an income of 2,251 l. and a living worth in tithes 953 l., and who solicited an increase of stipend from the Lepers' Hospital, got an exhibition of 100 l. a year for his own son for the eight years, whilst he refused to admit the allowance beyond the original 5l. to the poor scholars, and which by the charter they were to be allowed to enable them to pursue their studies at the school. Just fancy a man with such an income quartering his own son on the establishment with an exhibition of 100 l. a year, and yet having the heart to confine the others to 5l. He was now about to ask the House to address the Crown for a Commission to inquire into the administration of the educational trusts confided to the cathedral establishments of the kingdom, and he hoped that no member of Her Majesty's Government would offer any objection to the proposal. He would not beforehand, at all events, do any member of the Government the injustice to suppose that they could be so indifferent to the interests of the country, in so far as they were connected with education, as to throw the slightest impediment in the way of any bonâ fide remedial measure that might be proposed to the House, unless it were open to some very strong objections. He inferred, however, that this Motion would be opposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn). He had no desire to speak disrespectfully of that right hon. Gentleman, nor would he say it offensively, but he must remark that he thought that right hon. Gentleman stood in a false position with respect to this question, for he stood in the position of the hired advocate of the Ecclesiastical Commission, and had always in that character advocated all the abuses that came within the cognisance of that commission. Now, although Henry VIII., when he founded these cathedral bodies in 1542, had passed statutes for their government, he never intended to part with the control over them, for, within four years after their establishment, a Commission was issued to inquire into the manner in which the trusts confided to them had been carried out. He thought that, when such maladministration as he had shown existed, it was quite consistent with the obligations of the Crown to grant such a Commission of inquiry as he sought. He could not be met by the assertion that this was a trifling matter, or one in which
584
the Government were not interested; for he would ask if it could be considered as a matter of trifling importance the scandalous misappropriation he had demonstrated of the munificent endowments created for the education, to a certain extent, of the people of the present and all future ages? In the words of the hon. Member for the University of Oxford, "What advantage is there to the community that might not flow out of these establishments, if they had been properly administered?" Let any man reflect upon the advantage which it would be to have a first-rate grammar school in every cathedral town throughout the kingdom. It would be difficult to over-estimate the beneficial results that might he expected from such academical establishments, so managed as to serve as models for similar institutions all over the country. It was impossible to give an impetus to the education of the upper classes without its exercising a great influence upon the lower classes.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'That' to the, end of the Question, in order to add the words, 'an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to appoint a Commission to inquire into and report upon the administration of the Educational Trusts confided to the Cathedral Establishments of the Kingdom.'"
MR. HORSMANseconded the Motion.
The SOLICITOR GENERALcould assure the hon. Member who had just resumed his seat that he had no doubt whatever of the purity of his motives, and his anxious desire, in bringing forward this Motion, to promote that which he felt to be a great public end; but, on the other hand, he (the Solicitor General) was entitled to ask from the hon. Member a little forbearance and consideration with reference to the motives of others who might not precisely agree with his views upon this subject, and towards whom he had used expressions which were hardly justifiable. The hon. Gentleman had termed the Dean and Chapter of Rochester robbers, and had also said that the Bishop of Rochester had so conducted himself that it was impossible for Mr. Whiston to obtain justice at his hands. The hon. Gentleman had also said that the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Goulburn), from whom he seemed to expect some opposition, was not to be credited on a subject of this kind. [Mr. MOWATT: No, no!] The hon Member said, at least, that that right hon.

585
Gentleman had placed himself in a false position in that House, because he was receiving an income as one of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The real question before the House, upon which the hon. Member had moved his Amendment, was whether they should go into a Committee of Supply. Of course, it was quite competent for the hon. Member to bring forward such a Motion upon such an occasion; but it was equally competent for persons who might feel the deepest interest in education (and quite apart from any objections that might be urged to the Motion), to say that, at this period of the Session, they thought it more important that the House should go into a Committee of Supply, than that it should enter into an inquiry of this particular description. He should not, however, rest the question there. There were other objections to the Motion which must be apparent to every one. The hon. Member had rested his Motion so entirely upon the case of the dean and canons of Rochester that, during an address of more than two hours, he had not devoted more than ten minutes to other bodies, while the rest of his speech was occupied with the case of the Rev. Mr. Whiston. Now the work which that gentleman had published was unquestionably a very able one, and contained a great deal of valuable information; but it would have had much more weight had he confined himself to a statement of facts without disfiguring it with the admixture of sharp reprobation of all those with whom he had had any difference. He was not going to enter into the points of dispute between Mr. Whiston and the dean and the canons of Rochester; but he thought that the first objection which presented itself to the Motion was that it really was a Motion founded entirely on a matter now in course of adjudication before a proper tribunal; and if there was one thing more inconvenient than another, it was that, when a gentleman had unfortunately got involved in a course of litigation, and was dissatisfied with the course which it was taking, he should think it desirable that the whole of his case should be brought before that House, and that Motions should be founded on that which was in course of being determined by a competent tribunal. The Rev. Mr. Whiston had in the first instance brought his case before the Court of Chancery, where it was decided that he had taken an improper course, and that he should have applied to the Bishop as visitor; and the same deci-
586
sion was subsequently given by the Court of Queen's Bench. The question at issue, namely, whether Mr. Whiston had been unduly removed, was referred to the visitor, before whom it was now pending, and who had the legal assistance of Mr. Baron Parke, and of Dr. Lushington, the Chancellor of the diocese of Rochester. He (the Solicitor General) thought that the case of Mr. Whiston was therefore safe in the visitors' hands, and that it was undesirable to issue a Commission to inquire nominally into the administration of the educational trusts confided to the ecclesiastical establishments of the kingdom, but clearly and distinctly into this particular case of Mr. Whiston. But the fact was, that our past legislation with reference to the cathedral funds had rendered this Motion most inappropriate altogether, irrespective of the time at which it was brought forward. The proper tribunal to inquire into these trusts, if they were such, was of course the Court of Chancery, which investigated all questions relative to trusts. And if they were not trusts in the strict sense of the word, the visitor was the proper person to apply to to correct any faults in their administration. There was nothing left for a Commission to do in this matter, as Mr. Whiston had rendered inquiry utterly needless by publishing a large portion of the statutes of the different cathedral bodies, and pointing out where the rest might be obtained. So that it was easy for any body so disposed to arrive at all the necessary information with respect to these educational trusts, if trusts they were, which this information would show. He believed that it would have been wise, not as a matter of trust, but of policy, if the Legislature, before passing the Act to which he was about to refer, had taken care, in arranging the distribution of the cathedral property, to make due provision for the education of the people in connection with these collegiate establishments. But by the 3rd and 4th Victoria, c. 113, the Legislature had fixed the income of every dean and prebendary in every cathedral, and had handed over the whole surplus to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, by whom it was to be applied, after all due charges were paid (according to the 67th section), in relief of the spiritual destitution prevailing in various parts of the country. There was another provision in the 49th section, relating to grammar schools—that nothing in that Act contained should be construed to affect the

587
right of any chapter, according to the customs and laws of that chapter existing at the time of the passing of the Act, to make due provision out of the corporate revenues for the maintenance of the fabric, the support of the grammar school, and all other necessary and proper expenditure. The effect of this clause was merely to give the dean and canons the power of spending money on grammar schools according to the statutes and customs prevailing at the time the Act passed. Complaints had been made of the conduct of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, who, instead of applying 200 l. a year to the education of forty boys, had appropriated to that purpose from 1,600 l. to 1,800 l. a year. Mr. Whiston, in the second edition of his pamphlet gave the dean and chapter due credit for this expenditure; but in the third edition, after some letters had appeared on the subject in the Times, he retracted a great portion of his praise, because the dean and chapter had compelled the boys to pay some 1,600 l. or 1.800 l. a year for other purposes wholly besides those of the original foundation. He (the Solicitor General) would only say that the statutes of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster contemplated a totally different class of scholars from those now receiving the benefits of the foundation. Those statutes referred to boys accustomed to live in the roughest manner, and who were to have no other attendance than that of three servants to the whole number of forty scholars. When increased accommodation was considered necessary for the boys, a large and commodious building was erected, and in order to pay off the charge of that building, and especially the expenses of erecting a sanatorium for sick scholars, it was requisite that a payment should be made by the boys upon the foundation; but the dean and chapter still continued to pay 1,800 l. instead of 200 l. a year towards the maintenance of the school. It became necessary, therefore, to insert a saving clause in the Act, or they would have taken away from the Westminster boys that 1,800 l. a year, which would have been handed over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The deans and canons, whose salaries wore fixed by this statute, could not be affected by the inquiries of the Commission; and, supposing that the Commission should decide that there were grammar schools which were not now kept up according to their ancient statutes, the question would be, if they were not trusts,
588
whether it was more expedient that the surplus arising from the chapter estates should be devoted to the grammar schools, or to the relief of spiritual instruction in populous places. Of course, if they were trusts, they were capable of being enforced; but whatever money was obtained for them must come from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and must be deducted from the funds appropriated to the relief of spiritual instruction.
MR. BERNALsaid, the case of Mr. Whiston was mixed up with a very important subject. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mowatt) had used Mr. Winston's case as an illustration of the general subject, and had brought forward the question with respect to the Dean and Chapter of Rochester as only part of the whole subject. He agreed with the hon. and learned Solicitor General that as the case of Mr. Whiston was now sub judice pendente lite, it ought not to be inquired into by that House. That individual continued to act still as master, and instructed a portion of the scholars who were voluntarily sent to him by their parents. He (Mr. Bernal) deeply regretted that such things should become matters of open scandal, and injurious to old and valuable institutions, doing no good, but exciting feelings of disgust and contempt. There had been a point referred to that night which was not sufficiently understood by the House or by the country at large—he meant the construction put by the hon. and learned Solicitor General on the statute of 3 and 4 Victoria, c. 113. If the doctrine advanced by the hon. and learned Gentleman were right, the fund was completely removed from the control of the ecclesiastical body. He agreed in thinking that the form in which the Motion was put, was not, perhaps, convenient, but the terms on which he had based it were of the greatest importance. These were points to which every Government should give their most earnest attention, and they should not allow those grievances to be bruited abroad for another year. The Church of England wanted support out of doors; it wanted that attention and reform which nothing but the action of the Government could sufficiently effect. He would ask the hon. and learned Solicitor General to explain to him how he conceived that the Dean and Chapter of Rochester could pay the salaries of six almsmen, to whom reference was made the other evening by the hon. Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall), if all the surplus funds be-

589
yond the salaries of the dean, archdeacon, and prebendary were expended?
The SOLICITOR GENERAL: I said, after all due charges were paid; and every such charge must come of course out of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners Fund. That is liable to make good the deficiency.
MR. BERNALthought, that whether in the shape of a Commission or an inquiry, the Government was imperatively called upon to look into this matter. No ecclesiastical body in the kingdom should withhold its compliance from the duo objects of the original holders; and if they did, it would he necessary for the Government to see that the trusts pointed out by the founders should be conscientiously observed. Whatever they thought or decided in that House, there was a spirit of inquiry and investigation abroad, and if they did not properly direct it, it might lead them into a sea of trouble and anxiety: but if they at once manifested a kindly yielding to, and a genial harmony with, the spirit of the age, they might proceed with safety. If they slumbered on in an uncertain kind of life—at times defending the ecclesiastical bodies, at others carping at them, but doing nothing—they would be behind the spirit of the age, and do their best to destroy the bulwarks of the Church, and that general spirit of religion that was inherent in the bosom of every British subject.
MR. MONCKTON MILNESbegged to bear his testimony, the result of a long and intimate acquaintance with Mr. Whiston, to that gentleman's ability and excellent character. If in his pamphlet Mr. Whiston had used any phrases which appeared to partake of unnecessary acerbity, hon. Gentlemen should not forget that that pamphlet was published only as a last resource, and after every attempt had been made on his part to bring about what he conscientiously believed to be just by fair and courteous means; and, secondly, that, when summoned before the chapter, he stated in the most positive way that he extremely regretted any violent expressions which he might have used, and that he entirely disavowed any intention of injuring or insulting any member of that body. And he (Mr. Milnes) could not but think that the chapter would have done greater justice to the religion they professed, and the establishment to which they belonged, if they had treated Mr. Whiston in a different spirit, and met his advances in an-
590
other manner. If the ease was as it had been stated by the hon. and learned Solicitor General, then indeed they had nothing whatever to do with the matter, and they would have had merely to refer Mr. Whiston to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and to say that they would be extremely glad to dispose of a larger portion of the cathedral funds in favour of this educational establishment, but they were prevented by law from doing so. The fact was, however, he could not find that the dean and chapter had ever used that argument. On the contrary, so far from that, they had always, in their communication with Mr. Whiston, stated that the question of increasing the advantages of this educational establishment was one to which they were not opposed, and to which they were perfectly willing to direct their attention. They never seemed to think for one moment that the case was out of their hands. There could be no doubt that the legal question had gone against Mr. Whiston—that the question whether these cathedral trustees were trustees in a legal sense or not had been decided against him; and his removal from the office of master was a secondary matter to that. Mr. Whiston had certainly failed legally; but that was no reason why, upon a representation of the case before the House of Commons, some remedy should not be applied to the difficulty. In asking for a commission, his hon. Friend (Mr. Mowatt) had done no more than the circumstances of the case fairly warranted him in doing; and if he went to a division, he (Mr. Milnes) should certainly vote with him. Mr. Whiston's case appeared to him to he one of very peculiar hardship. He, in fact, created the school at Rochester. It had been allowed to fall into decay and disuse. The cathedral body represented that it was beaten out of the field by good proprietary schools in the neighbourhood; but it was their business to see that it did not fall into that position. It was in a generous spirit that Mr. Whiston took up the case, and he had been hardly dealt with by them for it. If the present debate was followed by no other consequences, he trusted that, at any rate, it would reach the ears of that important body the Dean and Chapter of Rochester that it was the opinion of this House that Mr. Whiston's case was deserving of at least very generous consideration; and he did hope they would see that it would be becoming in a great body like them to act above all suspicion

591
of petty motives, personal feelings, personal pique, or personal profit. He trusted that they would see that they could not do greater justice to themselves than by putting the most lenient, even though it might not be a strictly just, interpretation upon the past, and by retaining Mr. Whiston in the situation to which he had done so much honour, really confer honour upon themselves.
MR ROUNDELL PALMERconsidered it was much to be lamented that when hon. Members desired to bring forward Motions involving general propositions for the advantage of the Church and of the country, they should take these as opportunities for attacks upon individuals, named or not named, most unjust in principle, probably most unjust in their application to the individuals, and which those individuals were not present to answer. The offence imputed to the Dean and Chapter of Rochester had been this—that there being certain statutes which provided for various excellent purposes that had fallen into decay, as well as for the maintenance of deans and canons, the deans and canons allowed some of those purposes to fall into decay, while others beneficial to them had been kept up. This practice had been enduring for centuries, and now it was made the subject of imputation against certain individuals who at a given moment are found administering the trust. The law of the country sanctioned usages of that kind; in numerous cases, similar to this, it was held that where certain deeds give certain money charges to a certain amount, and the rest of the property to individual use, the legal right to keep the whole surplus without increasing the fixed payments was one vested in the persons to whom the property is entrusted. How, then, could it be expected that the members of a corporate body should open their eyes to the duty of turning reformers, the law saying they were not bound to do so—the law sanctioning the present administration of the trust. It must be remembered that the question did not affect schools only; there were exhibitions to the Universities and so forth. If the chapters were now to be called upon to appropriate their funds to the revival of decayed but useful branches of the original foundations, according to the statutes and the intentions of the founders, the whole of the funds would be absorbed which were reckoned upon as available for the augmentation of poor livings. There were many
592
other original objects besides schools and scholars; and he was disposed to think, that by a much closer adherence to the intentions of the founder than was provided for in the statute, at least an equal amount of spiritual good might be effected. Nothing could be more proper than to guard against any undue divergence of Church property into particular hands, so that the funds of the Church would be made the means of accumulating large fortunes; but at the same time there should be an abstinence from attacks on individuals because they did not originate reform or restoration. The hon. Member (Mr. Mowatt) might have done considerable service by introducing the subject, if personal matter had not been so largely mixed up with it, and if the general policy had formed the staple of the argument; but the subject was a very large one. He (Mr. Palmer) would say, with regard to it, that he thought the course the Legislature had taken in the direction of Church reform had been too much in the nature of a divergence from the original destination of Church property. The cathedral bodies derived large incomes from tithes of parishes, and it might have been thought an obvious thing to restore the tithes to the parishes that paid them, at least so far as to provide for the spiritual wants of those parishes. But that was a principle not recognised upon the face of the Cathedral Act, though perhaps more acted upon than it had been. [An Hon. MEMBER: It is recognised.] Well, if recognised, it was not made incumbent. It was a very serious question, how far the power of these bodies had been diminished by recent legislation as to schools of this kind; and it seemed unjust to introduce such a subject to the consideration of the House in language which implied that wrong had been done by individuals, and that they had acted unconscientiously, when they had merely abstained from taking upon themselves an extensive system of reform in the shape of a revival or restoration of institutions which had remained in their present state from a period dating from long before these parties came into possession. It was much to be regretted that Mr. Whiston did not bear those views in mind, and consider what was due to individuals from those who desired to reform abuses. He might have done great public good without suffering any injury himself if he had addressed himself to the law affecting the subject, or the expediency and policy of a

593
reform of the system of cathedral schools. It was to be regretted that he should have proceeded in the spirit of attack upon individuals who were, after all, his superiors, to whom he was subordinate, and who, if they had the feelings of men, could not but expect from him some degree of consideration for the position which they occupied.
MR. HUMEsaid, the hon. and learned Member who last addressed the House had talked of the unfairness of making charges in that House against absent individuals. He (Mr. Hume) would ask that hon. and learned Member if he meant that they were to wait until the bishops came into that House to defend themselves? If he did not mean that, what did he mean? He (Mr. Hume) admitted that for centuries abuses had existed in the Church. There was, therefore, the greater reason that those abuses should be reformed. He was one of those who thought that the clergy were always opposed to all Church reform; and though there were many estimable men among them anxious to promote the real interests of the Church, yet, as a body, there was no class of men more disposed to hold fast what they had got. He contended that Mr. Whiston had been most unjustly treated, and in consequence of that treatment the dean and chapter had exposed themselves to public notice. He hoped the noble Lord at the head of the Government would consent to the appointment of a Commission—a Commission composed of laymen, for he wished to see no more Clerical Commissioners—for the purpose of inquiring into the abuses connected with these trusts, and not only of inquiring into them, but of correcting them. That was the way to bring the Church into good character with the country, and he did think the noble Lord at the head of the Government would be disposed to listen to the suggestions which had been made in the course of the discussion. Where, as in this instance, education was the object in view, and where it was manifest that funds had been misapplied, surely the noble Lord, as a friend of the Church, would agree to the inquiry which was sought.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he must preface the few words he had to say, by calling the attention of the House to the fact that this was an Amendment in order to prevent the House going into Committee of Supply. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mowatt) who had moved the Amendment
594
objected to the House going into Committee, and said, let them rather consider the question of Education in connection with the cathedrals of this country, and more especially with that of Rochester. He (Lord John Russell) was disinclined to enter into that particular case; but, supposing the Government were disposed to entertain this question, there was a question which had been put by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Roundell Palmer), and which it would behove the House seriously to consider as a separate question, and seriously to deliberate upon it, before they decided on the course which had been suggested by some hon. Members, and especially by the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means (Mr. Bernal). There was an inquiry begun by the Commission appointed during the short Administration of the late Sir Robert Peel in 1834–5. That Commission was continued with some alteration of the Members, and they made several reports. He (Lord John Russell) had the honour to bring in a Bill founded on one of those reports, and he had succeeded in carrying that measure. What those Commissioners specially pointed out as the great evil which it was their bounden duty to inquire into, and which it was the bounden duty of Parliament to attend to, was the spiritual destitution in different parts of the country; in parishes originally having a population perhaps of 15,000, which in the lapse of time had increased to 40,000, 50,000, or 60,000, and even more in some cases; and they gave the population of Middlesex, Yorkshire, and Lancashire, and showed what was the number of churches as contrasted with the population of each parish. They said that was the main evil to be remedied; that, whatever other evils or defects there might be, that was the primary evil, and until that had been remedied, the Legislature ought not to attempt to carry into effect other changes or reforms. All the measures of the Commission were directed to that purpose. The principal object they had in view was to obtain funds for the purpose of remedying the spiritual destitution which existed, by erecting new churches in populous districts, and by appointing clergymen to minister in those churches and districts. For that purpose, and with that view, the number of canons in cathedrals was diminished, certain sinecure rectories were abolished, and various other changes were made. That, at all events, was a clear

