The Express.
London, England, 1847-07-22 00:00:00

CHARITABLE TRUSTS.

Mr. HUME said if the government did not bring in a
bill on the subject of charitable trusts in the nest parlia-
ment he should do se, if he had the honour of a scat in it.
Mr. BANNERMAN complained that the hon. gentleman
the member for Birmingham (Mr. Monts) had made a state-
ment, at a railway meeting at Biimingham, respecting the
conduct of a committee of the house of which he (Mr.
Bannerman) was chairman. It was imputed to 'him that
he had been influenced in the decision to which he had come
by Mr. Parker, an opposing solicitor. He could assure the
house that, neither directly nor indirectly, by writing or
orally, or by message, bad he held any communication with
Mr. Parker on the aubjeet.
Sir E. FILMER bore testimony to the impartiality and
ability of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bannerman) as chair-
man of the committee.

Mr. \VADDIIQOTON also testified bis approval of the
conduct of the hon, gentleman as chairman of the com-
Mttee.

BISHOPRIC OF MANCHESTER, &c., BILL.
On the order of the day for the third reading of th's bill
being read,
Mr. HUME said he wee opposed to the b 1 1, because it was,
in his opinion, a violation of the agreement entered into in
1836; and, although the bill bed been greatly modified, it
was still of so objectionable a character that he felt bound
to oppose It, and be should move that it be read a third time
that day six months.
An hon. MEMBER (whose name we could not learn) sup-
ported the bill.
Mr. EWART said the objection was not to the appoint-
ment of bishops, per se, but to the creation of bishops e:th
reference to the poorer clergy, amongst whom the surplus
revenues of the church should more properly hove been
divided. He objected to the admission of the bishops tnto
the House of Lords, and he should vote for the motion of
his hon. friend the member for Montrose.

Sir J. GRAHAM said he was about to give a painful vote •
be, therefore, wished to state his opinions for doing so, and
it might be well to state that they were his indiv:d4
opinions, and not founded in concert with any one else.
Ile was not prepared to -dissent from many of the
constitutional principles laid elown by the noble lord at the
head of the government, the other night, but the only ques-
tion for the consideration of the house was, whether there
should be a change in the conditions on which parliament
assented to the creation of the bishopric of Manchester. To-
wards the close of the reign of William IV. the noble lord
brought forward, with the full concurrence of the church,
and almost the unanimous consent of parliament, a measure
for the erection of the see of Manchester, to be taken out of
the see of Cheater on certain conditions—namely ; first, that
the dibeeses of St. Asaph and Bangor should be united;
next, that there should be no addition whatever to the num-
ber of bishop' in England and Wales; sad thirdly, that the
Bishop of Manchester, when created, should enjoy all the
rights, titles, dignities, and privileges of a spiritual peer.
The bill before the house might be said, in all its 'ceding
particulars, to be the very converse of that bill. (Hear,
hear.) The Bishop of Manchester was to be created, but the
sees of St. Asaph and Bongo, were to tontine* upends;
there was to fie an addition to the number of
bishops, and the bishop of Manchester would not en-
joy the full rights, dignities, and privileges of a spi-
ritual peer. (Hear, hear.) When the arrangement
was made tea years ago the contingency contemplated the
lapse of two heel, because neither the Bishops of St. Areph
or Bangor would consent to the union of the gees. One of
those prelates, however, had since died, and a successor had
been appointed, a most zealous and active prelate, who had
accepted the see of St. Asaph on the condition that be
would take charge of the two sees (in accordance with the
ad of parliament) on the demise of the Bishop of Bangor.
(Hear, hear.) And he would ask what changes had taken
place in the dioceses of St. Asaph and Bangor which would
afford a reason for departing from the arrangement which
had been made ? Was there a great increase in the popula-
tion ? He believed not. (Hear, hear.) Had there been
many new churches built ? He doubted if there had been
more than three or four. (Hear, hear.) With respect to
the see of Chester, he admitted that the population bad in-
creased, and there might be some necessity for a Bishop of
Manchester ; but the question was were the terms proposed
such as would justify the creation of that new see? (Hear.)
Something had been said as to the Bishop of Chester. It was
impossible to praise that right rec. prelate too highly; but
he held a prebend in Durham, and his periodical absence
from his diocese, large as it was, to attend to his duties
there, in addition to his parliamentary engagements, proved
that he did not consider such absence inconsistent with his
episcopal duties. He had reason to know that the Bishop of
Chester was able by means of correspondence to settle mat-
ters connected with the discipline of the church quite as
satisfactorily as if he had personal intercoarse with the
clergy. He did not think that there was any principle with
regard to area which was imperative as regarded the union
of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor. They had dealt with
the limits of every diocese in England either actually
or prospectively. In the diocese in which he lived, that of
Carlisle, already a large one, an additional district of
sixty miles was to be appended. (Hear.) It had been
said that he had spoken disrespectfully of the episcopacy. If
one word fell from him having any such tendency he sin-
cerely regretted it. (Hear, hear.) But when it was said
that the bishops had too much to do, he thought it was only
natural to ask what they had to do ? (Hear, hear.) la the
diocese of the bishop under whose pastoral care he lived for
18 years, what were the practical duties mere immediately
performed ? Was an hospital to be founded, an infirmary
established, or a church to be built—were the family of a
clergyman to be relieved—was, in fact, any work of kind-
ness or charity to be performed, the bishop of that diocese
was the firstand largest contributor on such occasions. iHear,
hear.) His church patronage was not bestowed on his rola•
tivea hot on the most deserving, and frequently on the
humblest of his clergy. (Hear, hear.) He spoke of what
he himself knew. But, at the same time, his visitation
was only triennial. He lived seven miles from the
cathedral town. He did not meddle needlessly in
matters of comparative insignificance and unimportance.
(Hear, hear.) In no diocese had dissent made less progress
—in none certainly was it less angry—and it was not for
want of episcopal superintendence and pastoral exhortation
that' the laity of the diocese of the Bishop of Carlisle did
not do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly before their
Lord. (Hear, hear.) He, however, still maintained that
the duties of the episcopacy could not be considered over-
whelming. He admitted, with the noble lord, that the
crown had not the power of creating bishops, and that, if it
was the will of parliament that more bishops should be
created, it was competent for parliament to prescribe the
terms on which they should be mated. But then arose
the question of whet these terms were. The noble lord
admitted that the new bishop would have a right to a seat
in the House of Lords if he was not restrained from sitting
there by statute. For the first time, therefore, they were
going to restrain by statute this ancient privilege of
bishops. He would not trouble the house by entering
into the origin of this privilege, but he would read a passage
from Bishop Warbarton's " Dissertation on the Alliance be-
tween Church and State." The right hon. baronet here
reed the plumage, which was to the effect, that an alliance
having been formed between the church and the state, and
the church having surrendered its independence to the state,
it received the pnvilege of state in the House of Lords for
its superior members, in order to prevent the power which
the state received from being perverted to the Injury of the
church : and that for the church to give up its independence
without preserving its privilege in the legislature would be
to make itself not the subject but the slave of the state.
Bishop Warburton further argued that it was not by pre-
scription only but baronial right that the bishops sat in the
House of Lords. But it was said in Ws case that there
would be no diminution of the number of bishops in the
House of Lords, and that by the system of rotation, while
the number of bishops was increased, the representa-
tives of spiritual interests in the House of Lords would not
be increased. One word with regard to this principle of
rotation, the introduction of which he regarded as the most
forcible objection to the measure. From the oldest times
the occupiers of these ancient sees represented England, and
all the laity of the country, in matters spiritual. And it was
now proposed that, with the exception of the two archi.
episco sees, the see of London, and the sees of Winches.
ter an Durham, every part of England should, in ro
forego those rights which it enjoyed from imme=
usage. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord very wisely objected
to the motion of the hon. member for Erceham, for the
creation of an inferior and degraded class of bishops; but
this measure, by which each bishop, with the exception of
those he had mentioned, was to be excluded in rotation from
the House of Lords, sinned In that very direction. (Hear,
hear.) He could not but look on the introduction
of such a principle with foreboding and alarm, when
he considered the wide-spread pravalenoe of dissent, and the

language that had been used the other evening by the hon.
land learned member for Bath and the hon. member for
Finsbury. They represented large and popular constitu-
encise—they declared that they supported this part of the
measure with pleasure—they said the consequence of its in-
troduction would be, that the bishops would be one day
hurled from their seats in the House of Lords—they stated
that their opinions wore shared by large masses of popular
constituencies; and, seeing these things, he, as a sincere
friend of the church, was entitled to look round, sad to con-
sider whether the establishment of a Bishop of Maachester
was worth a risk and sacrifice of this hind. (Hear, hear.)
The Roman catholic members of that house also, who while
the question related to the internal regulation of the church
abstained—with a feeling of reserve which entitled them to
respect—(hear)—from interfering, did, when the question of
a seat in the House of Lords came to be discussed, deliver their
sentiments ; and the hon. member for Kerry, with a very
cavalier air, declared that bishops ought not to rear " their
mitred fronts " in parliament, but ought to attend to the
spiritual Mb el their respective dioceses. lie had the
greatest feat that they were 'uterine on a ours.? II( 1.7"... 41,
lion pregnant with dangers to the church. (Hear, heat.) lie
did not wish to go into the whole truth respecting this mat-
ter, though if the matter was pressed further it must be
stated. It wu not only the dissent that was raging outside
the church that was to be apprehended, but the heartburn-
lugs and divisions within the church itself were most dan-
gerous. (Hear, hear.) If they asked for more bishops, on
what principle would they be selected? Were they sure,
if they were to be taken from a particular party in the
chureh, that they would add to its concord and its
strength? (Hear, hear.) United within, they might
bid defiance to all attacks. But if this measure
should have the unfortunate effect of widening the
breach and causing more separations and divisions,
then, without intending it, they might do an irreparable
injury to the church. (Hear, hear.) He was not reconciled
to the measure by the unanimity on the paig of the episco-
pacy. But he would oak was there unanimity amongst the
bishops with regard to the exclusion of one of their members
from the House of Lords ? However, even if there were, he
would oaly remark, as he had done before, that unwise de-
mands, inadvertently made, had ever marked throughout the
conduct of human affairs the approach of ruin and decay:

Itagnaque nun:Mlle. rota emudtta
(Chem.) It Ives the duty of the respoosible advisers of the
crown to mak* reek measures so they thought dangerous,
however powerfully urged—no matter by whom supported.
While he was in the service of the crown, he entertained
Inch strong opinions on this subject, that he never would
consent to any departure of the arrangement made e ith
regard to the union of the sees of St. Atapk
and Bangor preceding the erection of the see of Manchester.
(Hear, hear.) When they were told by the noble lord that
he contemplated the creation of three more bishops, and that
the one to be now created was to be excluded from the
House of Lords. he could not reconcile his judgment to
this measure. (Hear, hear.) These three bishops could
only be endowed by maintaining the distinction of the
episcopal and common fund, to which he had before alluded.
Thcirincome was to be 4,200 f. a year each. Then palaces
were to be built for them, and when he looked forward to
the charges which must be made on the savings from the
surplus of tke episcopal fund, they would never, if they
sanctioned this principle, live to see the distinction between
the two funds obliterated. (Hear, hear.) He thought that
it ought no longer to exist, and said that it should be de-
stroyed in the next session of parliament. He hoped ke had
said enough to justify the vote he was about to give; to his
own conscience tke reasons he had given were amply suffi-
cient. (Hear, hear.)

Lord J. RUSSELL said that the right hon. gentleman
took a somewhat different course with respect to the
bill on the present occasion from what he had heretofore
pursued, though he did not mean to say that it was an In- •
consistent one. lie would not again repeat the arguments
by which be thought the proposition for the maintenance of
the two sees of St. Asaph and Bangor separate was to be
sustained. But the ar;ument of the right hon. gentleman
went chiefly on the consideration that one of the bishops was
to be, for a time, excluded from the House of Lords; and
in support of his argument he quoted the authority of Bishop
Warburton. He must say, however, that he agreed in the
views of Mr. Ilaiweave, who designated Bishop Warbur-
ton's opinion on this subject a visionary theory. The work
of Bishop Warburton, "On the Alliance between the
Church and State," was marked by the usual learning• and
ingenuity of that prelate ; but a more unsubstantial theory
he never knew, and nothing 'but the great learning and
powerful writing of Bishop Warburton could make such
a theory plausible, or even readable. (Hear, hear, hear.)
But the right honourable gentleman maintained his
opinion in a very curious way, from opinions which
• had been delivered in that house, while he set aside the
opinions of the bishops, who had an opportunity of stating
their objections in the House of Lords. (Hear, hear.) He
did not think that they had a right to apprehend any danger
to the church from this measure, when the bishops did not
apprehend any from it, and when it would have been as very
easy, u it had been in former times, to get up a cry of the
" church in danger." The bishops said, as they were justi-
fied in saying, " This is no proposition of ours; it is the pro-
, position of the executive government; and therefore we are
not to be considered responsible as originating it." But
when the proposition was made to them, and when it was
drawn up in the shape of a Liil, there did not, on their part,
arise such a repugnance to it as to make them see extreme
danger in it. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman said
he attached great weight to the opinions of the hon. member
for Bath and the hon. member for Kerry, aid considered
the opinions of the bishops of no vales at all, that
they ought to be set aside, and that they made foolish
and rash vows, which would only bring on their own ruin.
(Laughter.) He (Lord J. Russell) admitted that the hon.
and learned member for Bath made an able speech on tho
subject, but it seemed to him that he did not so much mean
to convey his own opinions as to induce hon. gentlemen, on
the opposite aide, to imbibe those apprehensions for the
church which he endeavoured to instil, and, therefore, to
reject the second clause of the bill. (Hear, hear.) That
was very ably and skilfully done by the hon. and learned
gentleman, the =unix'. for Bath, but he did not seem to
attach much value to the establishment of a principle which
he said would work a complete change in the spiritual con-
stitution, because, if he recollected rightly, he did not give
his own vote on the question. (" Hear, hear," and
laughter.) His hon. friend, the member for Kerry, who
had shown both good sense and good taste in not
interfering when the question merely related to the
efficiency of the church, gave his opinion, when they came to
the question whether the number of bishops in the House of
Lords ought to be increased. The opinion of the hon. mem-
ber for Kerry was that they ought not to be increased; but
he conceived that opinion did not strengthen the case of the
right hon. gentleman, but the view which be (Lord J. Rus-
sell) took. The purport of his argument was, that as long
as their object was confined to increasing the efficiency of the
Church of England, the rest of the country, who did not be-
long to the Church of England, would not interfere ; but
that if they declared their object was to increase the number
of bishops in the House of Lords, the protestant dissenters of
England, the presbyterians of Scotland, and the Roman
catholic' of Ireland, would all say "this is a proposition
which we are entitled to look on with jealousy, and which
we have a right to object to." The course taken by
the honourable member for Kerry, showed that he
was right in the view he took. (Hear, hear.)
He would not enter into the question of the rotation of the
bishops. Theoretically or practically he did not ate any ob-
jection to it. On the contrary, he thought that practically
it would be an advantage. (Hear, hear.) Neither would
he enter into the question of further bishoprics. But the
right hon. gentleman pointed to other dangers arising from
the bosom of the church itself. He could only say that he
felt perhaps more responsibility on this subject than any one
else, haviug to advise the crown on matter, of this description ;
but be sincerely wished to see the church of England united
in itself (hear, hear)—he wished to reit maintain its ancient
doctrines (hear, hear), and he muted that the protestant
character of that church would be maintained in all its
bishops and clergy. (Cheers.)
. . . . . . '