595
and definite view. Of course there would be much difference of opinion as to the mode of carrying it into effect, but it was a definite view of what should be done with regard to Church reform. Some hon. Members had other views on that subject; they said, Rather let the House restore those cathedral establishments; do not cut down and reduce them so as to make them unsuitable to their original purpose; but look at that original purpose, and restore to its former vigour that which has been lost sight of by means of defects, abuses, or malversations. But when that proposal came before the House, although it gave rise to much discussion, and several powerful speeches were made in support of it, there was, on a division, few Members who voted in its favour. With regard to one question to which the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Roundell Palmer) had alluded, there was certainly a general recommendation on the part of the Commissioners with respect to the sources and places from which the funds had been derived; and he (Lord John Russell) remembered that was a question which occasioned a good deal of discussion in the Commission. The late Archbishop of Canterbury and the Earl of Harrowby, both exceedingly competent to give their opinion, and desirous to promote reform in the Church, had occasion to state their views as members of the Ecclesiastical Commission. The result of that discussion was, a resolution that the funds should, as far as possible, be applied to remedy spiritual destitution, but with a view to the benefit of parishes from which the funds were derived. As he had understood the business of the Commission—for, not having acted as a member of it for a long time, he did not speak from present experience—the question they had to determine was whether, and how far, they were to take into consideration the wants of parishes from which tithe would be derived to be applied to the purposes of the fund under the control of the Commissioners. But, with respect to the other object involved in proposals made for the restoration of cathedral establishments, bestowing large sums to support schools attached to them, and applying the funds derived from cathedral property to give more efficiency to the establishment of cathedrals, which should have a large body of canons attending to the wants of cathedral cities, that was neither recommended by the Commission
596
nor adopted by Parliament. When the House came to the discussion of that question, it would be for Parliament to consider whether they were to reverse what had been agreed upon with a full view of the consequences. If they believed the Church revenues might be and were absolutely required for the division of large into small parishes, for the erection of new churches, and for the payment of the stipends of the clergymen, these revenues would continue to be dealt with as they were dealt with at present. If, on the other hand, it were thought better to restore the cathedrals, and recur to the policy which was followed in founding them—if it were thought that they might be reformed, and a plan were laid down for effecting that object, then that plan would have to be pursued. But if the latter course were taken, they must not expect to realise the former. They must renounce that object which Parliament and the Commission had steadily had before them. He did not think it requisite to enter into the question whether or not the Dean and Chapter of Rochester behaved properly in this matter, or whether they were bound by ancient and existing customs. That was a question into which he did not think fit to enter, because it was really not in a state on which the House of Commons could pronounce any opinion: It was now a question which would be heard, and heard not only by the bishop, but by Mr. Baron Parke; and when the opinion of the bishop and of that learned Judge had been pronounced, it would be time enough for the House of Commons to come to a decision upon it.
MR. HEYWOODthought, that considering the change of views and circumstances which had occurred since the cathedrals were founded, he did not see how those establishments could be placed in the same position in the nineteenth century which they occupied before the Reformation. They were founded in times when people desired to have masses said for their souls; but there was no reasonable probability that the people of England would again become Roman Catholic. The tendency, indeed, was rather the other way. He thought it would be of great advantage if a Commission were appointed to consider how schools which had endowments connected with cathedrals could be rendered efficient. If they were so, subscriptions now required would be superseded, and the schools would be found to

597
form a nucleus for an improved system of education. He felt that the hon. Member for Penryn (Mr. Mowatt) had placed the House under an obligation by calling its attention to this subject.
MR. MOWATT, in reply, said, it had been supposed by the hon. and learned Solicitor General, that he had characterised the deans and chapters as "robbers." He had spoken indeed of the plunder they had committed—an expression which he acknowledged was almost as strong. Respecting the position of the deans and chapters subsequent to the passing of the Act, he wished to know what were the views of the hon. and learned Solicitor General.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, after the passing of this Act, the position of the deans and chapters, with reference to their property, was this—it became a matter of account. They had to account to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the surplus fund as soon as they came under the operation of the Act, and some of them had not yet come under it. [Mr. MOWATT: Rochester has not.] Looking to the number of years which have elapsed since the Act was passed, and remembering the age at which these persons generally arrived when they were appointed to the offices, they would soon all come under the Act. They would be allowed to charge the sums legally paid for the schools; but, if there was no school existing at the time of the passing of the Act, he should think the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would act very wrongly if they allowed the charges for these schools.
MR. MOWATTsaid, he did not intend to divide the House on his Amendment.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
Main Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Bernal in the chair.
(1.) 46,824 l. British Museum.
MR. HUMEsaid, that that was a large sum, but he had no objection to make to it, as it was to be applied to a most valuable national object. He wished to see the whole of that magnificent collection, and more especially the library, more extensively thrown open to the public. The Commissioners who had inquired into the state of the Museum had recommended a
598
change in the system of its management, and that instead of a Committee of thirty individuals, it should be managed by a small Executive Committee, whose members should be paid, and should be individually responsible for the trust committed to their care. He entirely approved of that recommendation, and he hoped it would speedily be carried into effect.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLISsaid, he believed there was no one institution in which the people of this country took so much interest as in the British Museum, and that there was none which offered such striking marks of increasing popularity. Forty years ago the number of readers amounted to 1,950 only, and last year the number of readers had increased to 72,000. In the year 1835 the number of books in the library was only 235,000, while they were at present, he believed, twice that number, or 470,000. Not less than 1,070,000 persons had entered the Museum as visitors in the course of last year, while the number of visitors five years ago had only been 680,000, and had only been 70,000 in the year 1810. And he could further state, that while the number of visitors had so greatly increased, their conduct had been beyond all praise. He believed the library of the Museum was at present open during a greater number of hours, and was accessible to a greater number of persons, than any similar establishment in the world. He trusted that during the recess the noble Lord at the head of the Government would take into his consideration the increasing wants of the establishment, and would give his attention to the necessity of adding to the buildings.
MR. W. J. FOXwould suggest that the reading room should be opened in the evening. There were hundreds and thousands of young men in the metropolis who desired this so earnestly, that if the expense were the only obstacle to the granting of their desire, they would most cheerfully contribute towards defraying the cost. They were persons whose occupations prevented them from attending during the day time; but they were a class really addicted to study, and would not treat it as a mere lounge. Such an alteration in the arrangements of the library was calculated to turn the great literary riches at their disposal to the best account. The only objection he had heard was the risk of fire attendant on the use of the necessary apparatus for lighting; but he

599
thought that very sufficient precautions might be taken against the possibility of accident. They might, for instance, take rooms near the Museum, and, to reduce the danger to its lowest amount, they might only allow the duplicate books to be used. These amounted to 70,000 or 80,000 volumes; but, supposing that there were only 50,000, they would of themselves constitute a very valuable library. This arrangement would be, comparatively speaking, so inexpensive, and the boon would be so great, that he trusted the proposition would receive a favourable consideration. As to the vote itself, he very much regretted that it was not for a much larger amount, inasmuch as greater accommodation had become absolutely necessary. He thought that a few thousands might very reasonably have been added, to enable Mr. Layard to prosecute his interesting and very valuable researches.
MR. EWARTgreatly approved of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Fox), but thought that there should be several libraries formed in London. The proposal of the hon. Gentleman would make, however, an excellent beginning. There had been large public libraries founded in Paris, Rouen, Amiens, and, as they sometimes found a ray of light proceed from a very unexpected quarter, even the Pope sanctioned a public library at Rome.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLISsaid, the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Fox) had stated the principal objection to opening the reading room at night, namely, the danger of fire. But that was by no means the only reason why they should not adopt the proposal. In the first place, there was the expense which would be caused by the larger staff that would be required, and it might be doubted whether the result would repay them for the additional outlay; for the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), who had proposed the extension of the hours at which the Museum might be seen, had admitted that it had not been productive of such benefit as he had expected. He (Sir R. Inglis) should be glad, however, to see two or three large public libraries of a humbler but more practical character established in the metropolis. Still he must object to the removal of the duplicates into a separate library. Some of them were often in use at the same time, and in others they could not be removed without the violation of trusts and bequests. It would, for in-
600
stance, be a breach of the public faith to remove a book from the library of George III., because a copy of it happened to be in Mr. Bentham's collection.
MR. STANFORDwillingly bore testimony to the civility of the attendants at the British Museum. He had read at most of the European libraries, and was disposed to agree with the proposal of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Fox). He thought the means for readers in this country were far less than in any other. He did not think that there were more than 1,000 regular readers at the British Museum. He must express a decided opinion that further opportunities of reading and of literary improvement ought to be offered by the Government. He hoped the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Inglis) would use his influence with the Government, in placing at the disposal of the public, at other hours than the present ones, the magnificent stores of the British Museum.
MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, the ventilation of the British Museum was such as to render it almost impossible for many gentlemen to attend there—he trusted some improvement would be made. The catalogue had certainly been improved; but the ventilation, he repeated, was exceedingly bad. He wished to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government a question upon a very grave subject. A Commission had been appointed—that Commission had sat for a considerable time, and had made a Report; but no proceedings had been taken upon that Report. He now wished to called the attention of the Government to that circumstance. He wanted to know if the Government intended to bring in any measure founded on that Report?
MR. SLANEYwished to press upon the noble Lord at the head of the Government the opinion of his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, namely, that a reading room should be procured elsewhere for the middle classes, where they could study in the evening. An arrangement had been made for the early closing of shops and warehouses; but the young men, who thus had leisure, could not yet avail themselves of their spare hours in literary instruction.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, he begged to make a statement, notice of which he had given to the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis). He wanted to know why it was that the Home Office, or any

601
other department of the Government not immediately connected with the administration of the Museum library, should interfere with it in any way? They had interfered in the map department. He held in his hand a letter from a gentleman who wished to consult a map of the river Med-way in the King's Library, that had been made about the year 1724. The writer complained that some maps to which he desired to refer were sealed up; and the functionary at the Museum, upon inquiry, told him that they were so sealed by order of the Government. Having inquired a little more, he was led to believe that the reason of this sealing was the dread of French invasion, and so as to keep from our Gallic neighbours the knowledge of the topography of these districts, and the nature of our fortifications. This absurd fear had long since passed away, and it seemed foolish that those valuable maps, useful for other purposes, should still remain sealed. As far as the fear of French invasion was concerned, there were some mapsellers in London who could give all the information which a Frenchman could require. He believed the maps were sealed on account of certain fortifications on the river Medway, most of which had long since disappeared, though the bag that contained the map remained sealed. The gentleman who had written to him was no Frenchman, but a most loyal subject of Her Majesty.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLISbegged to assure the hon. Gentleman that that was not the case. An action had been brought affecting the rights of the Crown; and, at the suggestion of the Master General of the Ordnance, the maps had been sealed up in order to prevent those rights from being assailed.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, in reply to the question of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. M. Milnes), that several of the recommendations of the Commission had been complied with, but it was not thought advisable to adopt the whole Report at once. Nevertheless, it was a most valuable document, and it would be resorted to from time to time, as occasion seemed to render proper. With respect to the suggestion about the establishment of new libraries, he had himself, when George IV. presented the Royal library, recommended that it should not be added to the Museum, but that it should form a separate institution. It was quite true that, compared with towns on the Conti-
602
nents, we should not make a very good figure as regarded public libraries, but the subject should have his best attention.
MR. HUMEsaid, that if there was to be no change in the governing power, he should no longer agree to the Vote. He considered it necessary to have a small executive body instead of a numerous Commission. A Committee was appointed, twelve years ago, to take the management, but it had never met, and one Member took it one day, and another another. The Master of the Rolls, Mr. Speaker, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, were members of the Commission, and they had surely too many engagements to attend to the business properly. What was wanted, was unity of management, instead of which it was left to individual members, and thus the funds were insensibly drawn from their legitimate objects, in order to gratify the peculiar tastes of each.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he felt bound to defend the Commissioners from the charge that no reliance was to be placed upon their attendance. The Commissioners comprised amongst the rest such men as Mr. Hallam, Mr. Macaulay, Sir David Dundas, and Lord Mahon, and in them the public might have the most entire confidence.
MR. HUMEdisclaimed the intention of casting any reflections upon the Committee; he had only argued that their other occupations rendered it impossible to pay proper attention to the Museum. Lord Seymour, for instance, was a member of eighteen boards. What was wanted was a few persons who should be there from Monday morning to Saturday night.
MR. HENLEYhoped that the trustees would take measures to have such information placed before them as would enable them to judge of the number of individuals that availed themselves of the advantages afforded them in the library of the institution. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) said he thought it desirable that several public libraries should be established throughout the country, but he had not applied himself to the immediate question at issue, having been led away from it by the observations which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman behind him. If the fact were, as the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Stanford) had stated it, he thought it very extraordinary that only 1,000 persons should have availed themselves of the benefits of this library.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLISsaid, that

603
such a statement was incorrect. The number of persons that used the library was nearer to 40,000, and the number of visitors exceeded 78,000 within the last year. The least number of volumes furnished in one day was 100, and one-third of the whole number of the books had been consulted or referred to.
MR. STANFORDsaid, he was in the habit of using the library, and never found more there than 300 persons on an average, who were generally the same that he usually met there. He therefore felt himself justified in saying that he thought there were not more than 1,000 persons who availed themselves of the advantage of the reading room. He believed that the 70,000 visitors alluded to by the hon. Baronet were made up of the same persons that attended there day after day.
Vote agreed to; as was also—
(2.) 31,221 l., New Buildings, British Museum.
(3.) 3,500 l., British Museum Antiquities.
(4.) 150,000 l., Public Education, Great Britain.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that in the absence, through indisposition, of his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department, he wished to make a statement, in explanation of this Vote. The House was aware that this Vote for Education commenced in 1833, when its amount did not exceed 20,000 l. In 1838, a great change was made with reference to the mode of distributing the sum thus voted by Parliament, it being arranged that a Committee of the Privy Council should be appointed to make that distribution, from time to time, to make minutes with respect to the mode in which the distribution was effected, and to take into their care various other questions connected with education. Large sums of money had been voted by Parliament for this purpose. Previous to the change in question, these sums amounted in the whole to 120,000 l., distributed by the Treasury; and, since that period, up to 1851, the sums granted amounted to 870,000 l., of which the Committee of Education had expended 641,540 l. up to the end of that year, and a further amount since. At this moment the balance in the hands of the Committee of Education was 99,586 l., and the estimate for the present year being 186,381 l., and the sum proposed to be taken being 150,000 l., this would leave in the hands of the Committee a balance
604
of 63,205 l., and it was deemed advisable, to leave in their hands a considerable balance in order to fulfil engagements which they had made, and payment of which might at any time be required. It was to be borne in mind that these sums contributed by Parliament, implied much larger sums contributed by the public out of doors. Of late years, a new principle had been established, which went much beyond the original scheme of simply contributing to the building of schools, a plan based upon the theory that the way in which the public funds could be made most practically available for education would be not so much the increasing the quantity as the improving the quality of education in this country; and, for this purpose, there bad been introduced a system of giving stipends to pupil-teachers, of augmenting the salaries of masters and mistresses, of awarding grants and exhibitions, of furnishing maps and books at a low price, and so on. At present there were 6,700 persons receiving annual payments, in one or other of the capacities he had mentioned, from the Parliamentary Votes. The plan, so far as it had been hitherto tried, had been eminently successful and highly beneficial, more especially in relation to the future teachers. He would beg to read to the House some extracts from the reports of the inspectors on the point. The Rev. H. Moseley, referring to the elementary schools inspected by him in Wiltshire and Berkshire during the months of October, November, and December, 1850, stated as follows:—
"The number of children who had left them during the twelve months preceding my examination was 1,488, and the number who had been admitted to them 1,853, so that the aggregate number of children attending them had increased by 365, being at the rate of 24 per cent. I attribute this increase to the greater popularity of the schools, growing out of the increased facilities they afford for the education of the children, and chiefly from the labours of the pupil-teachers. In the schools where pupil-teachers are employed, the monitorial system has generally been given up. Many of these pupil-teachers are entitled now to rank as assistant-masters and mistresses, and most effectual assistance is rendered by them in the teaching of the children, particularly of the lower classes, heretofore much neglected. A largo proportion of them manifest an interest in the work of the teacher, and may be considered to be well adapted to it. They have been selected as the promising children of their respective schools, are generally of fair abilities, and have made good progress in their learning, according to the course prescribed in your Lordship's schedule. Having made special inquiries from the clergy, and other friends and supporters of the schools, as to their

605
conduct, I have great satisfaction in reporting the favourable accounts that I have received. I believe that there is no other class of persons of that age whose conduct, subjected to the like careful observation and scrutiny, would be found more entirely free from blame. The schools in which pupil-teachers have been appointed are generally schools fortunate in the supervision of active and zealous clergymen; and I cannot convey in adequate terms the sense I entertain of the importance of this fact. I believe that the success which has, up to this period, characterised the working of the pupil-teacher system is mainly to be attributed to it."
The Rev. F. C. Cook, in the metropolitan district, said—
"I have little to add to the full report which I made upon this most important subject last year. The hopes which I then expressed are much confirmed by what I have since observed."
The Rev. F. Watkins, Her Majesty's inspector in the counties of York, Durham, and Northumberland, said—
"I am able to report very favourably of the progress of the system of pupil-teachers. There are very few of the whole number of schools in which pupil-teachers are apprenticed, which do not bear evidence to the fitness and usefulness of the system, by improvement, both in discipline and progress, correspondent to the time during which it has been at work."
The Rev. J. P. Norris, Her Majesty's inspector of schools in Cheshire, Shropshire, and Staffordshire, makes the following observations on the working of the pupil-teacher system:—
"Perhaps it might not appear at once to a casual observer that the standard of instruction in pupil-teacher schools was much higher than in non-pupil teacher schools, but, on a closer inspection of the tables, it will be seen to be the case, and that in the most satisfactory way possible. It is not in history, geography, grammar, or the higher rules of arithmetic—that is, in the first-class subjects—that the great disparity is shown; but in the lower subjects which still engage the bottom of the school—in the percentage of children still occupied with their alphabet and spelling, or who have not yet begun to write on paper or cast accounts—that the pupil-teacher schools appear so far in advance of non-pupil teacher schools. Thus, in pupil-teacher schools only 17 per cent are left in the alphabet class; in non-pupil teacher schools 48 per cent, or nearly half; in pupil-teacher schools only 5 per cent are writing copies on slates; in non-pupil teacher schools 46 per cent, or nearly half, are still so occupied; in pupil-teacher schools only 3½ per cent appear not to have begun arithmetic; in non-pupil teacher schools 52 per cent, or one quarter."
When it was considered for how brief a time the labouring classes were able to send their children to school, it was important to find that the results obtained in that time were so much greater than at former periods. The reports he had quoted were those of inspectors of the National
606
Society's Schools. He would now cite the report of inspectors belonging to other schools. Mr. J. D. Morell, the inspector of British and Protestant Dissenting Schools in the north and east of England, said—
"The system of pupil-teachers still remains one of the most interesting and important features in your Lordships' Minutes, and none, I believe, has had a greater effect in raising the general tone of primary education through the country. So long as examples of a thoroughly efficient primary school were wanting, there was no wonder at the little zeal exhibited in the progress of education, and in the improvement of the schools already existing. A single effective school, held up as a model to a district, is a realised idea, which places the entire problem of education to the minds of observers in a new light. To bring the mass of our population under such influences is seen at once to be an object worth all the effort and the sacrifice that can be directed towards it. This appears to me to be one of the first and foremost of the advantages which have been secured by the apprenticeship of pupil-teachers. Many other advantages are of course in reserve, but the mere fact of having by this instrumentality planted practically efficient schools here and there throughout the country—schools in which we are not wholly shut up to the formal mechanism of the monitorial system on the one hand, nor to the incessant waste of time consumed in drill, march, bad music, and dull routine on the other—this very fact, I say, renders the return to such methods and organisations a moral impossibility. The people themselves begin now to know what education is, and are not very likely to be again satisfied with an apology for it. With regard to the pupil-teachers themselves there is of course a great variety in their efficiency and progress, as there is in the circumstances under which they are placed. As a whole, however, they have considerably exceeded my expectations."
Mr. T. W. M. Marshall, Her Majesty's inspector of Roman Catholic schools, said—
"I ought not, perhaps, in speaking of matters affecting the welfare of Roman Catholic schools, to omit all allusion to the introduction into them, for the first time, of apprenticed pupil-teachers. The school managers who have availed themselves of their services, and watched the effect of their employment, appear to be unanimous in their sense of the value of this class of assistant teachers; and the improvement visible in the schools where they are found, is, with few exceptions, sufficiently marked and decisive to leave no room for doubt on this subject."
There was a similar report from Dr. Woodford, one of the inspectors for Scotland. It was to be observed that the encouragement of these pupil-teachers, and the rewards given for efficient teaching, had not only an immediate effect upon the young men themselves, but interested all their relations and friends in the great work of education, so that quite a novel and most effective impetus was communicated to the

607
labouring classes in the right direction by the opportunities afforded by this plan to the development of superior intellect and application among their relatives. The augmentation of the salaries of the masters and mistresses, and the annual exhibitions and grants, had also been found exceedingly useful. The great point to be aimed at was not so much the number of children going vaguely to school, as the securing a sound quality of education for those who did go there. One defect there was which it would be very difficult, he feared, to remedy, that namely of children being removed from school at a very early age. It appeared that no less than 35 per cent were taken away from school under seven years of age, 62 per cent under ten, while less than 8 per cent were above twelve. It was manifest there was great danger that children taken away so early from instruction would soon forget what they had learned, and the seeds of education be lost for ever, Yet, what remedy could be suggested? To poor people earning their few shillings a week, the temptation of the 1s. 6d. or 2s. which a child, if put to some employment away from school might earn, was very great. Perhaps some plan might be devised of schools at which children of about twelve and upwards might attend for short periods each day, so that what had been learned might be retained, and by the means of small lending libraries of books, a taste for reading be encouraged. One considerable item in the expenditure had been occasioned by the training school for workhouse teachers at Knellerhall; but there was every reason to believe that this institution would be attended with beneficial effects. Parliament and the public could not do too much in the way of raising the condition and honouring the position of the schoolmasters. There was no class of men whose employment was more useful to the community, and it was deeply painful to reflect what small salaries many of these persons received for the constant application of much ability, much learning, and much science, to the laborious work of education, so beneficial to all, yet so little appreciated. Now, he did not wish to enter upon any of the exclusive questions with regard to that education. He would only state that he believed the education given in the training schools in Dublin was of a very superior character, and he had been struck with the general attainments and correctness of memory of
608
those who had been educated there. He believed, likewise, that the small sums which were given to agricultural schools were of very great use, and it would be observed that it was proposed to increase that Vote to 14,000 l. more than the Vote of 1849. On the Vote for Schools of Design, his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade would give any explanation that might be required. He would only say that there was a head school in London; but what he thought even of more importance was that there were several branches connected with that head school, which contained no less than 3,000 pupils. There had been considerable progress made by the pupils in these schools, and great anxiety had been evinced to obtain instruction in them. It was desirable that the drawings which were made at the head school of design should be distributed through the schools in the country, which he believed would be a great means of improving its taste, and of giving a correctness to it which was very desirable. Then there was a sum nearly the same as before for the University of London, and a sum of 15,000 l, for the Museum of Practical Geology. This building had only been recently opened, but he did not doubt but great practical benefit would be derived from it. Any one who had visited it must have been pleased with its contents. It was calculated to be highly useful to this country; and when he considered how great were the mineral products of this kingdom, and the results of our mining operations—the value of the mineral produce of Great Britain and Ireland in the raw state being about 25,000,000 l. annually—he thought that any information and instruction to be obtained from a museum of that description would prove exceedingly beneficial. There was another Vote connected with subjects of the same kind which was not included in the present estimate. It was for the means of publishing the modes of interpreting cuneiform inscriptions. The gentlemen engaged in this work were unable to go on with their publications and to complete them without the aid of Parliament; and he had therefore assured them that any moderate sum which might be necessary for so very important an object, he had no doubt the House of Commons would vote. The whole amount proposed to be voted this year was 435,920 l., which, with the additional sums for the purposes he had just referred to, might probably be enhanced to

609
450,000 l, He believed that there was no class of Votes which came before Parliament which were more useful to the public than these, and he knew that the Committee would be disposed to deal liberally with them. The Committee would find that the expenditure for Public Education in Great Britain had very much increased within the last twenty years. In 1833 it was only 20,000 l. Now, it had got up to 150,000 l., and the whole of these estimates had increased very greatly since that period. While it was necessary that they should vote sums of money for the Army and the Navy, yet it was far more gratifying to vote sums of this kind for the purpose of promoting those sciences and fostering those arts which tended to maintain internal and external peace.
MR. W. J. FOXsaid, it seemed to him, on looking over the items of the Vote, that some further alteration must be made in the mode in which the grant was distributed. He found it was intended to expend 55,000 l. this year in school buildings. He thought the time was come when the Committee should check their hands, and be less lavish with this branch of expenditure. School building had gone on much more rapidly than school teaching, and there was more than twice the room required for the number of scholars who attended—a result of the system of rivalry amongst the different sects. In 1849 there were 581 schools, in which stipends were allotted to teachers, and they were capable of accommodating 183,000 pupils, but only 76,000 attended. In the ten years from 1840 to 1850, there had been 2,606 schools assisted with building ground, at a cost of 454,410 l. The capacity of these schools was sufficient to the accommodation of 549,493, whilst the average attendance was 196,000 children. That great overbuilding showed that, at least in that department, the liberality of the Committee should be checked, and means taken to fill the schools. There was, he thought, too much exclusiveness in the distribution of the grant, and more good would be done if they threw down some of the barriers which confined the liberality of the Committee of Privy Council. There were several classes of schools which were excluded from all participation in the funds of the State. First, there was growing up in London, as well as in the northern counties, a class of schools called secular schools, the children of which, although
610
only receiving secular instruction in the schools, were quite as religiously taught as those belonging to any other schools by their proper religious teachers at Sunday schools and otherwise. The success of these schools was very remarkable, and they were so popular amongst the operatives that they were self-supporting. The Rev. Mr. Mosely, the Government inspector, reported that these secular schools were superior to many of the schools which received part of the educational grant. Why should that class of schools, then, not participate in the funds of the State, in order to raise yet higher the standard of education which they exhibit, according to the very principle laid down by the noble Lord at the head of the Government that it was necessary to improve the quality rather than to increase the quantity of instruction given? Then, again, there was that other class of schools standing at the other extreme, which were found outside the line prescribed by the Committee on account of the controversy about trust-deeds, or because they were of too exclusively religious a character. He saw no reason why they should be shut out because the founder might lay down stringent rules as to clerical or episcopal authority in the management of the schools, or as to the creed or catechism to be taught in them. Let the founder be as exclusive as he pleased as to the religion of the school: so long as he trained up good citizens and useful and intelligent members of the community, his school, according to the measure in which it rendered service to the cause of education, ought to receive the favour and patronage of the dispensers of the grant. Another class of schools which did not receive any aid from the grant, was the ragged schools, where the element of religious discord did not stand in the way, and with regard to the children connected with which the State stood, in loco parentis. What these children wanted was moral and religious training—their wits were often found to be already well-sharpened, and as to intellect, they were often superior to the children of the labourer. Aiming, as the Ragged Schools did, at mitigating some of the worst and most loathsome evils of society, he thought they might be very fairly brought within the purview of the regulations of the Committee of Privy Council. Another class of schools excluded from the grants were schools connected with mechanics' institutes—school which, he believed, would

611
have a great effect upon the educational statistics of Lancashire, and others of the manufacturing counties. And, lastly, there were the schools belonging to the Jews of Whitechapel and other places, the managers of which actually applied for assistance from the grants, but were refused. These five classes of schools which he had named had all some kind and degree of merit, and ought to receive some share in the education funds voted by the State. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) said, there were already upwards of 6,000 pupil-teachers receiving stated sums annually, and there was also a large outlay on training institutions. He therefore put it to the noble Lord, whether there was not some danger of overstocking the mart of schoolmasters—of educating more young men in these normal institutions, where a large and liberal training was given, than were called for by the number of schools already existing, or likely to exist, under the present system? If, however, he might regard this as only a provisional arrangement, and as preparatory to some large plan of national instruction which was in prospective, he should rejoice at being enabled to view it as the harbinger of so desirable a consummation.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, with regard to the last observation of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that he certainly, for himself, did look forward with hope to the ultimate establishment of a more extended system of National Education. To promote such a result, the Government had been endeavouring to do as much as lay in their power.
MR. EWARTsaid, that one most unfortunate circumstance connected with the education of the children of the poorer classes, was the early period at which they were withdrawn from school; and it would be well to consider how far they might supply the want of education to those, classes by the establishment of evening schools. As the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had properly alluded to workhouse teachers, he would observe that a most important feature in workhouse schools was the separation of the children from the contamination of the workhouse. He should be glad to find, in some future year, the noble Lord able to expand the system of education; and he expressed his gratification that the Educational Estimates had now assumed their proper position, and would be, he hoped, introduced to the Committee in an annual statement.
MR. W. MILEShad not had the good fortune to hear the speech of the noble Lord at the head of the Government; but, in consequence of the observations since addressed to the Committee, he felt it necessary to say that the question really was, how far preliminary education should go, and how it should be conducted—whether or not on Christian principles? The Government education system, as at present carried on, prevented no persons from taking advantage of it provided they were Christians. The Bible must be the foundation of that education, and yet he had heard from the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Fox) that he preferred to give merely mundane erudition. Now, he (Mr. Miles) beseeched the House to insist that Christianity should be the basis of education which the Government might give. He lamented, as much as any man, that the children of the working classes could not be brought to attend school above the age of twelve years. The poverty of the parents, which rendered the earnings of these poor children of, perhaps, 3s. or 4s. a week, necessary to the support of the family, could only be deplored.
MR. HUMEwas sorry that the hon. Member had interfered with the very harmonious discussion that had been going on. If the hon. Gentleman had considered more, he would have addressed himself to the subject with more calmness and coolness. What would he do in Hindostan with his notions of education? ["Oh!"] Yes; he could tell hon. Members that education was carried on there without the addition which the hon. Gentleman required as the exclusive basis of any system of education. He (Mr. Hume) approved of the increase of expenditure in this Vote, provided it was properly applied, and he thought that during the last few months great improvements had taken place in the application of the money. Nothing had pleased him more than the emulation which the system had produced. He had seen schools in which a miraculous change, he might almost say, had taken place. Great effect had been produced upon the parents. He had known a school of a village in which none of the parents of the children going to the school could read or write. But emulation had greatly extended, and was even reaching into poor villages where there were no wealthy residents to advance money for education. A large number of villages in this country were without the means of procuring those schools to which

613
these grants were made; but unless there was a school in every village, the population could not be brought up creditably. In some places there were more schools than were necessary; but he hoped that eventually all classes would unite in that harmony which he remembered used to exist. The Government must determine that no individual should be employed in the public service unless he could read and write. If that were made a rule, he believed it would excite a desire in the people to see their children educated, and it ought to be a rule in every department, from the labourers in the dockyards. He hoped the noble Lord at the head of the Government would be able to unite all parties in an attempt to provide every man with instruction that would be useful to him. Education was everywhere wanted. Juries, for example, were wanted even in the villages, and he had seen in them with much sorrow instances of ten out of twelve jurymen not being able to read or write.
SIR JOHN TYRELLbegged to ask the noble Lord to explain upon what principle it was that so small a sum as 150,000 l. was granted for the purposes of education in Great Britain, the population of which was 20,000,000, and so large a sum as 134,560 l. was granted for education in Ireland, where the population was only 6,500,000; and when it was known that not above half of that population availed themselves of the education so offered. It would be worth the consideration of the noble Lord whether he could not apportion the grant to the number of persons who were to receive education.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had that night, for the first time, announced that he now hoped to establish a system of national education. That had certainly followed upon a rather extraordinary statement by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Fox); because that hon. Gentleman had said he felt great apprehensions concerning the number of pupil-teachers who were likely to be turned out highly educated persons, and who were not likely to be absorbed in the existing means of employment. The hon. Gentleman said he looked forward with much apprehension at the prospect of such a number of highly-educated persons being without adequate employment. After hearing that, and afterwards the statement of the noble Lord, that he was about to introduce a system of national education,
614
the Committee ought to hear upon what foundation of principle those persons thus turned upon the county were to be guarded so as to be safe members of society. For his own part, he (Mr. Henley) could not regard with alarm, provided a proper religious foundation were laid, any amount of education. He had been astonished to hear the hon. Gentleman say that these persons would not be absorbed by the means of employment; for, in that case, he must have a poor opinion of the result of moral and intellectual education alone. He repeated that he, for one, looked with no alarm upon any amount of Christian education; for whatever schemes came from the hands of any persons, he they of the Government or not, he felt assured that the people of this country would not consent to have any system of national education that was not based upon religion. An hon. Gentleman had expressed the hope that so much of the grant as had hitherto been given for school houses would henceforth be restricted. He deemed such a course to be most unfair and unjust on account of that circumstance which was so strongly noticed by the noble Lord when he observed that children in this poor station of life were obliged to be taken out of school at so early an age that they could not receive education of high quality. It was known that that obligation arose from the necessities of the parents; for when men were earning only 7s. or 8s. a week, even the little their children could earn was something towards the aggregate support of the whole family. Under these circumstances, it was certainly not to be expected that a very high quality of education could be obtained by these poor children; but money was not grudged to give another portion of the community as high an education as could be afforded, and the whole of this part of the grants was given for the education of persons who would not be calculated for teachers in poor and remote rural districts, because they could not afford to pay them. From that part of the grant they would derive little benefit, and he, therefore, thought it was unfair and unjust that the other part of the grant should be curtailed, which was the only part the rural districts were able to enjoy. If the Committee wished to increase education, they must not neglect the rural districts, and in the annual accounts they ought to show how the actual sum expended during the preceding year had been disbursed, fie wished every facility to be

615
given to the education of every religious denomination.
MR. W. J. FOXsaid, the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had totally misunderstood his apprehension as to the number of persons trained to discharge the duties of schoolmasters. He anticipated none of the evils which the hon. Member seemed to suppose; but he did not think that to give men a very high education, and then place them in a situation in which they were paid lower than the most common menials that were employed in domestic service, was a benevolent act. It was not a benevolent thing to condemn men to a position in which their attainments and their circumstances had not a fair degree of correspondence. In fact, it inflicted an injury upon them, as it served, in the natural course of things, however religious their education might have been, to sour their tempers and disturb the balance of their minds. He did not speak hypothetically, because he had a personal knowledge of the fact, that this was the effect produced on the teachers of the national schools. He repudiated the selfish motives attributed to him by the hon. Member, as to preventing the spread of education amongst the agricultural classes, and obtaining as much money as he could on behalf of the manufacturing towns. He heard the noble Lord's (Lord John Russell's) statement with great pleasure, though he did not interpret it as a promise to adopt the secular system of education.
MR. RICEsaid, he expected great good to result from the establishment of district schools by the Poor Law Unions; and he wished the noble Lord at the head of the Government to consider whether some aid might not be given to such Unions as were disposed to build these schools.
MR. GLADSTONEconcurred in the general views expressed by the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), and begged to congratulate the Committee, that the educational vote upon English education had always been discussed by all men of all classes in that House with a sincere intention of meeting the difficulties of the case, and extending education as much as possible. With regard to the division between the Committee of Privy Council and the National Society, it did appear to him that, as a matter of individual choice, were he engaged in founding a school, he should not choose that particular form to which the Privy Council objected; but it was more than doubtful whe-
616
ther the constitution of such a school was likely to have so fatal an operation that it ought to be visited with total exclusion from the benefits of the educational grant. Looking to this matter in a practical view, if one-sixth or one-seventh of these schools were excluded because they adhered to these conditions, then, although he regretted their exclusion, he also regretted the rigid adherence to that view of the case which so excluded them. He entertained a sanguine hope that means would be found before the House again met to discuss the subject for the removal of so serious a mischief. This was all he had to say on the general question. He wished, however, to allude to a particular rumour which was abroad, injurious to the Committee of Privy Council, because it imputed to them a course of conduct which, if true, was most unreasonable. He bogged to say, that he, for one, did not believe it; but the statement was made public on an occasion no less serious than the annual meeting of the National Society; and he thought the noble Lord at the head of the Government would be of opinion that he (Mr. Gladstone) was only doing his duty in making the rumour known to the Committee, so that if it had no foundation, a contradiction might at once be given to it by the Government, or an explanation offered that would completely alter its character. The rumour he alluded to was this:—In the case of a particular school, which he had never heard named, the founders proposed to provide by deed (the school being directly connected with the Church of England) that the schoolmaster and schoolmistress should be communicants of the Church of England; and it was said, that upon this account the founders of the school had been excluded by the Committee of Council from participation in the public grant. Now, for his own part, he could not conceive that a more reasonable provision could be inserted in the deed of a Church of England school.
MR. SLANEYsaid, that a great improvement had taken place in the schools of many rural districts by the introduction of a system of oral instruction by means of pupil-teachers, by which system twice as much real instruction was given in three years as was given in six years by the rote system which formerly prevailed. He begged also to bear testimony to the value of the industrial instruction which was given in the Watt Institution, in the county with which he was connected.
MR. CAREWsuggested, that if the inspectors of schools were to recommend a few of the hest hoys for employment in the dockyards, it would prove a great stimulus to them.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLwished to say a few words in consequence of an observation which had fallen from the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley). The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Fox) having expressed a hope that the Government had not abandoned all idea of a national system of education, he (Lord John Russell) said, in reply, that the Government still kept that object in view; upon which the hon. Member for Oxfordshire concluded that the scheme which he (Lord John Russell) contemplated was the scheme of the hon. Member for Oldham. Now, there was certainly nothing in what he had said that could at all justify such an inference. When the scheme of the hon. Member for Oldham was before the House, he stated his objections to it. His own opinion was, that there were two essential requisites to any plan of national education that was proposed to that House. The one was, that secular instruction should not be separated from religious instruction; and the other was, that no child educated at the public expense should he compelled to attend any religious instruction to which its parents conscientiously objected. He considered that both those conditions were essential requisites; and the difficulty would be, to reconcile them in any plan to be adopted. The hon. Member for Oxfordshire had also made some remarks with respect to the conditions which were laid down by the Committee of Privy Council; and he was followed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone). He (Lord John Russell) did not wish to enter again into that question. He would only say, that the Committee of Education had carried on all their correspondence with the National Society, with the view, if possible, to come to some agreement upon the point at issue between them. The Committee of Privy Council had always insisted that there should be lay members on the committee of management in those schools; and when the National Society said they thought that those lay members ought to be communicants in the Church of England, the Committee of Privy Council readily agreed to that proposal. There did remain one point of difficulty, and one only, and that was with respect to secular education. The Committee of
618
Privy Council were not prepared to afford aid in those cases where secular instruction should be entirely placed at the disposal or under the direction of clerical persons only. They were of opinion that where a clergyman, differing from the lay members of the committee, should appeal to the bishop, and the bishop should go with him against the lay members, that that decision should not be allowed to govern the conduct of the school. It appeared to them to be an unreasonable condition, and one that might lead to injurious consequences if much adopted. He did not deny that it was from a jealousy which the other Members of Council probably did not entertain, but which he himself entertained, of too great an increase of clerical power, whether in their Establishment or among ministers of other denominations, that he, for one, objected to the proposal. But, however, he could not say that the practical effect had been such as either to deprive the Committee of Privy Council of the confidence of the great body of the clergy, or to deprive the schools connected with the National Society of the aid of the public grants, because he found that the schools in connexion with the Church of England had received 78 per cent, almost 79 per cent, of the whole sum granted for education; while the British and Foreign Society's schools received only 9 per cent, the Wesleyan schools 1½ per cent, and the Roman Catholic school ¼ per cent of the whole sum. Now, if that was the case, it was quite evident that the schools connected with the Church of England now, had a large portion of the grant. It had besides appeared lately from some pains which had been taken to ascertain the fact, that great confidence was felt by the general body of the clergy in the Committee of Privy Council, and the application of the grants. Another symptom of the same fact was found in the recent meeting of the National Society, when the proposal to break off altogether from the Committee of Privy Council was evidently rejected by the general sense of the meeting. With respect to the question which had been asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, he begged to say that he was not present at the meeting of the Committee of Privy Council when a decision was come to upon the case to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred; but it did appear that this was a school with respect to which it was proposed that the master and mistress should