Mr. S. WORILEi rejoiced to hear the language used by
the noble lord at the close of his speech, and united with him
in a similar prayer. He had heretofore supported the bill,
in all its gages, but he felt compelled to vote against the
third reading because he thought that the Bishop of Man-
chester should have a seat in the House of Lords. He could
net forget that there was a time when the attachment of the
noble lord to the church did not seem to be so certain so it
appearedl to •be now. Neither could he forget that some
who now sat on the same bench with the noble lord, voted
for the expulsion of the bishops from the House of Lords in
1834. The noble lord would reform for the sake of presery
ing, but others might succeed the noble lord who would
change for the sake of overturning. They might use this
measure as a precedent, and he would, therefore, oppose the
third reading.
Sir R. H. -INGLIS could not concur with his right hon.
and learned friend in opposing the bill, mutilated though
it was.
___

Mr, HOPE supported the third reading
Mr. HORSMAN trusted that during the recess the
government would well weigh this subject. The spiritual
destitution of the people would be better met by strength-
ening the working clergy than by adding to the number of
biahops.
Lord H. VANE thought the bill in its present shape an
improvement upon its original form.
Mr. OOULBURN supported the third reading of the
measure. He considered that there should be enough bishops
to enable each prelate thoroughly to superintend the conduct
of all the clergy of his diocese. He did not himself feel
that there would be any evil in admitting an additional
bishop into the House of Lords.
After observations in explanation from several hon.
members,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE concluded the debate by offering a
little advice to members opposite, and to the government
below him. To members opposite, who supported the go-
vernment so strenuously now, he ventured to recommend
that they should show their sincerity by assisting the noble
lord in his contest for the City, and ranging themselves be-
hind him when he resumed his seat ss minister in that house.
To the noble lord he would say, that he hoped he would
gather a little experience by the oourse of this debate, and
beware how he burnt his fingers a second time by meddling
with a bishop. (Laughter.)
The house then slinded.—For the bill

Against it l4-79
Mr. P. 13ORTHWICK then moved the omission of so
much of the second clause as enacted the exclusion, in rota-
tion, of the future bishops of certain existing sees teem seats
I. tb Mouse of Lords.

lend J. RUSSELL should not repeat the arguments he
leoltinetthe previous night in favour of the system of rotation
as wind to that of incaution. lie took tins ogportemity of
elay, however, how very grateful he felt to thane rela
nal OK both sides of the lima who had Faed this bill,
and ambled the government te carry it, despite the oppo-
sition oared to every stage of its progress. (Rear, hear.)
Mr. C. E. LAW said he wished to record his opinion in
favour of Mr. Borthwick's amendment, but not to pram
now the views which he entertained upon the subject.
The bill was then passed, and ordered to be tau to the
Roane of Lords,