619
be communicants in the Church of England. Now, in the terms of union which the National Society had issued for the purpose of being subscribed by parties desirous of uniting the schools with the National Society, it was stated, in the fourth clause, that the masters and mistresses should be members of the Church of England; and when this question came before the Committee of Privy Council, his noble Friend the President of Council said it would be better to keep to the terms which the National Society had themselves laid down, namely, that the master and mistress should be members of the Church of England. There was no other objection to the stipulation of their being communicants except that it differed from the terms which the National Society themselves had laid down.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that if the case stood as the noble Lord had stated it, he did hope that the Committee of Privy Council would reconsider their decision upon this plain ground, that they had altogether misconceived the terms of union of the National Society. What the National Society said by the fourth clause, to which the noble Lord had referred, was, that they would have nothing to do with a master or mistress unless they were members of the Church of England; but they nowhere said they would have nothing to do with them provided they were communicants. The clause contained merely the minimum of their demand, not the maximum.
Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes:—
(5.) 134,560 l., Public Education, Ireland.
(6.) 15,055 l., Schools of Design.
(7.) 2,006 l., Professors, Oxford and Cambridge.
(8.) 3,920 l., University of London.
(9.) 7,610 l., Universities, &c. in Scotland.
(10.) 300 l., Royal Irish Academy.
(11.) 300 l., Royal Hibernian Academy.
(12.) 6,260 l., Royal Dublin Society.
(13.) 3,000 l., Theological Professors at Belfast, &c.
(14.) 1,620 l., Queen's University in Ireland.
(15.) 1,700 l., National Gallery.
(16.) 15,623 l., Museum of Practical Geology, and Geological Survey.
(17.) 2,421 l., Scientific Works and Experiments.
(18.) 10,000 l., Galleries of Art, Edinburgh.
House resumed; Resolutions to be reported on Monday next.
The House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Inhabited House Duty; Public Works, Fisheries, &c.; Public Works (Ireland); Chief Justices Salaries; Canada and New Brunswick Boundary.
2a Saint Albans Bribery Commission.
3a London (City) Sewers.

BUILDING FOR THE EXHIBITION OF THE WORKS OF INDUSTRY OF ALL NATIONS.
LORD BROUGHAMpresented a petition from Mr. Joseph Paxton, of Chatsworth, an individual of many and great merits, and one of the highest authority upon all matters connected with the science of horticulture, but also well known for other acquirements. When that individual asked him to present his petition, of which the object was to prevent the taking down of the Crystal Palace, he told him that he (Lord Brougham) was the last person who ought to present such a petition, as he had taken a prominent, though a very ineffectual, part in objecting to the Exhibition being placed in Hyde Park. It was a gross mistake to represent that he was against the Exhibition itself; on the contrary, he had been highly favourable to it, believing it to be not only of national, but also of European utility. He had, however, opposed the erection of any building for the purpose in Hyde Park, because he believed that any such structure would be an encroachment on one of the spiracles of London, and because he thought there would arise a question as to the legality of that encroachment; and he strongly objected to the course taken by the present Master of the Rolls, then the Attorney General, in intercepting an application to the Courts on the subject. It was unnecessary for him to enter on this occasion into the questions which had been raised upon that point during the last Session of Parliament, and upon which he retained his former opinion; but what he had already mentioned made it necessary for him to state at some length the objects of Mr. Paxton's petition, in order that that gentleman might be convinced that he was not prejudiced by the opinions which he had previously expressed on this subject. Retaining as he did his former opinions, it might appear to some that he was prefacing his statement of Mr. Paxton's petition by an argument against it; but he reminded their Lordships that there was a great difference between the question of placing
506
the Crystal Palace in Hyde Park before it was erected, and the question of taking it down now that it was erected. He thought that nothing could be more useful to this great metropolis than to retain the Crystal Palace as a great horticultural garden for the recreation of the people. In that point he fully agreed with his friend Mr. Paxton. He likewise concurred with him in thinking that the retention of the Crystal Palace would also be beneficial to the instruction of the people by the collection of plants, minerals, birds, and animals which might be deposited there, and by the transfer from the British Museum of the numerous specimens illustrative of natural history which were now either hidden in its vaults or perishing in its apartments from the want of proper ventilation. Mr. Paxton had no doubt that, for a much less sum of money than that which was already at the disposal of the Commissioners, the whole arrangements for converting the Crystal Palace into a museum and winter park and garden under glass might be carried into effect. He was also of opinion that the different museums which might be formed under its roof would remain sufficiently stable with very little additional expense, and that by an annual payment of a small sum the current expenses of the park and garden might be well provided for. Mr. Paxton, therefore, implored their Lordships to protect the Crystal Palace from destruction, and from what was tantamount to destruction—removal. It would be premature for him (Lord Brougham) to say that he had made up his mind on this question. Mr. Paxton called for immediate decision. He (Lord Brougham) only called for inquiry into the subject of Mr. Paxton's petition. He only wished for a full and fair investigation of the claims which some parties made to have this magnificent structure removed, or, what he believed to be the wish of a majority of their fellow-countrymen, to have it retained. There might be some difficulty arising out of the pledge given by the Royal Commissioners to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests that it should be removed within a certain time; but he thought that it would not be difficult for one branch of the Government to procure from another a release from that pledge. Besides, public opinion set in a strong tide in that direction. After this Exhibition had succeeded beyond any man's expectation, and after the people had become absolutely enamoured of the building, he must say that, if the same

507
people were to turn round and cry out, "Let us have it removed—let it no longer cumber the earth—break it up, smash it to pieces," they would give the world an exhibition not only of the industry of all nations, but of the fickleness of the most fickle of all nations, showing that if they had less refinement, they had more levity than the Athenians themselves; breaking in pieces their great toy as soon as they had begun to play with it. He had already declared the high opinion which he entertained of Mr. Paxton's eminent merits. He called Mr. Paxton a public benefactor, on account of the inestimable benefits which he had conferred upon the Exhibition itself. He retained the opinion which he had originally expressed respecting the Exhibition, namely, that though it might be beneficial to the country at large, it would not be without injury to the shopkeepers and retail dealers of the metropolis. He believed that they had already suffered considerably. He was, however, convinced that their sufferings would be put an end to if the Crystal Palace were converted from an exhibition into a winter garden. He repeated his conviction that Mr. Paxton was a public benefactor; for without Mr. Paxton and his Crystal Palace the Exhibition neither would nor could have taken place. He gave the Royal Commissioners the greatest credit for having adopted so immediately the plan of that gentleman, for he must say that when his excellent friend first submitted it to his consideration—and he believed that he (Lord Brougham) was one of the first persons—if not the first—to whom it had been submitted—he examined the plan, and declared his opinion that it was favourable; but advised Mr. Paxton to hasten before the Commissioners, and not be suprised if they deemed it fanciful; because, though he (Lord Brougham) had long ago erased the word impossible from his vocabulary in all proposed improvements of science and art, more practical men might not take the same view. However, he must fairly admit that the Commissioners showed the greatest liberality and the most judicious spirit as well as acuteness in so easily adopting the plan. Indeed their whole conduct had been most praiseworthy, and he also must, in passing, bear his testimony to the good conduct and mild proceedings of the police, and of the Chief Commissioner, Mr. Mayne. But he now came before the House not only as presenting the petition—he (Lord
508
Brougham) had the honour of presiding over a very important society—he meant the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge. That society, acting upon the views on which it was instituted, would probably present a petition in favour of the same object as that of the petition which he then had the honour of presenting. They regarded the Crystal Palace as an ally of their friend the schoolmaster, against their enemy the gin palace. The delight which the people of late years had been taking in innocent amusements would draw tens and hundreds of thousands to contemplate the stores of instruction which would soon be congregated in that beautiful structure—stores which would not only please but enlighten them, and which would be remembered with enthusiasm, even when they were withdrawn from their sight. He had been told that more than two millions and a quarter of persons had already passed through the Crystal Palace, and that of that number only a quarter were foreigners, the rest being, for the most part, the tradesmen and operatives of this metropolis, and those, too, not of the lowest classes. He only wished more of the lower classes had enjoyed it. He could not but remember the answer which his lamented friend Dugald Stuart had once given, when he (Lord Brougham), with other friends, now no more, Lord Webb Seymour and Mr. Horner, who had been actively engaged in circulating a practically useful work among the poorer classes of this country, and who had apologised for the bad paper on which the work had been published—which, perhaps, his noble Friend opposite (the Marquess of Lansdowne) would remember too—"I only wish your paper and printing had been ten times worse"—and worse it could not easily be—"if it would have given to your object wider circulation." So would he say with regard to the Exhibition. He had been told, that upon an average, 2,500 l. a day had been taken from the persons who went to visit the Crystal Palace. He would much rather that the proceeds of the Exhibition had been only 200 l. a day, provided that amount had been taken in pence. He hoped at any rate that, before the Crystal Palace was destroyed, due inquiry would be made into the subject-matter of this petition.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid that, in his humble opinion, this Crystal Palace, the wonder of the world, might disappear without any reproach to the Royal Commis-

509
sioners, and without any charge of fickleness against the public, as it had already fulfilled and was fulfilling its destiny in the most admirable manner. Though his noble and learned Friend had with his usual ingenuity stated both sides of the question, he had, like other advocates, been carried away by his zeal for his client, and, from a fear lest he should be thought not to be doing full justice to his interests, had somewhat blinked and distorted his own former opinions. His (Lord Campbell's) conviction was, that for the honour and glory of Mr. Paxton, and of all concerned in the Crystal Palace, it would be much better for them not to run the risk of failure now, and the certainty of incurring the charge of broken faith hereafter, by embarking in any such scheme as had just been propounded to their Lordships. He most fully concurred in all the many eulogies which his noble and learned Friend had bestowed on Mr. Paxton. Mr. Paxton was an honour to his country. He would not say a word against the Exhibition. It was one of the most wonderful, if not the most wonderful spectacle, that the world had ever beheld. It success had been splendid and unexampled. His noble and learned Friend had said that two millions and a quarter of persons had visited the Crystal Palace. He (Lord Campbell) believed that the number of visitors to it had been still larger, and that all who went there had received information, and had had their minds enlarged. He believed that the Exhibition itself had been and would be of the greatest benefit to our manufactures. He believed that it would promote the cultivation of the fine arts. He believed that it had had, and would have, a tendency to harmonise and civilise the world by bringing together in friendly intercourse all the nations of the globe. The idea and execution of it conferred the highest glory on his Royal Highness Prince Albert—it had secured to him the admiration, confidence, and love of his adopted country. He applauded the conduct of the Royal Commissioners, and more especially that of his noble Friend (Earl Granville), the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, who had shown such industry and good temper in superintending the arrangements of the Exhibition. But, after all, the question before the House now was simply this:—"What ought we to do with the Crystal Palace?" He concurred in the general feeling that that palace was one of the most striking and interesting features of
510
the Exhibition; but the question was, whether their Lordships should make a vain attempt to continue as a permanent building that which was only erected for a temporary purpose? The fame of the Exhibition would be eternal, but the structure in which it was displayed was but frail and transient. Even his noble and learned Friend had some misgivings as to the structure. Perhaps Mr. Paxton had none; but then he was a man of genius, and like all other men of genius did not see any of the difficulties in his way. Why, Mr. Paxton had actually wanted to have admission to the Exhibition free, and a grant of public money for its expenses; and had declared that otherwise it could never succeed, which showed that his opinions were not to be implicitly depended upon. Now, indeed, Mr. Paxton saw no difficulty in preserving the Crystal Palace. But he (Lord Campbell) had been informed by persons who had due information on the subject, that the first step which must be taken to preserve the Crystal Palace, must be to take it down and rebuild it. For what was the fact? Only one-third of the uprights which supported it were of iron; two-thirds of them were of wood. The roof was of wood and glass. The girders were of wood, and would not stand beyond the present summer. Therefore, if the building were to be a permanent one, it must first be taken down and afterwards reconstructed. We were, therefore, in the same situation as if we had now to consider for the first time whether we should build it. The expense of the reconstruction would be enormous, and whence the money was to come from Mr. Paxton had not been kind enough to inform them. Supposing, however, that the building was to be continued, let them now consider to what purpose this building was to be applied. The journals were one and all for converting it into a museum, and for transferring to it the treasures of natural history now contained in the British Museum. Now, he had himself seen the Crystal Palace, and knew its capabilities; and Mr. Paxton had told him personally that it was not fitted to become a museum. Then his noble and learned Friend opposite said, "It is to be an aviary and a menagerie." Then it was to be a depository for minerals, and models of small improvements, and all the German improvements, of which some of their Lordships had expressed such horror. But none of these objects were the objects of Mr. Paxton, for his friend Mr. Paxton—and he,

511
too, was proud to call Mr. Paxton his friend—had told him, and not in confidence, that his only object was to create a winter park and garden under glass in this metropolis. The petition of Mr. Paxton was nothing more than a copy of the pamphlet which he had published under the title of "What is to become of the Crystal Palace?" Now, if he looked to that pamphlet, he found it stated that the Crystal Palace was to be continued for the formation of a new and better climate in our own—"one which, even under opposite influences, may be rendered healthy and suited to the wants and requirements of man." Mr. Paxton further said—
"It is desirable that something on a large scale should be done to counteract the effects of the outer air, which, in this country, and in the neighbourhood of London especially, is often, during many months in the year, impure, murky, and unfit for healthy recreation and enjoyment; and it is to meet this want that I offer the present recommendation. All hitherto erected structures, however great and noble some of them are, fall far short of answering this end, and I cannot but recommend, now that we do possess a building like the Crystal Palace, which in its dimensions is the best adapted for such a purpose of anything that has been hitherto attempted, that it should be so appropriated."
He would read to their Lordships another sentence from that pamphlet, which would show not only that Mr. Paxton was a great architect and horticulturist, but that he could also be when the occasion required it, a consummate poet, for he wrote thus:—
"In the winter park and garden I propose, climate would be the principal thing studied; all the furnishing and fitting-up would have special reference to that end, so that the pleasures found in it would be of a character which all who visit could share; here would be supplied the climate of Southern Italy, where multitudes might ride, walk, or recline amidst groves of fragrant trees; and here they might leisurely examine the works of nature and art, regardless of the biting east winds or the drifting snow."
It was clear, from these passages, that Mr. Paxton did not propose that the Crystal Palace should be continued for the purpose of future exhibitions, but for the purpose of erecting bowers, in which our tradesmen could be supplied with "the climates of Southern Italy," and might be able to disregard "our biting east winds and our drifting snows." But his excellent friend, Mr. Paxton, had not told their Lordships how they were to get all these advantages. Our countrymen must encounter the "biting east winds," if they trudged on foot to the Crystal Palace, and must be saluted by
512
rude Eurus Boreas as they trudged on foot from it. In the midst of our "drifting snows," too, how were our middle classes to get there and back again? They must be drenched before they could get to the sunny climate of Southern Italy, and, after they had got well dried there, they must be drenched again before they could reach their homes. The rich, indeed, might drive there and back in their carriages; but, while they were breathing all the amenities of an Italian climate, were their servants and their horses to be exposed to all the injuries accruing from "biting east winds and drifting snows?" "These my Lords," said Lord Campbell, "are the dreams of an able but enthusiastic man, who forgets all the practical difficulties and inconveniences with which he has to contend. For my own part, I prefer the trees, and water, and air, which I have been accustomed to enjoy in Hyde Park, to all the foreign luxuries with which Mr. Paxton would provide me." How was the expense of all these luxuries to be defrayed? Did Mr. Paxton, or his noble and learned Friend opposite, expect that they would obtain from Parliament, for such objects, a grant of 100,000 l., in the first instance, and of 20,000 l. a year for ever afterwards? No; they expected no such thing. Then money must be taken at the doors to defray such a costly experiment. People could not be admitted there without paying some small sum—say 6d.—for each admission. Then the poor would be entirely excluded from this winter park and garden, or museum, or whatever you may call it; and not only from that, but also from that Hyde Park which their fathers and their forefathers before them had enjoyed in full liberty. His noble and learned Friend opposite had spoken of the usefulness and kindness of the police employed in the Crystal Palace and its vicinity. He (Lord Campbell) admitted that in the fullest degree, and thought that Mr. Mayne deserved the thanks of the country for the excellent police arrangements which he had made. All the apprehensions which some persons had entertained—in his opinion, very unreasonably—about the occurrence of riot and disorder during the Exhibition, had turned out to be false and groundless; but, supposing the police were not present, what scenes of disorder would in all probability occur. The praise which the people had obtained on account of the decorum of their behaviour would no longer continue, and perhaps might be converted into re-

513
proach. Were their Lordships, then, prepared to continue in the Crystal Palace after it was converted into a winter garden the same additional amount of police which was employed there at present? and, if so, from what quarter were the funds to come out of which they were to be paid? When they considered that many thousands would be excluded from Hyde Park by the adoption of Mr. Paxton's scheme, and when they reflected that a great building would permanently remain there, after a direct pledge given to the vicinage that it should be removed within a given time after the close of the Exhibition, he thought that the neighbouring proprietors had a reason to object to this newfangled project. The Crown had refused to grant to the public a small slip of land in Hyde Park when it was wanted as the site for a new church, and would they now grant many acres to it when it was only wanted for the purposes of pleasure? He had now to mention the inconvenience which had been felt by a large neighbourhood in consequence of the presence of the Exhibition in this part of Hyde Park. It had not been felt so seriously as was originally apprehended, but still it was a serious inconvenience. The inhabitants of that district did solemnly, through his mouth, protest against the continuance of that grievance. A solemn compact had been made on the point between the Royal Commissioners and the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. The neighbourhood of Hyde Park was interested in the due observance of that compact, for a solemn pledge was given to them that as soon as the Exhibition was over the building in the Park should be removed. That pledge could only be done away with by the operation of an Act of Parliament. Such an Act might render that lawful which was now unlawful; but it could not obliterate the moral obligation entered into at the time. Those who petitioned against the building were first of all defeated in the House of Commons, and afterwards, when they wished to appeal to the courts of law, were told, "No, you shall not; we cannot give you permission to set aside the decision of the House of Commons." He was willing, to use a phrase of his own country, "to let bygones be bygones;" but he implored their Lordships, for God's sake, not to repeat the injury which had been already inflicted upon them. He contended that the Crystal Palace had already fulfilled its object. He trusted that Mr. Paxton would not taste of death until he
514
had received some public testimony and reward for his valuable services; but he must regret that he had made this attempt to prolong the existence in Hyde Park of that which, splendid as it now was in appearance, was still an inconvenience and an injury to the neighbourhood. For these reasons he hoped that the petition of Mr. Paxton, that their Lordships would interfere by legislation in this matter, would not meet with their Lordships' approbation.
EARL GRANVILLEwould not have addressed their Lordships on this subject at all had not a petition from the inhabitants of Ashburton been put into his hands since he entered the House that evening, with the same prayer as that of Mr. Paxton's petition. Those respectable persons were not aware that from his position as one of the Royal Commissioners he was the very last man to be intrusted with such a petition. The Commission of which he was a member had no discretion whatever on this subject. They were bound to redeliver Hyde Park to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests within a given time after the close of the Exhibition. The subject of retaining the Crystal Palace had never been discussed by the Commission; he only knew the private opinion of three or four of the Commissioners on the subject, and they were not unanimous. He was glad that he was not called on to give a vote on this question. Certainly it was for the credit, and he might also add for the comfort, of the Commissioners, that the Crystal Palace should be destroyed. If he had been called on to give a vote, he should have weighed to the best of his ability the advantages and disadvantages on both sides of the question. As for himself, he was inclined to think that a winter park and garden would be a wholesome and desirable luxury for the inhabitants of the metropolis. The strongest point which could be urged against it was the feeling of the gentlemen who occupied the houses opposite to the building; they might exaggerate the inconvenience to which they would be exposed under the scheme of Mr. Paxton; but upon that point he would give no opinion now. He might perhaps be permitted to concur in the eulogy which had been bestowed on the excellent conduct of the police, and to say that the Commissioners were most anxious to acknowledge the obligations which they felt themselves to be under towards Mr. Mayne, and the police gene-

515
rally. He was happy to add, that great facilities had been rendered to the police in the execution of their difficult duties by the exemplary conduct of the people. It was a great satisfaction to him to have heard Mr. Paxton spoken of in the terms which had been used by his two noble and learned Friends. There was, however, one eulogy which his noble Friend the Lord Chief Justice had passed upon Mr. Paxton in which he could not concur, and that was his eulogy on Mr. Paxton's poetical talents. He thought that his noble and learned Friend had, in his speech of that evening, proved himself far superior to Mr. Paxton in poetical talent, when he spoke with so much gusto of the trees, and water, and air of Hyde Park, and the luxurious amenities of an English summer; and if he had shown himself not less poetical in what he had said respecting the police employed, and the nature of the materials of which the building was erected; yet he (Earl Granville) must be permitted to say, that it appeared to him that his noble and learned Friend had most wofully neglected the opportunity which his residence in the vicinity of the Crystal Palace had given him, to watch from day to day over its construction. Had he been more attentive to its construction, he might perhaps have escaped some of the errors into which he had fallen that evening.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that the noble and learned Lord had not given the least answer to his statement, and had not with quite his usual fairness summed up the evidence in the case. With respect to the matter of finance, into which he (Lord Brougham) had abstained from entering, there would be no difficulty, for there was already a large surplus in the hands of the Commissioners. Then, with respect to the enjoyment and recreation of the people in a winter garden, it was not proposed that the atmosphere should be of a sultry heat, but temperate; and when the noble and learned Lord described the sufferings of the servants and horses of the wealthy waiting outside in bad weather, had it never struck the noble and learned Lord, that, whatever the learned Judges might do, their Lordships were generally in the habit, under such circumstances, of sending home their servants and cattle, to return only when wanted? He concurred in what the noble Lord had said with respect to the conduct of the multitudes who had visited the Crystal Palace. He was one of those who, undoubtedly, had
516
not at one time thought it a safe experiment to congregate on one spot hundreds of thousands of people from all quarters of the town; but, partly owing to the admirable conduct of the police, to whom great credit was due, and still more to the admirable conduct of the people, all those apprehensions had proved without foundation. With regard to Mr. Paxton, he looked upon that gentleman as a great public benefactor, and it was to be hoped and trusted that he would not be added to the number of those who, before they tasted death, tasted the public ingratitude.
Petition read, and ordered to lie on the table.

CONVOCATION.
LORD REDESDALE, who had given notice of his intention to move for a Copy of a Petition from the Clergy and Laity of the province of Canterbury, presented to both Houses of Convocation on the 5th of February, 1851, said, he rose with considerable diffidence to deliver a few words on the subject of his Motion. He should have left a subject of this importance to be introduced to their Lordships by those more competent than himself to undertake the task; but it was just one of those subjects in respect to which many persons felt reluctance to come forward, and yet it was one to which, in the present state of the Church, it was necessary that the public mind should be directed. It was for this reason, and because others did not come forward—and his own convictions on the subject were strong—that he had ventured to take the duty upon himself. He was persuaded that at all events he was fortunate in the place in which the question was to be discussed, being confident that however many of their Lordships might disagree with him in that assembly, at least everything said, and the manner in which the subject would be treated, would be perfectly temperate, and only with a view to promote the advantage of the Church. In the form in which he had brought forward the Motion, he hoped it would be observed that he had avoided committing any one to any decided opinions. All he had desired to secure was a discussion; and in so doing he desired to do nothing which could pledge their Lordships to any particular course. He hoped that it would be enough to excuse himself for having brought forward the question, that it was necessary to disabuse the pub-

517
lic mind on the subject of the synodical action of the Church, and to bring the question fairly before them, so that they might see what was to be said for it, and what against it. An impression had grown up in the country that convocation, or the synodical action of the Church, had somehow been given up as impracticable; and, after four generations, and more than one hundred and thirty years, during which no convocation had met for the despatch of business, people in this country were living under the idea that such a thing was not to be thought of; and this was the reason why be little feeling had been hitherto excited about it. But the present state of the Church, and the position in which many questions connected with it stood, had gradually raised in many persons' minds a conviction that matters could not remain as they were—that there were many circumstances exceedingly unsatisfactory and dangerous—and that unless something were done, and matters were put into a more settled state on many points, the Church was not safe, and that there was the greatest danger to our constitution in Church and State. He repeated, it was necessary that something should be done, on account of the position in which matters at present stood. The Church appeared to be governed, and was governed, in fact, by extreme parties; and it must be so wherever there was no regular system of representation in any body. This was very observable during the time when Parliament was not sitting, when violent men came forward, and were able to create an impression that they were of far greater importance than they really were—an impression which they could not maintain while Parliament was sitting, and the regular representatives of the people were assembled. So it was in the Church. Quiet, moderate men would not go upon the platform; it was contrary to their principles and feelings; and all that came before the public on the subject of the Church was in the hands of extreme parties; and so an impression had gradually grown up, which was really unfounded, that these, parties really represented the feeling and condition of the Church; and that the divisions in the Church were as great, as numerous, and as decided as they were represented by these extreme parties to be. He believed the reverse of this to be the case, and that if on inquiry an expression of opinion could be obtained on the part of the majority of the clergy and laity, more unanimity would be found of
518
faith and belief than many persona supposed; nay, that among the majority little essential difference of opinion existed, and that great numbers of those who believed that there was now serious diversity of opinion, if they could be brought together in an assembly in which they would have a right to speak and vote, and power of action on the subject, would find their difficulties and differences far less than they supposed. If such were the case, was it not desirable that an opportunity should be afforded for obtaining the expression of such opinions? Unless this were done—unless, by means of convocation, the Church herself were enabled to speak, her representation would remain in the hands of those unauthorised parties who were ready to speak violently in one extreme or the other. Let him, then, consider the objections against the proposed revival of convocation. Was it contrary to the law and constitution of the country, or to the habits of the people? So far from its being contrary to the law and constitution, it was an ancient and essential part of the constitution, which by an extreme exercise of Royal power had now been kept for more than one hundred and thirty years in abeyance. And so far from its being opposed to the habits of the people, the very reverse was the case, for every other religious body except the Church of England had its religious assemblies or synods, which answered many ends of great utility and advantage. Nor was this the case only in nonconformist and unestablished sects; it was equally so in the Established Church of Scotland, which had its regular system of synods; and nothing would be more likely to rouse the respectable people of that country into rebellion than the suppression of its synodical action. The Church of England alone was deprived of an advantage enjoyed by every other religious community in the empire, and which she herself had anciently enjoyed in her Convocation. The present constitution of Convocation, he considered, was a very faulty one; and throughout the whole country there was hardly any one who was not sensible of the necessity and propriety of some change in it. If, however, it should be thought expedient that the Church should be represented in a body of that kind, it would be necessary that the present Convocation should be allowed to assemble for the purpose of discussing and determining the matter; for if the constitution was to be changed, that body itself must change it—it was im-

519
possible for other bodies to do it. It was, however, objected, that if they met, nothing would ensue but a series of violent discussions without any practical result. He (Lord Redesdale) did not think that it would give rise to anything like the amount of heat that was displayed in Parliamentary debates—on the contrary, he believed that all discussions on such subjects would be carried on in a manner creditable to the body itself; and the general tone of public feeling at this moment was that which would secure such a result. But admitting that there would be disputes, were there not disputes now? Did the Church stand free from that objection at the present moment? Certainly not; and from the circumstance of all public discussion regarding the Church being in the hands of violent partisans at the present moment, the questions were not treated in the manner that he wished to see them. In all such matters, if the questions were left to a regular discussion by practical men, with a practical object before them, it would he found that the discussions would be conducted in a very different manner from discussions between persons who wished to secure particular party objects. Another objection was, that there would be a greater division between Churchmen and Dissenters, in consequence of the Convocation. That, however, was not the case when Convocation existed before. On the contrary, he believed that, although Convocation existed during the whole time of the Revolution, there were not more divisions between the body of the Church and those who were separated from it, than there were at the present moment. At the present moment, in the absence of the Convocation, there was perhaps as much bitterness of feeling between the Church and Dissenters as ever existed. Another objection was, that this was a movement started solely by the High Church party, and that the tendency of the Convocation would be favourable to what are called the Romanizing practices in the Church. Of all the charges that could be brought against. Convocation, that was the one which could least hold good. He did not believe that the revival of Convocation would promote the Romanizing tendencies in the Church. Some of the parties to those Romanizing practices had been induced at different times to join in asking for Convocation, but in most cases to obtain a declaration of opinion on one particular question; and it was well known that most of them
520
were very strongly opposed to its revival for general purposes. Any person who knew the real feeling of the Church of England must know that there was no Church existing upon earth that was more vehemently opposed to the Church of Rome than the Church of England, and there could be no surer way of putting down what were called the Romanizing tendencies in the Church, than by giving free action to that Church. The opponents of Convocation were found in a great measure amongst the extreme of both parties, because neither of them liked the assembly of a body which would give a triumph to moderate people. Another objection had been raised that the Convocation would never be able to conclude anything in matters of dispute. All assemblies of that sort were more or less open to objections of this nature; and, indeed, it was not desirable that questions of serious importance should be readily or quickly decided in bodies of this kind. The matters likely to be introduced were things upon which people were apt to take up prejudices before they came to the discussion, and it required some time before those prejudices could be removed. But he would remind their Lordships that the Council of Trent, which met to settle certain points, sat for many years, and after all did not come to any conclusion upon some of the questions which had been before them. The objection, therefore, did not apply peculiarly to a Convocation of the English Church, but applied generally to any body met for similar purposes, in which differences of opinion might arise. But the Church of England occupied a peculiarly strong position in discussions upon these subjects, because its sole resort for an ultimate decision upon all matters was the Word of God itself—that must be the basis of every argument which took place in the Church of England; and where inquiries were conducted seriously in that manner, he believed that the inquiry sooner or later must lead to practical and satisfactory results. It must be remembered, too, that where the Church of England had attempted to come to conclusions upon any important questions, their conclusions had generally been most satisfactory. By means of Convocation the Church of England held a most favourable position amongst all those connected with her; and if the Convocation had been continued instead of having been put an end to altogether, there would have been

521
infinitely more unity of opinion in the Church, than there was at the present moment. A most important guard to the constitution and safety of the Church was, that no subject could be discussed without the expressed authority of the Crown; and the lay element thus introduced had a most beneficial effect. The discussions of Convocation were thus so much guarded as to prevent any danger arising of a nature to cause any serious alarm even in the minds of those who were most anxious for the safety and welfare of the Church. And not only was there this safeguard, but further, the Convocation could not alter any canon without the consent of the Crown; nor could it do anything against the common or Statute law; nothing could be done which would affect the laity in any way without the consent of the Crown. He would ask their Lordships, then, what apprehension could possibly exist in the mind of any one as to the meeting of a body so constituted? He would now direct their Lordships' attention to some of the evils which had arisen from a want of Convocation. In the first place, the Church had been completely paralysed, and after a certain time there arose in it that great movement which was known as the evangelical movement. That certainly was extremely useful to the Church; but it, at the same time, separated from her many men who were not indisposed to her. Take the case of Wesley himself. There was no man who had a stronger disposition towards the Church than Wesley; and if there had been any opportunity for a man like him to carry his own enthusiasm and religious zeal into the body of the Church, he never would have left it, but have given it the benefit of all his energies. Instead of separation, there would have been union; and the activity which he brought to bear upon the religious feeling of the county, would have been in every way beneficial instead of creating a schism. But, to come nearer our own time, we found that another great movement had taken place in the Church. That movement was one which those persons who took up a strong Church side were the first to commence, and no doubt the movement was a sincere one; but when people of a very enthusiastic and excitable turn took up extreme views, they necessarily required guidance. If they looked to the low Church and the lowest body of Dissenters, who conceived themselves most at liberty to form their own opinion on every
522
religious subject, they would find with how much respect those persons were ready to look up to their favourite preachers and make Popes of them. If there had been church guidance at the moment when that party in the Church to which he alluded were trembling on the verge of those dangers into which they now had fallen, he believed the effect would have been most salutary and gratifying. They wished for direction upon various points, and could not get it, and the consequence was that some of them had left that Church in which they were brought up. There was a want of law about it. Many people wanted something certain in matters of this kind, and for that reason they were desirous of uniting with a Church which offered that certainty. It was no doubt very captivating to a man to tell him, "There is the Bible, and every man has a right to draw his own conclusions from it." The Bible was at the foundation of the Church of England, but there were interpretations of that Bible against which they most decidedly protested. The faith of the Church of England was that which had been accepted at all times, in all sound churches from the beginning, and upon the interpretation of the Bible, adopted by them, the Church took its stand. In fact the difference was this, as between the Church of England and the Church of Rome, that we believed that the Apostles knew the whole faith, and that they told us all that they knew. The position of the Church of Rome was, that Pope Pius had a development of religion beyond that which the Apostles had. For instance, St. John, to whom was revealed the Kingdom of Heaven, saw nothing, knew nothing, and could reveal nothing of a Queen of Heaven; but the Pope could say that he knew there was such a person as the Queen of Heaven, and that the Blessed Virgin was that being. There was this great difference between the two faiths. We took our stand upon the Bible as interpreted from the earliest time by all sound churches; and the Church of Rome upon her own traditions. Our position is the soundest; but on too many occasions when doubts on questions of doctrine arose in the minds of members of our Church, and they turned to their clergymen for advice, they found a difference of opinion; not one which could be fairly reconciled, but a difference so wide that it was impossible both opinions could be true. Then they asked to whom they could refer as authorities? and they found there was

523
no authority of any kind. That made the advice coming from our clergy powerless, and the individual then went to the Church of Rome, simply because there he found a decided and authoritative opinion given. That was what was going on at the present moment. It would be remedied by allowing the Church to speak as a body. And when we saw that the very offspring of our Church—the Church in America—and the Church in Scotland, could meet in convocation to advantage, why take away the power from our own Church of doing the same? He (Lord Redesdale) believed most fully in the high mission of the Church of England. He believed that of all the Churches which sprang up at the time of the Reformation she was the one who was most favoured by being allowed to continue the uninterrupted succession of that Apostolic constitution which had been handed down from the earliest period. Many persons might not value this advantage so highly as he did; but none could deny the fact that it influenced many minds in favour of the Church. When he saw that this advantage had been given to their Church alone—when he saw that since the time of the Reformation she had been blessed in a most extraordinary degree, by being permitted to extend her power over every quarter of the globe—not only over the new continent of America, but in India and Australia and New Zealand—and that our Church was now spreading from one end of the earth to the other, he rejoiced that we had now latterly, though too lately, established the constitution of the Church in its full integrity in our Colonies. He hoped the number of our bishops at home and abroad would be largely and extensively increased. When he recollected that our Church sprung originally from the East, and that afterwards, through the mission of St. Augustine, it was connected with the Western Church, and when he saw that it embodied the principle which above all others built itself upon rational faith and the Bible, he could not but believe that the Church had been preserved in the manner in which it had for a special purpose, and that it was its future mission to draw together the east and west, and that the unity of the Church Universal was to be brought about by her instrumentality. He merely expressed his own individual opinions, and they might be designated as those of an enthusiastic Churchman; but he felt deeply upon the subject, and he had a strong opinion with regard to the
524
necessity of giving this action to the Church, in order that she might carry out the great ends of her mission. If it were desired to spread the Church in any way in Europe or elsewhere, their hands were tied by the manner in which the Church was now constituted. We had no Church body to whom we could look for action of any kind. Everything was in the individual. He trusted that in the course of his remarks he had said nothing calculated to excite angry feelings in the mind of any one, or to give the slightest offence to any of their Lordships, however they might differ from him in opinion, or to whatever party in the Church they might belong, for he had studiously avoided doing anything of the kind. He assured their Lordships that he did not wish to be supposed, in what he was doing, as desiring to give the slightest advantage to one party in the Church over another. His anxious desire was to show the country in general the advantages which he believed would result from the course which he proposed; to persuade them of the Weakness of the objections which were brought against it, and to lead them to the conclusion that something must be done in the matter, and that it was absolutely impossible that they could go on much longer without synodical action in the Church. He believed that there was a growing and spreading feeling in the country in favour of this course, and that it would continue to increase until at last it would be impossible to resist it. If that was the case, he trusted that those with whom the decision of the question rested, would not delay yielding to this until their decision became a party triumph to one side of the Church or the other. He was of opinion that there would be peculiar advantages in recommencing the synodical action of the Church at the present time. He believed that the apprehensions which had been excited with respect to the recent movements of the Court of Rome had led a vast number of men who before were too much inclined to take party views of such questions to entertain an ardent desire for united action with a view to the safety and prosperity of the Church; and he believed, likewise, that among many persons who before entertained a deep prejudice against such a course, the opinion was rapidly growing that no satisfactory answer could be given to the demand for synodical action but to grant it. Without this they were asking the Church to fight with every other church

525
with her hands tied. Now this, he maintained, was not a fair position in which to place the Church; and it was because he ardently felt the necessity of a change in her position that he had ventured to call their Lordships' attention to the consideration of the subject. The noble Lord concluded by moving "for a Copy of a Petition from the Clergy and Laity of the Province of Canterbury presented to both Houses of Convocation on the 5th of February, 1851."
The ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY: My Lords, no one who is acquainted with the noble Lord, and knows his attachment to the Church of which he is a distinguished member, can doubt the purpose with which he has brought before your Lordships the subject on which we are now engaged. He is sincerely of opinion that the divisions which unhappily exist in the Church can only be closed through the agency of Convocation. He is not singular in that opinion. Many petitions have been addressed to me during the past year, bearing signatures well deserving of attention, urging me to use whatever influence my station gave me to promote the assembling of Convocation. I was obliged to answer the memorialists that, judging from the only grounds of judgment open to me—the experience of former Convocations—I could not agree with their opinion, and therefore could not comply with their petition. I still think the same; and unwilling as I always am to trespass upon your Lordships' attention, and still more unwilling as I am to express sentiments which differ perhaps from those of many, both in this House and out of it, with whom it would be far more satisfactory to me to concur—I believe it is my duty, after the speech of the noble Lord, to state the grounds on which I think that the assembling of Convocation with active powers would tend to increase discord in the Church, and not to produce the harmony which he desires to restore. I believe that there are formal and technical difficulties attending the revival of the powers of Convocation, and the noble Lord has acknowledged that before it can act it must be remodelled. Into these I will not enter. I will suppose that all such technicalities are overcome, all obstacles removed, Her Majesty's advisers satisfied, Her Majesty consenting, Convocation assembled for the despatch of business:—what would follow? Great disappointment, or great
526
excitement. What business is to be despatched? Some would say, "The Liturgy requires revision. Some rubrics are inconsistent, and others unintelligible." If the assembling of Convocation were to end in the reconciliation of some conflicting rubrics, or in supplying the deficiency of others, or even in the change of a few obsolete words or questionable phrases, the result would be little worth the cost of production. It would be justly asked, Quid dignum tanto feret hic promissor hiatu? Thus far, then, you disappoint; go farther, and you excite. If more were attempted, and the doctrine of the Prayer-book were touched, even with the slightest hand, a flame would be lighted up from one end of the country to the other. Where we have now a smothered fire, hotter, perhaps, than is agreeable, but still manageable, we should raise a conflagration which it would require all Her Majesty's prerogative to extinguish. Suppose, then, the Liturgy untouched, and nothing more attempted than what we know to be desired by many members of the Church—the issuing a declaration which should contradict a recent decision of the Privy Council, and defining the effect of baptism more clearly than it is defined in our Articles—would peace follow? Can we suppose that this would prove a healing measure? I cannot so interpret the spirit of the age as to believe that the great body of the Church, laity, or clergy, are prepared to restrict the liberty of opinion in matters hitherto undecided which our forefathers have always enjoyed, and under which the Church has flourished for three hundred years. We may speak here with confidence, for the experiment has been tried. For obvious reasons I avoid all allusion to any events which may have taken place at home. But the experiment has been tried in Australia. A declaration, such as I have alluded to, was drawn up in October last by the bishops of Australia, assembled in synod; and the same ship which brought home the particulars of the synod, brought also the account of the effect which it had produced in one of the cities where it was first promulgated, which, instead of concord, was dissension, where all had been previously peaceful. It had endangered the popularity of a bishop who was universally and deserved esteemed; and the principal laity of the city had met together and unanimously protested against a measure which they treated as an infringement upon their liberty as Churchmen. If I do

527
not fear any such result here, it is because I do not entertain any apprehensions of the issuing of such a declaration. My Lords, the noble Lord has spoken of the Convocation as part of the Constitution. In point of fact, the Convocation was a very uninfluential body for one hundred years after the Reformation. But it is a mistake to suppose that we owe to that assembly the constitution and fabric of our Church. Convocation had little to do with the framing of our first Protestant Services and Articles. The first Protestant Service, which has never been materially changed, was framed by a committee of Bishops and Divines, at the order of King Edward, in the year 1549. It was submitted to Convocation, not to be formed but to be approved. The Articles of the Church, three years afterwards, were drawn up, not in Convocation, but by Cranmer and Ridley, and others who assisted them. They were ratified, not debated, in Convocation. Seven years afterwards, at the accession of Elizabeth, the revision of the Prayer-book was entrusted to ten divines. Their revision was sanctioned by both Houses of Parliament, and no mention is made of Convocation. The first occasion on which Convocation bore an active part, was in the revision of the Articles and Liturgy in 1562. But authority had then great weight, and whoever reads the records of those times will perceive that Convocation was entirely governed by the authority of a few leading persons, and was much more disposed to receive mandates than to issue them. After the Revolution matters were altered. Convocation became a more active, but not a more peaceful body. Its history during the reign of Queen Anne is a history of altercations between the Upper House and the Lower. It soon appeared that a body so constituted was ill suited to the purpose of solemn deliberation or wise legislation. The last disputes were ended, as former disputes had been, by a timely prorogation; and since the year 1717 it has never been deemed expedient by the Government for the time being to advise the Sovereign to issue a licence for the despatch of business in Convocation. Now what can we reason from but from what we know? What grounds have we for believing that more advantage or less injury to the Church would result from the assembling of Convocation now than in the reign of Queen Anne or George I.? But the noble Lord who has brought on this debate has
528
pleaded for Convocation on the ground that every religious body has such meetings; and the argument at first sight seems reasonable. There may, however, be privileges which are not advantages. There are privileges which it is not desirable to claim. Between independent bodies of religionists and the Church of England no parallel can be established. They are not involved in the constitution of the country. They may meet, and deliberate, and resolve, without constituting, that anomaly in government, an imperium in imperio. And, after all, is peace and harmony the result of those meetings? The annual conferences of the Wesleyan body have not prevented divisions and secessions amongst its members. And I doubt whether the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, which might be best compared with ours, though different in a very important particular—I doubt whether that is always a scene of peace and harmony. In the diary of the late Dr. Chalmers I find these words:—"May 8. A meeting of Presbytery. I dislike its atmosphere, though it is my duty to enter it, and, if possible, to soften and transform it." And again—"May 9. A most tempestuous day in the Presbytery." Certainly, my Lords, the General Assembly, if it did not contribute to occasion so fatal an event, did not prevent a disruption of the Church in that country, the most serious which has ever occurred in any Church since the Reformation. At all events the benefits which are expected from self-regulation and independent legislation would be dearly purchased if purchased at the cost of confidence on the part of the people. And we must shut our eyes against all experience if we do not foresee this danger—if we do not believe that the debates which will be constantly occurring would not rather tend to foment than to allay dissensions, to multiply rather than to prevent divisions. No one can lament more than I do the existence of such divisions. No one would be more ready to concur in any measure that might seem likely to remove them. But, in spite of those divisions, and notwithstanding its want of independent action, the Church of England enjoys the best of all privileges—the means of extensive usefulness. During the last thirty years she has founded a thousand new parishes at home. She has established twenty new episcopal sees in our Colonies abroad. She is supporting schools—not indeed

529
without assistance, for which we are most grateful, but still as the principal instrument, in every village of the land. She is exerting herself, and successfully exerting herself, to supply the spiritual wants of her increasing population. That she might do more if all her sons were united together in the same mind and in the same judgment, I am not prepared to deny; but I do not believe that the assembling of Convocation would be the maans of promoting such union, and, therefore, I cannot agree with the noble Lord in desiring the assembling of Convocation.
LORD LYTTELTON: My Lords, the importance of the subject before the House, and the interest I have long taken in it, make me anxious to address a few remarks to your Lordships. It seems to have been generally reported that my noble Friend (Lord Redesdale) intended to move for an Address to the Queen for the revival of Convocation. I do not believe my noble Friend ever had such an intention. I rejoice that such is not the Motion which has been submitted to the House. We are not prepared for it. What this question requires is ventilation and discussion; and when I say that the subject needs to be discussed, I mean in its most general form, and by that I mean, not the question of a meeting of the clergy alone, or of any merely clerical body whatsoever. It might, indeed, be, that, as a part of a system, the clergy should be empowered to meet for certain purposes with legal effect. And, again, I conceive that no reasonable objection can be made to the voluntary assembling, for mutual counsel and deliberation, of any orders of the clergy in any part of this empire, whether in Australasia or in Exeter. The clergy are a distinct order of men, with momentous duties, and duties in the performance of which they are entrusted with considerable discretion, and nothing can be more reasonable than that they should, in times like these, meet together for discussion and self-regulation, within the limits of their actual legal powers. But I look to the present question as one relating to a great province of our legal and constitutional system; and so regarded, I cannot think of it as less than a question of the meeting, by representation, of the whole body of the Church, clergy as well as laity—communicant laity they ought to be—of that body. Now, that that body ought so to meet, seems to me self-evident, except on the assumption, seldom explicitly avowed, but often, as it
530
seems to me, involved in reasonings on this subject, that the Church is not an organic body at all, but a mere function and creation of the State. My Lords, I shall not attempt to argue against that assumption. It would take too long, even if I were able to do it, and it were suitable to do so. I shall assume that the Church is an organic body, with laws and a constitution of its own, independent in its origin and essence of all other bodies, however it may be, by positive enactment and special compact, connected with, and even subordinated to, the civil power. And, if so, how can it be denied that the Church should have the power of deliberation on its own affairs, and self-regulation on certain conditions? It is acted upon by constantly varying outward circumstances, and how can any part of its system be held to be stereotyped and unalterable for ever? [Cheers.] The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Lansdowne) said, last year, amidst the loud but not well-considered applause of those behind him, that the system of the English Church had been embodied in certain rules and facts, as he said, at the Reformation, and that nothing more was needed. But how can that be maintained? Nay, it is not maintained seriously by any one. Every one admits that there are hundreds of questions pressing constantly for adjustment in the Church—some of which are not dealt with at all, others are disposed of somehow, in a manner which I shall shortly advert to. One great subject, that of the Canons, Articles, and Formularies of the Church, it seems agreed, ought not to be touched at all. Some time ago there was an apprehension that an attack on the Prayer Book was intended, and it was proposed to form a bond of union on the abstract principle of unalterable adherence to our formularies as they stand. My Lords, I, for one, should decline to be bound by any such engagement. I do not want any alteration; I should of course object to any essential change, as well as to many given changes that might be mentioned; but I should, on principle, object to the Church itself being in the least degree fettered in dealing with any part of these formularies. The question is, by what authority are these things to be done? It is inevitable that some sort of Church regulation should be done somehow. It is done partly, as my noble Friend has said, by the irregular and half-authorised efforts of the several bishops; but, mainly and ultimately, it is done by

531
Parliament, and chiefly, of course, by the House of Commons. What sort of body is the present House of Commons to deal with religious and ecclesiastical matters? What was said the other day, in a speech in the country, by at least an honest and intelligent, and on this subject unprejudiced, member of that assembly (Mr. Cobden)? He had occasion to advert to these matters. He gave a sketch of the present condition of that House, of the various sects and no sects that make it up, and he said, "What sort of a body are we to deal with religious matters?" But, my Lords, this touches on a larger view of this question, on which I must say a few words. It is impossible rightly to consider this question of the organic action of the Church, without considering its connexion with that of the Royal supremacy. It was pointed out last year, in the debate on the Bill of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) that the surrender, in terms absolute, that was made by the Church to the civil power at the Reformation, of the power to determine doctrine, was not fairly to be construed in this absolute sense, but should be interpreted according to the spirit of the constitution, of the statutes, and even to the clear words of some of those statutes themselves, by which the decision of doctrine should be entrusted, not solely, but chiefly, to the spiritualty of the Church. But it might have been pointed out, even if we assume that those words of surrender were to be interpreted in the literal way which some persons delight to do, with how much more safety, prudence, and propriety such an absolute surrender might have been made then, than it could be made, or than it should be maintained now. What I have said about the altered composition of Parliament is only one part of the great change that has taken place since that time. At that time the State was wholly within the Church; it is now not much more connected, in fact, with the Church than with any other religious body. It is so quite manifestly, and with hardly an exception, in the colonies; and constantly becoming more and more so in Ireland, and even in England. Moreover, it is quite plain that at that time the one great fear which possessed men's minds was fear of the power of the Pope: of which I will only say that if any one now thinks that with regard to the great bulk of this people there can be any real fear of the power of the Pope, I believe it to be the most chimerical idea that ever entered
532
into the brain of man. And it is clear that, against that and any other dangers, the State was in those days the most friendly and the most powerful ally with which the Church could connect itself. Another point is, that the submission then made by the Church was not to an abstract civil power, but to the person of the monarch; and the monarch then exercised a far more real power over the administration of the country than is now the case. What we now call the Royal supremacy, is, in fact, the supremacy of the majority of the House of Commons. Above all, in those days, Convocation was in the habit of meeting, and of course it was contemplated that it should continue to meet, and so be able to watch over the course of events, and judge whether modification was ever needed in its compact with the State. And now that all these great changes have taken place, it ought to be for the Church, as an organised body, to consider what readjustment should be made in the terms of its connexion with the State. I do not mean to hint at anything like a weakening or a dissolution of that connexion, which I do not desire; but I have no hesitation in saying, as my noble Friend (Lord Redesdale) said very plainly last year, though he has not repeated it to night, that a reconsideration and readjustment is required. My Lords, I would illustrate these views by what took place last year before the Judicial Committee, in the case of Mr. Gorham. Some persons seem to think that case is forgotten. My Lords, it is not forgotten. But probably many persons think as I do, that it is a question which should be adjourned. Those who think that a fresh battle should take place about it, may think that there is now no proper battle-field; and that the true field is the Church, in its own meetings as a body. Those, again, who rather think as I do, not that a fresh battle should take place, but that further explanations might tend to more agreement and conciliation, may think that the Church itself is the only body from which such a result can be looked for, and that the present irregular and abnormal attempts at discussion and conciliation never can lead to it. My Lords, I am anxious not to be misunderstood on this matter. I do not desire, as the most rev. Primate has said, a settlement that shall drive out any parties from the Church. It must be remembered what has always been the real grievance felt by those who have objected to that judgment; not so

533
much any thing actually contained in the judgment, as that it wholly failed rightly to represent the meaning of the book it professed to review. That is what was always put forward by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) who dissented from the judgment; and it was attributed to the fact that the tribunal which tried the case was not such as was at all in the contemplation of those who, at the Reformation, adjusted these questions, and that the Church itself ought to be heard in the present question of the constitution of that tribunal. As to the judgment itself, much as we might object to several of its parts, I have never felt certain that, in the absence of further authoritative explanation of some of the terms used but not explained in that document, the difference as to essential points in the subjects which it treats of, is really so great between different persons as they themselves suppose, as my noble Friend (Lord Redesdale) has also suggested. On this, therefore as well as the other points, it seems to me that the expression of the voice of the Church is required. My Lords, I will only add a few words on the most obvious and popular objection to the restoration of the action of the Church—that it would not tend to the peace of the Church. My Lords, peace is good; but truth, and life, and freedom are better still. You have had peace. You had peace last century—the peace of a lethargic slumber: a peace during which, as has been said, the Church suffered more in external losses and inward decay and degeneration, than during any other period of her history. Have you got peace now? Have you any chance of peace? You will never have peace till, in some measure, the free action of the Church is restored. Whether you would have peace then, I do not know. I hope and believe, with my noble Friend, that you would. But if we cannot have peace without the loss of life and freedom, I would have war-to my life's end. Would the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), or the noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen), or the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Breadalbane), or the noble Marquess now in India (the Marquess of Dalhousie), or any other active and intelligent Member of the Scotch Kirk, or of the Free Kirk of Scotland—would they give up the free action of their Church from fear of any such disruption as has occurred? Not they. They would feel as I do, that such peace would be too dearly purchased. My Lords, I feel assured
534
that the tendency of events is towards the attainment of this object by the Church. The Church will eventually regain her power of action. But the question is, by what process shall she regain it? It is because I am desirous that it should be restored by friendly, deliberate, and well-considered arrangements between the Church and the other powers of the country, that I am glad that my noble Friend has brought on this question, believing that such discussions tend to promote that result, and that by joining in them we are subserving the cause both of truth and of peace.
The ARCHBISHOP of DUBLINsaid, that he had oftener and longer ago than any other Member of the House called attention to the subject now before it. On that account he hoped he might be permitted to say a few words on this occasion, and they should be only a few words, because his opinions delivered in that House had been printed and published, and it would be more convenient for such of their Lordships as took an interest in them to read them at home than to hear him explain them in a long speech. The question of the propriety of providing a government for the Church, either temporary or permanent—either to meet certain special cases, or for the general regulation of ecclesiastical affairs—was first raised by him in their Lorships' House sixteen years ago, and he had since returned to the subject on various occasions. He had never advocated the restoration of the Convocation as the governing body of the Church, because—besides other objections—he was of opinion that the government of the Church by the clergy could not and should not be tolerated in these days. It had been justly observed that formerly all authorities in the State consisted exclusively of members of the Church, and, however ill qualified the State might have been for the government of the Church in the last century, this at any rate could be said of it—that it was composed of members of the Church. The strange anomaly of the present time was, that if the Church were governed at all, it must be governed by persons not necessarily members of it. The result was seen in this—not so much that the governing powers interfered improperly with the Church, as that, feeling their own disqualification for the office, they refrained from interfering at all. It was hardly necessary to say that he was not an advocate of violent changes; but he wished people to believe that if Church

535
affairs remained unaltered, it was because there was nothing that required change, not because there were no means of effecting it. He did not attach much weight to the objection which some urged to assembling a governing body for the Church—namely, that violent persons would find their way into it. Violent persons were to be met with everywhere, and they usually contrived to make a great stir and noise, quite disproportioned to their numbers. An example of this once occurred in a parish of which he was rector. He was informed that a violent opposition existed in the parish against a proposed alteration of a road, at which he was very much surprised, because the alteration was conducive to public convenience. In order to ascertain the real opinion of the inhabitants of the district, he sent to each house a white and a black bean, with directions that those who were opposed to the alteration should return a black bean, and vice versà. The return was twenty-nine black to three hundred white beans. Yet the twenty-nine black beans called themselves "the parish," and it was hardly necessary to say that they made twice as much noise as the three hundred white beans. He believed, also, that discussion and contests in a regular assembly were not so destructive of peace, as the absence of any such assembly; for they had very strong contests in Parliament, and yet to be without a Parliament would not promote peace. He did not think intolerant exclusion should be the order of the day. He was not for cutting off every limb as soon as it was in pain. He fully concurred with the noble Lord who had opened this debate, in believing that many of those who had been driven to desert the Church, and to take hostile steps, might have been retained, if there had been some legitimate mode of making their wishes and feelings known. The revival of Convocation as it at present existed, or, indeed, any attempt to govern the Church by means of the clergy exclusively, he should think highly inexpedient, and not a little unjust. Still less was he an advocate for any assumption of claims to govern the Church, and to dictate to its members, by any persons who were not regularly appointed for that work of government; and he believed that had a good deal to do with the dissatisfaction that had been expressed, as the most rev. Primate had mentioned, against the proceedings of the bishops of Australia. If
536
some twenty of their Lordships were to assemble, and in their own name to issue a code of laws for the government of this coustry, however just those laws might be in themselves, yet he believed they would be objected to, because that would be an assumption by those parties of the government of the country. Now, those Australian bishops had no more right to dictate as to the mode in which the worship of the Episcopal Church in Australia should be conducted—except in so far as the government of the Church was already placed under their control—than any twenty of their Lordships had to assume the powers of the House of Lords. He did not mean to charge those right rev. Brethren with pretending to assume a control over the consciences of the clergy; but there could be no doubt that their proceedings had been so interpreted, and had consequently given rise to considerable discontent. He would not detain their Lordships further, the rather as his opinions on this subject had been long before the public; but he must say, that while he was in favour of some kind of government being provided for the Church, he had never seen nor expected to see any plan suggested which appeared to him likely to give general and complete satisfaction.
The DUKE of ARGYLLhoped it would not be esteemed presumption in him if he were to address a few words to their Lordships on this important subject; because even if he had not been personally alluded to by the noble Lord who lately addressed them, even if the Church of which he was a member had not been repeatedly alluded to in the course of the debate, still he felt that the matters which were now before their Lordships, and the principles which were now under discussion, were principles common to the whole Christian world, principles of the most Catholic and general kind, and having reference to every society into which the Christian Church is unfortunately divided. It was a truism to maintain that it was the inherent right of every organised society to be empowered to meet for the regulation of its own affairs; and in whatever respects the Church of Christ, or any branch of that Church, differed from other organised bodies, surely in those respects on which it differed it was not less but more entitled to possess the powers of self-government. There were, however, certain difficulties in the Church of England which had not hitherto existed in the case of other Protestant Churches. He

537
should never listen to any debate in this House in which a comparison was attempted to be drawn between the Convocation of the Church of England and the General Assembly of the Church of which he was a member, without rising to protest against such a monstrous confusion of ideas. It must be apparent to every one who had listened to the discussion of to-night, that they were discussing two separate things; there was on the one hand a revival of the old English Convocation, and on the other hand there was evidently in the minds of most of the speakers the formation of an entirely new governing body. The old Convocation of the Church of England had no more relation to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, than any of the most dissimilar bodies that their Lordships could conceive. The old Convocation of the Church of England was composed entirely of the clergy; and he believed it to be true, as the most rev. Prelate had hinted rather than stated, that the Convocation was first called together, not so much for the regulation of the ecclesiastical or spiritual affairs of the Church, as to give the assent of the clergy to certain taxes or subsidies levied upon them by the civil power. But the Convocation of the Church of England never changed its character—it remained to the end a Convocation of the clergy; and to this he, for one, attributed the loss of its character, the loss of its influence, and eventually the loss of its fitness for those duties which are now again sought to be imposed upon it. He might mention other difficulties in the way of the formation of a new governing body, which not merely consisted in this, that there were no ancient traditions on which they might fall back, but still farther on the part of the opposite opinions which prevailed in the body whom they sought to unite in a representative capacity. He rejoiced to hear from every Member of their Lordships' House who had taken part in this discussion, that the Convocation which was now sought to be revived not only ought to be the old Convocation, but that it would not be a Convocation at all if it did not represent the whole body of the English Church, clergy and laity. But did their Lordships imagine that this would be a unanimous opinion? He feared it would not. So far as his own observation went—and he had long taken a deep interest in these matters, and observed what was passing in England as well as in Scotland with regard to it—his own impression
538
was that the majority of those who sought the revival of Convocation, sought literally and truly for the revival of the old Convocation of the Church of England, though he would not venture to state as a matter of fact—he was not so competent to form an opinion upon that point as some of their Lordships—he could not state how many there were that were seeking for a Convocation that should be perfectly identical with the old Convocation of the Church. He would tell their Lordships on what ground he formed this opinion. The noble Lord who introduced this discussion had alluded to a recent judicial decision which had been given on a point of doctrine in the Church of England; and the most rev. Prelate had referred to the objections which had been taken to that decision. Now a great number of those objections—and he was surprised his noble Friend had not referred to it—were objections to the constitution of the court by whom that decision had been given; and he must say that some of the ablest and most remarkable pamphlets he had seen on that subject rested their objections to the decision on the grounds of the constitution of the court, and complained of the grievance that was laid upon the consciences of the members of the Church of England in a lay tribunal being allowed to decide upon a point of doctrine of the Christian faith. This ground he knew had been taken, and he could not conceal from their Lordships that it had been taken by smoe of the ablest and most learned men who had written upon the subject. It was notorious to all of their Lordships who took an interest in this question, that upon this point they would have to overcome the feelings of the members of their own Church; they would have to overcome the feeling that the decision of these questions belonged of a right to the clergy, and not to the laity. He must say there was great confusion of thought in the pamphlet he had alluded to, because he had observed that no dissatisfaction was expressed with the decision of the Court of Arches, because, by a fiction of law, the Court of Arches represented a spiritual court, while the Privy Council represented a purely lay and civil power. He believed that this distinction arose from a great confusion of thought, because it was notorious to their Lordships that the Judge in the Court of Arches was a layman; that in theory, indeed, he might represent the jurisdiction of the most rev. Prelate, but that, in point of fact, he was as much a

539
layman, and decided the question as much on the principles of law as did the Judges of the Privy Council. Nevertheless, whatever might be the matter of fact, and whatever might be the confusion of mind, he must say that it was a principle much dwelt upon by some members of the Church of England, that questions of this kind mu3t be decided wholly by a Convocation of the clergy. If, as he rejoiced to learn, it was the opinion of the members of the Church of England that a renewal of the representative system of the government of the Church by a purely clerical tribunal, was not desirable, and that it was no longer possible, then he must say that they had before them an arduous and a difficult undertaking. Their Lordships must remember that the institutions of England, both civil and ecclesiastical, were never erected at one time. They had grown up gradually; they were entwined with the affections and associations of the people generally. They were now about to confer upon the Church of England not an institution that had ever had the affections and associations of the people to recommend it—they were about to proceed upon a totally new task; they were about to act as the Americans might have done; they were about to act as the French were about to act for the fourth, or the fifth, or for the dozenth time; they must set about the task of forming a paper constitution—for a paper constitution it would undoubtedly be, whether successful or not. He did not say such a task was impossible; God forbid he should say any such thing! all he said was, that it was a new, a difficult, and an arduous task—a task to which the people of England were not by their history accustomed, and he should say, hardly by their nature and character. Besides the difficulties they would have to encounter in the constitution of the body to whom they proposed to commit anew the government of the Church, they had other difficulties to contend with which existed in the case of no other body. They were difficulties which did not exist in the case of the Church of Scotland; for, from the first origin of that Church, it had been accustomed to have a representative body—a representative body founded so far back in history that at the present moment representatives were sent to the General Assembly by not a few municipal burghs, the members of which were no longer connected with the Church. That body acted under a carefully-defined system, and with
540
long-established rules of government, and no question had arisen in the General Assembly until very recent times which involved any occasion of serious division. Questions of doctrine had hardly ever come before the General Assembly; and he was bound to add that, in the few instances where questions of doctrine affecting some of the most profound and metaphysical points of the Christian faith had come before the General Assembly, his experience led him to say that those were the points which were least successfully, least happily, and, he must add, least worthily dealt with by that body. But questions of discipline were perpetually coming before it. Now, he would appeal to those members of the Church of England who were most anxious for a representative assembly in the case of their own Church, whether they were not struck by the forcible argument that was brought to hear upon this point by the most rev. Prelate, because he must say it appeared to him that while the weight of argument was almost altogether on the side of the abstract right to hold a Convocation, the weight of argument was altogether on the side against a Convocation so far as regarded the practical evils and dangers that were to be expected from it. Were they not conscious that the Church of England included among its members not only persons who differed from each other on points of discipline, but who were diametrically opposed to each other on some of the most important doctrines of Christianity? They had theologians among them whom he affirmed to be—and he believed he was safe in doing so—as high Calvinists as any that existed at the present moment in the most extreme sections of the Lutheran Church. There was another party in the Church whose theology was barely distinguishable from the theology of the Church of Rome. With these elements in the Church of England—while it might be abstractly right to meet in Convocation—were they prepared to take the consequences of such a meeting? He, for one, believed that mere peace was not the first and greatest object that ought to be aimed at. He agreed with his noble Friend that there were times when they were bound to be in a state of warfare—when warfare was their duty. Only he thought the matter was one of so much importance to those who were anxious to see a new representative system in the Church of England, that they ought to weigh well the

541
great difficulties that existed in the Church to such a course. His own firm conviction was, that, in the existing state of religious feeling in the country, if there should he a meeting of Convocation, however that body might be composed, questions would arise in the body which would result sooner or later in a great disruption of the Church of England. He was not prepared to say that that would not be a preferable alternative to the state of matters that now existed. That was for the members of the Church of England themselves to decide; on them must the responsibility lie. Before sitting down, there was one observation of the most rev. Prelate against which he must protest. He had quoted two instances from the life of a great and good man, giving his experience of the action of representative synods. Now, did the most rev. Prelate not suppose that if he had searched the diary of such a man, for instance, as Wilberforce, that he might have found jottings of his experience in times of great excitement, of violent contest, of exasperated feeling; and would the most rev. Prelate have thought it fair to bring forward those fragments as specimens of Mr. Wilberforce's deliberate opinion as to the action of representative government? So monstrous an argument, if it were meant as an argument, he had never before heard adduced on a question of this nature. If it were meant as an illustration, he must take exception to one of the instances which was brought forward by the most rev. Prelate: he meant the instance the most rev. Prelate had adduced from the late disruption in the Church of Scotland. He did not wish to revive the heats and animosities of that controversy, and he could not forget that he was speaking in the presence of a noble Friend of his (the Earl of Aberdeen), who took an active, a prominent, and, he should never cease to think and say, a most unfortunate part in resisting the changes which were then sought; but this he was bound to say in connexion with the argument of the most rev. Prelate, that that disruption would never have taken place if it had not been for, as he believed, the unconstitutional, and, in the highest sense, the unlawful, interposition of an Act of Parliament, which had been passed since the Union, with the free action of the representative system of the Church of Scotland. It was not that the disruption arose out of the free action of that representative system—it arose rather out of
542
the restriction which was most unwisely attempted on the free action of that representative system. He did not wish now to advert more particularly to that statute which caused the disruption—the statute which restored the rights of patronage; but he must state that that statute was always regarded as an interference with the free action of the representative system of the Church of Scotland; and more recently—by the decision of the Courts of Law against the opinions of some of the most learned and eminent of the Judges—a construction was put upon it which still further interfered with the free action of the General Assembly. An appeal was carried to their Lordships' House, and on their decision he did not scruple to think and to say, that feelings and principles derived from the constitution of the Church of England were allowed to influence the decision that was then pronounced; and, rather than submit to this interference with the free action of their representative assemblies, he would not say a majority, but a large proportion, of the members of the Church of Scotland seceded from her communion. There was no connexton between this event and a revival of Convocation in the Church of England; and he, for one, protested against any argument in opposition to free representative assemblies, drawn either from local quarrels, or from the discussion which took place in consequence of an interference with the free action of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.
The BISHOP of LONDONsaid, it was not his intention to enter at any length into the main argument which had now been brought before them. He had risen mainly to notice what he considered an error in the very able speech of the noble Duke who had just addressed them. He argued, from the dissatisfaction that was evinced at the decision of the Privy Council on a late occasion, and the objections that were taken to the constitution of that body, that there was a wish on the part of the majority of the clergy to place any power that might be exercised by the Convocation in the hands of the clergy alone, and that there was no wish on the part of the great body of the clergy to admit the laity to any share in their deliberations—
The DUKE of ARGYLL: I did not say the great body of the clergy—I expressly guarded against being committed to any number who entertained these opinions.
The BISHOP of LONDONsaid, the numbers did not affect his argument. What

543
he wished to direct attention to was, the erroneous inference—that because parties objected to a lay tribunal deciding points of doctrine, therefore the same parties would object to the admission of lay members to decide upon the external matters that related to the Church. Their Lordships would recollect that in the speech which he ventured to address to them in moving his Bill of last year, he stated broadly that in the determination of points of doctrine, it always had been the practice of the Christian Church to entrust their decisions to the Bishops of the Church in their judicial character, or at the very least to give them a veto upon the decisions of other bodies. [See 3 Hansard, cxi. 607.] In the Episcopal Church of America, which they might fairly term the daughter, or at least the sister of the Church of England, the questions of faith and doctrine might be discussed by the representative body of that Church, but no decision could be come to without first allowing a veto to the bishops. He was therefore prepared to assert, for the order to which he belonged, the right of determining judicially for their own Church on all points of faith. It was quite a different matter to admit the laity to a share in the government of the Church in a representative assembly. With respect to the question before their Lordships, there was no one more sensible than he was of the great difficulties which attended it. He felt the full force of the objections which the most rev. Primate had stated as reasons which ought to operate with their Lordships in not giving their sanction to the proposition of his noble Friend. He felt all the difficulties of the case; but he must say they were trifling, compared with those difficulties which must involve the Church, unless their Lordships were prepared to take measures to restore to her her inherent right of deliberation. With respect to the disputes which took place in Convocation during the earlier part of last century, he thought it would be found, if their Lordships would read the history of those times, that the reasons which caused the suppression of Convocation were not that the clergy were too violent in their disputes on religious questions, but that the Lower House of Convocation took notice of the heretical teaching of one of the bishops who had recently been appointed, and that it was political and not religious motives that induced the Minister of the Crown of that day to suppress the Convo-
544
cation. But, if they were to argue from the abuse of an institution against the institution itself, he knew of none, not even that instituted by the Saviour himself, against which that same argument might not be used, to prevent the exercise of its legitimate and inherent powers. If the Church was not qualified so to deliberate on its own affairs, he should like to know what organised body was. That Parliament, as it was now constituted, was qualified to deliberate on the affairs of the Church, was a proposition to which he could not concede. At the same time he must state that he was not satisfied with the present constitution of Convocation; and for this reason—that, putting aside the question as to the admission of the laity, he did not think that the parochial clergy were adequately represented, while the deans and chapters were more than adequately represented in Convocation. Since the last meetings of Convocation, the parochial clergy had greatly increased in numbers, and still more in learning, in intelligence, and in independence, and he did not think that about forty representatives in Convocation was an adequate representation of fifteen or sixteen thousand of the parochial clergy. But, if alterations were to be made, he thought that Convocation itself was the body which ought in the first instance to make these alterations. There were other questions with regard to which concessions might be made. Considering the great prerogative of the Crown, he did not think that much inconvenience need be apprehended from the deliberations of Convocation, where it rested with the Sovereign to suggest the topics of debate, and to put an end to the discussion of those topics if it saw necessary by prorogation. Upon the whole, he could not but come to the conclusion that, great as the difficulties were, the growing difficulties that embarrassed the Church for want of such a representation were still greater. Recent events had made him individually feel strongly the want of such a body. He did not know to whom to have recourse for counsel and advice; and he was satisfied that, unless there was some representative body—combining all classes of the Church—permitted to assemble, the time was not far distant when those who were entrusted with the diocesan government of the Church would not know to what hand to turn for counsel and direction in the coming emergencies. On the whole, there-

545
fore, he could have no hesitation in saying, that there ought to be a representative body of the members of the Church to whom its government should be entrusted.
EARL NELSONwas sorry that no Member of Her Majesty's Government had thought the question of sufficient importance to take part in this discussion. It appeared to him, as one who was anxious to uphold and continue the relations now existing between Church and State, that it was a most important question. It was true that, before the measures which were adopted in 1828 and 1829, the suppression of Convocation might not be looked upon as so great an attack upon the liberties of the Church; but things had assumed a different aspect since those measures had been passed. He did not mean to say that he was opposed to the passing of the measures he alluded to; but he did say that they were carried, as almost all great measures were unhappily carried in this country, without a sufficient consideration of all the interests affected by the change. Since that time the relations between Church and State had been in a most unsatisfactory position. There were only two modes in which these relations could be adjusted. The first was one that appeared to him to have been all along more or less tried—an attempt to destroy or to keep in the back ground the vitality of the Church. He thought that attempt had failed. If it had not failed it would have had the effect of lessening the influence of the Church over the people of this country, because in proportion as they destroyed the vitality of a religious body, so would they destroy its influence with the people. The right rev. Prelate who had just spoken had referred to the Bill which he brought forward last Session, and that circumstance reminded him that the Bill was again and again postponed in its various stages, that the right rev. Prelate might in some irregular way obtain the opinions of the clergy with respect to it. But the imperfect opinions thus obtained from some few clergymen sitting in their closets would be very different from the opinions of the same parties when they were discussing a measure face to face with their opponents. That argument had often been used by noble Lords opposite. When in the discussions on the Reform Bill they were told of the great dangers that would ensue from the increase of the franchise, they said that the
546
liberty of discussion would allay heats and dissensions. It was well known that demagogues out of the House of Commons speedily found their level when their opinions were confronted and discussed by others on a footing of perfect equality. Now he believed the same process would take place with regard to the clergy; and certainly no body of men required the mellowing process of discussion more than they did, because in the pulpit they were accustomed to state their opinions without fear of contradiction, and thus they insensibly acquired a habit of dogmatism. He, therefore, thought that the only mode of maintaining the relations between Church and State, was by helping forward the spiritual action of the Church, binding her by the ties of gratitude rather than by those of compulsion. Men talked of the dangers that might arise from the assembling of Convocation, but he believed the dangers which at present existed were greater than any that were likely to arise; and the greatest danger of all was any attempt on the part of the Government to blink the importance of this great question. He must say that the events of the last half-year had greatly influenced his opinion on this matter; and when they saw that about one and the same time there were separate and independent movements for synodical action in Australia, in Canada, as well as in the Church at home, he thought they could not disguise from themselves that the question was increasing in interest and force, and he feared that, unless the Government speedily took up the question, they would soon lose the advantages that resulted from the union between Church and State. Did they think they had no use now for the Church? How were they to deal with the uneducated masses, unless by the evangelising power of the Church? At the present time infidelity, though more insidiously, was as much at work as ever; and the Church of Rome had come forward more prominently than before as an antagonist to the Church, much more than to the State. What was required to repel that aggression, was, not penal measures—for penal measures, unless they went back to persecution, could not touch the spiritual action of a Church. The Church of England was ready at hand, at once the greatest bulwark against infidelity and Rome. Let them beware how they cast aside that means which God had given them, if

547
they attempted to destroy the vitality of the Church; if they would not listen to their endeavours to obtain synodical action and freedom, they would be punished by the necessary consequences of the want of those means of defence which the Church so aptly afforded. He could not help quoting a remark which he found the other day in a sermon of Bishop Andrews. He says—
"There is no people who can better speak as to the value of public assemblies than we. There was nothing that did our ancestors (the Britons) more hurt, nothing that turned them to greater prejudice (saith Tacitus of them) than this one—they met not, they consulted not in common, but every man ran a course of his own head by himself, and this was the greatest advantage the Romans had of them, they were not so wise as to know what good there was in public coventions."
This was particularly applicable to the present question. The State thought it necessary to protest against the Romish aggression, but the Church was denied the power from the want of synodical action. She could not as a Church protest against this direct attack upon her. He then showed that the case of Australia, quoted by the Primate, was exactly the other way, and was a proof of the necessity of that regular action which the bishops in synod suggested and prayed for—a scheme in which clergy, laity, and bishops were to take a part. In conclusion, he trusted that the House would deem that there were no impediments to the meeting and action of such a body as that suggested by the noble Lord.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE said: When I consider the method in which this subject has been brought before the House, and the statement of the noble Lord who introduced it, namely, that it was far from his intention to attack any person or body of men in this kingdom—I feel, more especially after the able speech of the right rev. Prelate who has just down, that the House might well dispense with hearing a single word from me; and were it not that it might be supposed that I and every other Member of Her Majesty's Government were indifferent—it might be imputed that we were so by reason of our silence—to the great importance of this subject, and the magnitude of that change—for change it is—in the constitution of this country, which the noble Lord has not proposed, but which he has rather suggested to the consideration of the House, I would not obtrude myself upon your Lordships. I say change in the con-
548
stitution of this country—because I apprehend, the more you look into the history of Convocation in this country, and its connexion with its history, you will find—and indeed the fact has in a great degree been admitted by the noble Lord who introduced the question—that Convocation was not holden for the mere purposes he would now suggest, but that, having been called together for another object, it was made to answer and successfully accomplish the ends which the noble Lord has now in view, namely, by open and continued discussion, to establish a government for the Church, and to determine the doctrines of the Church in this country. Such a body, looking historically at Convocation, would be totally different from that which was composed, in former times, solely of the different ecclesiastical bodies in the provinces of Canterbury and York. It would be differently constituted—naturally so, as it would not have its origin in the same source, or be established for the same purpose. If you have a Convocation, different elements must come into play, and have their due place assigned to them. I refer to the Church of Ireland, and also to that in the Colonies. But not only will a change be necessary in the formation of the representation of the body itself, but the duties devolving upon it would also be different. If you look to the origin of Convocation in this country, you cannot entertain a doubt that the duties you would now impose heretofore, only accidentally devolved upon it. The Clergy were formerly convoked for the performance of certain civil services due by them to the State; and it was not until after the Reformation, and that also emanating and rising out of the authority of the Crown, that they were called upon to pass any opinion upon that great and important event. To such a degree was this principle carried out, that some of the most important Acts, whereby the Establishment was settled and confirmed, were passed without the slightest appeal to Convocation whatsoever. I apprehend, therefore, if your Lordships are to create a body to be entrusted with the constant and perpetual task of deliberating upon the government and doctrines of the Church, that it must be a body essentially different from any body which has been heretofore established in this realm. Now, the question your Lordships have to consider is, whether the time itself, or any accidents

549
arising out of the time, are such as to call on your Lordships or Parliament to advise the creation and infusion of so new an element into the constitution of this country. I am not prepared to say, whatever my opinion of Convocation may be, that if I saw any prospect, by the creation of any such new element, of attaining that unity and peace in the Church which it must be the object of every admirer and member of the Church to attain, that I should not be prepared to embrace any means by which so great and so desirable an object could be obtained. But when I see what has been the history of Convocation, I entertain no belief—and see no foundation for entertaining it—that such results would flow from a re-establishment of Convocation; nor can I see anything which would induce me to be a party to advising the Crown to attempt such a novel and dangerous experiment as to establish a body without being afterwards able to control and govern its proceedings. And when it is said that there is a power in the Crown to control Convocation, I ask whether the exercise of that control itself would contribute to that peace or restore that tranquillity which is so desirable? It is admitted that differences of opinion and violent and passionate discussions may arise; but it is said, when such differences do arise, there may then step in the power of the Crown to prorogue and regulate the assembly. Is it supposed, that in the temper and in the heat of such discussions, such an interference would be desirable; or could it be imagined that the interference of the Crown would at once put an end to the heat of the debate, the heart-burnings and the animosities which would arise from the war of words? My Lords, I say such an interference would be dangerous in the extreme. As far as I can consult the history of assemblies of this nature, I find that they have invariably and signally failed. The noble Lord who introduced the subject alluded to the Council of Trent. If great assiduity, employment of talent, and great length of time devoted to secure the objects desired, would have done so, that Council would have succeeded. We have the history of these transactions recorded in detail by one of the greatest writers of the age, and having the advantage of those records before us, what is the history of the Council of Trent but a series of ineffectual efforts to obtain peace and concord in the Church—efforts which were followed by greater agitation
550
than before? I have no confidence or hope that peace would be the result of such a step as re-establishing the Convocation—I have no hope to justify me in advising the Crown to pursue it. If I saw any better means than those which now exist for eliciting public opinion, I should be glad to embrace them and see them brought to bear on the government of the Church in this country; but not being able to do so, I cannot, for one, and Her Majesty's Government cannot, be parties to the trial of an experiment so novel, so far-fetched, and so perilous as that suggested.
The BISHOP of OXFORDcould not suffer one of the remarks which had just fallen from the noble Marquess to pass without venturing to question its strict accuracy, and endeavouring to show how it might be made correct. The noble Marquess had argued as though it was by the merest accident and chance that the functions for which he and others now wished to see provision made, had ever been discharged in the Church of England, for he had identified the discharge of those functions with the Convocation of the clergy, and then had gone on to say that the very rise and origin of Convocation was an accident; that it was the necessary device resorted to for the purpose of taxing the clergy, and that afterwards it accidentally took cognisance of matters affecting the doctrine and discipline of the Church; but that the Church of England was a stranger to such an institution, and that it was one so novel, so fraught with danger, so uncertain in its effects, that he, in the tranquil, peaceful, united, and undivided state of the Church at present, could not venture to introduce it.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: I stated exactly the contrary.
The BISHOP of OXFORD: The noble Marquess stated that it was an institution so novel that he would not venture to introduce it. The other words he had used he had not meant to attribute to the noble Marquess. He (the Bishop of Oxford) meant for himself to glance at the position and state of the Church which the noble Marquess was so fearful of disturbing; and he feared, from the noble Lord's eager denial of them, that he was one of those who laid the flattering unction to their souls that the public administration of matters concerning the Church had been, for the last three or four years, such as to cause peace, harmony, and unity. He was

551
not one of those; and, therefore, when he heard the visionary dangers which might result from Convocation spoken of, he could not help contrasting them with those real and substantial dangers which yawned every day around them. What he did quote from the noble Marquess was, that spiritual synods, which he identified in England with the Convocation, were a novelty—that there was no such thing known in the constitution—that its origin arose out of civil institutions, and questions arising out of land.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: You misrepresent me.
The BISHOP of OXFORDdid not wish to misrepresent the noble Marquess; he would be extremely sorry to do so.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: You have done so, of course unintentionally.
The BISHOP of OXFORDwould sit down and listen to the noble Marquess's explanation.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: When you conclude I shall explain.
The BISHOP of OXFORD: It would have been exceedingly convenient if the noble Marquess had now explained; it would have saved him and their Lordships further trouble. He would be sorry to misrepresent any noble Lord; but he understood the argument of the noble Marquess to be that no such thing was co-natural with the English ecclesiastical system as such a representative synod as that which had to-night been advocated; that the origin of Convocation arose from the necessity for the discharge of certain civil services due by the clergy to the State; and that it then very inconveniently assumed functions to which it was not originally entitled. Had the noble Marquess explained, he should have been thankfully set right upon the matter.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEthen rose, and observed that it was extremely irregular in the right rev. Prelate to call for an explanation in the course of a speech. He claimed for himself the right of explanation when the right rev. Prelate had concluded his address.
The BISHOP of OXFORDsaid, that there was one thing more irregular than explanation, and that was interruption. He trusted, therefore, that the noble Marquess, as he declined explaining, would, in this respect at least, extend to him his usual courtesy, and abstain from further interruption. But to return: Convocation,
552
as he understood, was described to be a novelty in the Church of England, introduced for the sake of taxing the clergy, and that its discharging those functions of regulating the Church, which they described as being co-natural with the Church, was an after-thought. Now, to a great degree, this was true; but the important point, which the noble Marquess had omitted, was this. Before Convocation existed, and afterwards when it existed merely to tax the clergy, regular provincial and diocesan synods met throughout the land; and it was not till the more proper synod ceased to act, that from dealing with matters of civil service and necessity, Convocation was transformed, inconveniently, into a synod of the Church. Thus, an institution which was called for one purpose, was called on to discharge other functions for which it was inconveniently suited. So much, then, for the argument of novelty. But, in truth, he believed the great and fundamental object tion to granting to the Church of England any synodical action lay far deeper than any objection that found its way to the lips of any speaker who had as yet spoken. He believed that, in too many, it really based itself on an entire want of faith in the divine mission of the Church. He claimed for the English Church, from the Crown of England, the right of assembling when circumstances required it; for the Royal word, which was never broken, had been pledged for the maintenance of that right. But he claimed this right irrespective of the Crown, dating back from the time when the English Crown was not—he claimed it for this Church of England as a true representative in this land of that body which assembled first in apostolic Synod in Jerusalem—when, indeed, the Church, trusting in the presence of her Divine Head, and in his almighty power, met and had confidence in their being guided substantially aright. In confirmation of his view, he begged to call their Lordships' attention to an article written in a paper which was acknowledged to be at least connected with those in authority—if not in some sort their recognised organ—and which, it might therefore be supposed, would not put forth anything very shocking to those with whom it was so likely to be identified. [The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: What is the name of the paper?] The Globe newspaper.
"The Church of England, as by law established, is emphatically a creature of this world.

553
It is impossible to affix any intelligible character to her profession or practice, unless we bear steadily in mind that she is essentially a machine for embodying the spiritual element in the changing public opinion of the day, and not a contrivance for transmitting sacraments or defining creeds. On any other theory such a Church as we hare in England is either a contradiction or a living outrage on every pretence of religious independence. Her government by the Prime Minister, her passive immobility, her obstinate silence, the absolute nullity of her censures, the thousands of her professing adherents who laugh outright whenever her ministers outstep the modest sphere of officebearers in a national establishment—these are all incidents and marks of bondage which would be too intolerable for the meanest sect of Jumpers to submit to, which the Roman Church derides and scoffs at from her pride of place, the recognition of which would be degrading beyond belief to a purely spiritual establishment, but which become, we do not say merely intelligible, but suitable and decent, in our department of public worship. These facts cannot be got over; and, however they may jar with the superb tone which the Elizabethan Reformers sometimes assumed in an unwise deference to the prejudices of their day, it is foolish to ignore them, and dishonest to speculate on the faith that the uninstructed rich or poor may do so. It is a great misfortune that the true position of the Church of England was not brought out more clearly, we may say, more offensively, in the sixteenth century. A real Nag's Head consecration would have saved us from a world of our present difficulties."
He believed that the spirit which breathed through that article animated, however unconsciously, many of those who objected to the synod which they advocated. Those who believed that the Church was this convenient human instrument, this active useful police to keep down troublesome people, without any presence of God to guide her, without any truth of God for which she and lived, for which it were well, if need be, that she should fall, would refuse, no doubt, to give her a true synodical action. He deeply regretted to hear it asserted, and that from lips which could not mean it, that Convocation did very little in settling the Articles which were agreed upon at the Reformation. They were told that because the words of those Articles had been settled by Committees, and then only ordered by Convocation, that therefore Convocation had very little to do with them. But surely this was a strange argument; for the question was not by whom they were mechanically drawn up, but by what authority were they propounded, and as to that there could be no doubt. The very title to the articles settled the matter, for we read there in our Prayer-books that—"These Articles were drawn up by and agreed to by the Clergy in their Convocation, and assented
554
to by the Monarch." The words were well chosen, and showed the part which Convocation took in the matter. And let no one think that this was a trifling question, or a war of words. Either the Church was in this land the representative of that Christian Church established by Jesus Christ, or she was the mere creature of the State. Let them not deal lightly with the alternative. If they thought that her earthly dignities gave to her her standing and power—if they thought that they might, so long as they maintained these, safely suppress her higher character—they were doing that which would give the Church of Rome more power against them than twenty thousand such Acts of Parliament against aggression, as they would soon see, could cure. But they were told that Convocation would endanger the peace of the Church. And in answer to this it had been said by his noble Friend opposite that he would rather have truth than peace. Would his noble Friend allow him slightly to amend his expression, and he would say, he would have that peace only which was consistent with truth, for that was the only true peace. Peace in error was not peace; it was death instead of peace. He could not forget, when such a peace was praised, the words of Him who said to those who longed for it of old, "Think ye that I am come to send peace on earth? I tell you, nay, but a sword." To find peace only in striving against error was, from the very first, the Church's charter. It was by the contentions of successive Synods which had defined the faith against the errors of successive heresies, that they had themselves received the original deposit of the faith. Each of those Synods was a time of contention; in some concerning doctrine, in others concerning discipline; but out of them all came a time of real peace. As when a wise physician brings to light and cures the secret evils of the body, he does not make the evils which he detects and handles, so the Synods did not cause the evil which for the time they seemed, it may be, to exasperate. They dealt with these evils, and by dealing with them cured them. Synods were the vent for such evils. It was when the pent-up throes of a mighty volcano found no vent at its crater that it shook the earth with its smothered heavings and intestine strivings; and so it was in the Church. Such repressed strifes were not peace, but the causes of a deeper and more dangerous

555
disquietude. So it had been eminently of late years in our own Church. That seeming peace, of which some were so enamoured, had been fertile in the most real division; and though, if they had possessed then true synodical action, outward peace might seem to be endangered by such living action in their Church, they might throughout those seeming strifes have reached a far truer harmony. How, indeed, can there be peace on any other terms than these? For the causes of difference are not light unimportant opinions, but principles which touch the heart and centre of men's being. How can you hope to find unity as to these by stamping an iron silence on men's souls? My Lords, you have seen the fruit of this attempt. You have seen men, for the sake of the convictions they have thus reached, give up the friends, and homes, and associations of a life, and in so doing give up more than life itself; you have seen such men lost to you, who might, I verily believe, have been saved, had the Church possessed the visible life of action, and been able to consider their difficulties, and manifest to them that she did hold that after which they longed. It is only by mutual explanations and definitions, by united acts, by the incidents of a common life, by the self-assertion of possessing spiritual being, that such evils can be warded off. Men of the noblest hearts, and of the strongest intellects, had been led into the deepest error, he believed, mainly from the misfortunes of the times, because their spirits were driven in on themselves, to eat their souls in comfortless despair. But if they had been allowed to discuss these questions in the presence and with the aid of the Blessed Spirit of God to guide them aright, if there be any truth in God's own word, the result must have been most different. But, again, we are told that the assembling of such a Synod would give power to men of extreme and dangerous views. Why should it be so? Who are the persons who obtain the greatest power in lawful Synods? Why, the most learned, the most moderate, and the most judicious persons. When a demagogue went about inflaming men's minds, how often did they not hear it said, "Oh, let him get into Parliament; there he will find his level." And why was this? Because in that lawful assembly, met under due authority, met for strictly practical purposes, the mischievous demagogue became an in-
556
nocent nuisance. And this would be the case in the higher assembly, the restoration of which he advocated. But they were told that it would be a novel experiment—that, in fact, it would be an innovation. He must beg to remind them that we had learned from an authority as old as Lord Bacon that time was the greatest innovator. To attempt, then, to stereotype past observances was a most dangerous innovation, for it brought upon them the tooth of time, with its most virulent effects. Again, it had been said that the introduction of the lay element into the Synod would be a great change—that to frame such a body would be an untried experiment. But was this so? True, they had no such Synod of the Church sitting in London; but their Church had one which met in annual Convention; for across the broad Atlantic, their Church, their own Church planted in America, met annually in such a Synod as he desired to see amongst themselves; and, instead of perishing under its dangers, found in it such strength that it alone, of all the religious bodies into which that great nation was divided, actually gained upon the increase of its multiplying population. To that, then, he pointed as a practical answer to this objection. He had no fears of the influence of the laity of the Church in her decisions. Nay, with him one main reason why he desired to see synodical action restored to the Church was because the laity had now scarcely any legitimate authority or mode of acting in their Church. There was something like clerical acting, but there was no lay acting. Sometimes a meeting was got up in London by persons calling themselves lay members of the Church of England. But that was not the due and legal action of the Church's laity. A layman meant a member of the Church of Christ who was not ordained. Now, so defined, he contended that the laity had scarcely any legitimate power left in the Church, and he deeply regretted it, for that reason amongst others, and wished to see synodical action restored. It was formerly exercised in two ways, through the Crown of England and through the House of Commons. It was exercised originally through the Crown, and it had been said that the Crown was the acknowledged lay element of the Church of England, and was so now. But when noble Lords spoke thus they must be reminded of the change which had passed over the powers of the English Crown. They were drawing these notions from a

557
time when, upon the House of Commons venturing to take in hand the questioning of some matters hearing on religion, they received the reprimand of their somewhat imperious Mistress, and the Member who offended was committed to prison and fined by the Star Chamber. When noble Lords talked of innovation, let them remember that time had so innovated that all the personal control of the Sovereign over the Church was nearly gone; and so it was as to the second seat of lay power within the Church. So long, indeed, as the House of Commons represented the Church of England, the laity of the Church of England had power over the Church. But how was it now? Would any one say that the measures discussed in the House of Commons were discussed by them as representing the laity of the Church of England? No such thing; they entered into such matters, not as sons of the Church, but as members of the commonwealth, and as those dealing with some State establishment which they thought they ought to fashion as they chose. He contended that the laity of the Church of England were now almost wholly unrepresented. There was no way in which that body could act in the administration of her affairs. The next great blot was this: the great body of the clergy had scarcely any power left in the administration of the Church, and all power was thrown into the hands of the governors of the Church spiritual, and that was the most inconvenient, unconstitutional, and unhappy arrangement possible. It drove them to shrink from difficulties, or tyrannically to set up their own will as their rule. It was impossible for them, with dioceses to govern, with an Establishment which was intended to contain the extremes of opinion upon each side so long as the holders of those opinions would agree to sign common Articles and use common Formularies, with one party when in the ascendant, clamouring to have the opposite party excluded, with the other party when in the ascendant clamouring to have their opponents suppressed—with common use often one way, and the rule of authority another—it was almost impossible for men thus situated to discharge their duties satisfactorily. The reproaches cast on the bishops were, in great measure, not the result of the fault of the men, they were the fault of the unnatural circumstances in which they were placed—circumstances in which the Church of Christ never intended to place them, but
558
in which they had been placed by the lapse of time. To meet these great difficulties, and with no want of perception of the dangers of the other side, he desired to see the Church of England duly represented in a lawful synod—the bishops in their true place, the clergy in theirs, and the laity in theirs—to see them all consulting together, for the common welfare of all; he only wished to see them go back to that which was established when the Church was in her cradle, and when the Apostles, and Elders, and Brethren, met together to consult for her welfare, and because they did so meet together, dared to claim the promised general guiding of that God for whose leading they sought. That which was then begun in the Church had since remained in its essential element, and it was that which be desired to see granted to the Church of England. He wished for no priestly domination, no episcopal tyranny. Rather he wished to part with some of the power which had been lodged inconveniently in the ruler's hands. The noble Duke fell into an error from not recognising the difference between a man saying it was the office of those to whom Christ had committed the rule of his Church to decide in matters of doctrine and controversy, and denying that the laity should be allowed to take their full and fair share in deliberation for the welfare of the Church. And even, go one step further, was it not one thing to say there would be nothing contrary to the institutions of the Church in letting the lay members of the Church decide on matters of doctrine, they being of the Church; and was it not another to say that a body linked in no way with the Church—not professing to have its members belonging to it as individuals—some of them known to belong to other bodies, some of them known to be hostile to the peculiar claims of the Church of England—should assume to settle the doctrines of the Church of England? There were many evils connected with the present state of things, and he saw no power to remedy those evils except in the power of internal regulation—a power which every organised party possessed. It was the secret of life that it could hold together discordant elements in operation. Science had taught us that in all living bodies there was the equal balance of contrary powers, held together in their harmonious work by that which we termed the mystery of life. And so it was in the living Church of Christ. It never had been

559
the condition of the Church of Christ to have perfect unity of opinion. The constitution of men's minds made that impossible. The office of the Church of Christ was not to extinguish all difference of opinion, but, like the office of life in the human body, to make it possible that such differences should co-exist together in harmonious co-operation; and, doubtless, it was for this reason amongst others that it was formed by its Divine Founder, and endued with the presence of the Spirit. If they would handle that mysterious thing which had come down to them in this land from the first ages of Christianity, the living Church of Christ—if they would handle that as some mere instrument of human device—if they would attempt, by external regulations, to make it speak language which it had not learned from its Lord, and do acts which it could not justify by His precepts, they might promise themselves peace, but they would find death; they might promise themselves success, but they would find that life had departed from that which would have been their choicest instrument, and left them wholly incompetent, as every anti-Christian nation had been, to deal with the manifest corruptions and unnumbered evils of the body politic which they had to administer.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEstated, in explanation, that what he had said was, that it was by a series of accidents that Convocation had acquired the power, the habit, of discussing and settling doctrines appertaining to the Church, and he apprehended the statement was borne out by history. The translation of the Word of God, which it had been truly said in the course of this discussion it was the characteristic of the Church of England to adhere to, was formally promulgated and enacted without any reference to Convocation. The Common Prayer Book, the most essential element in the Church of England, and that which gathered around her her votaries and followers in one common worship, was compiled without Convocation. Although they passed Convocation, the Articles of the Church did not become law in consequence of having passed Convocation, but were adopted by the Sovereign, and made law by Parliament, both the Sovereign and the Parliament altering those Articles before they made them into law. The most important elements of which the Church of England was composed, and by which she had been subsequently regulated, were laid down
560
without any reference to or sanction by Convocation. These things were a convincing proof that Convocation was not the established mode of promulgating the doctrines and governing the Church of England. It was in that sense that he said it would be a novelty to establish Convocation for that purpose. He did not say it was a novelty unfit to be considered, and he did not say that the Church of England was in that happy state that nothing could be done. He wished some means could be pointed out by which a degree of perfect tranquillity could be introduced; but he did not see his way with sufficient confidence to the establishment of the tribunal now proposed, so as to induce him to say that he was prepared to become a party to advise the Crown to establish what he considered an uncertain, if not a dangerous innovation.
The BISHOP of OXFORDexplained.
LORD REDESDALEreplied, he did not see why a change could not be produced in the same way in which the Articles were agreed to by Convocation. They were not drawn up by the Convocation, one person suggesting a word here and another there, but the matter was entrusted to sober-minded men, who met to devise a plan in the same way that the Government with which the noble Marquess was connected in 1831 advised the alteration of the constitution of the House of Commons. When Convocation sanctioned the Articles and made them binding upon the Church, it did its duty in a desirable and efficient way; and he entertained a hope that the difference which had been anticipated would not take place, if measures were carefully prepared by those in whom the Church had confidence.
On Question, agreed to.
House adjourned to Monday next.