The Sun.
London, England, 1854-05-18 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-(Y ESTERD AY.)

EPISCOPAL AND CAPITULAR ESTATES
BILL.

On the question for resuming the adjourned debate on
the second reading of this bill,
Lord ADOLPHTTS VANE expressed his surprise at
the absence of Ministers on this occasion. The bill of
fected many millions of Church property, and as it was
only right that the Government should be represented
when the division took plaee. He was- therefore justi-
fied in moving that the debate be further adjourned,
but at the same time he thought it right to state at once
that he was decidedly opposed to the bill.
Mr. G. BUTT seconded the motion for the adjourn-
ment, though he Was not opposed to the bill ; but in the
present state of the house, and the absence of Ministers,-
he thought it was unwise to proceed with the discussion

now.
Mr. G. BERKELEY said it was from no want of
courtesy to the noble lord who had charge of the bill
that Ministers were absent, but he had just received a
message from the noble lord the Secretary of State for
the Home Department stating that he would be here
very shortly, arid he therefore hoped the debate would
not he adjourned.
Mr. DRUMMOND recognised no difference between
those who wished openly to de-troy tile Church and
those who professed to be its reformers. Nove the effect
of this bill would be to convert cathedrals into parish
churches ; but instead of doing that, they ought to esta-
blish more cathedrals and create more bishops. Why,
in the diocese of London alone seven additional bishops
were required ; but the Church had acted like the dog
in the manger—it would not do its own duty nor would
it let anybody else do it. He was rejoiced, however,
to find that another Church had stepped in
and added another bishop to the metropolis.
The fact was, the decline of the Church was not due to
its open opponent., the Dissenters or the Roman Catho-
lics, but to the negligence of its own clergy. The object
of this bill was to destroy the whole temporalities of the
Church, so f and its capitular and episcopal estates were
concerned ; having done that, he wanted to know
where they were to stop ? He could not tell ; but this
he knew, that such measures as this would only have
the effect of driving Protestants over to the Roman
Catholic Church.
Mr. SPOONER put it to the house, whether there
were any grounds for the views which his bon. friend
(Mr. Drummond) had brought forward. He wished he
could put a stop to those innovations from within, which
were far more dangerous to the Church than any at-
tempts from without, and he hoped those who were
authorised to do so would endeavour to put down those
internal aggressions, as he might call them, which were
continually made upon the Church.
Mr. WALPOLE said, as this was a most important
measure, involving the whole of the Church property
management, hereafter he thought it should be under-
taken by the Government—(hear, bear)—and therefore
he trusted his noble friend (the Marquis of Blandford)
would consent to an adjournment at present of this im-
portant measure. The bill related not only to episcopal
but to capitular property, which he considered was a
most weighty reason for not going on with the bill in
its present shape.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he believed there was very
great force in the reasons urged by the right hon. and
learned gentleman for postponing this measure, though
at the same time much was due to the noble lord who
had taken such pains with this measure. He agreed
with the right hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Walpole)
that it was very undesirable to discuss a measure of such
very great importance as this, affecting the welfare of
the Established Church, on the proposition of any indi•
vidual member of Rsrliausent not representing the Go-
vernment or any large section of the country ; and he
should be very glad if the noble lord was content to post-
pone this measure, feeling that it was a measure too im-
portant to be allowed to drop (hear) ; and on the under-
standing that when the Government had matured a mea-
sure on the subject they would bring it forward. But
at the same time, if it came to a division, he should feel
bound to give a vote affirming the principle of this bill
rather than vote against it. (Hear )
Mr. G. LIDDELL was unwilling to transfer the
management of the property of the church from the
bishops' to a London board.
Sir B. HALL thought his noble friend the member
for Woodstock (Lord Blandford) must be highly grati-
fied at the statement of the noble lord the member for
London, that he approved the principle of the measure
now under consideration, and that he should be pre-
pared, on the part of the Government, to bring in, not
one measure, but several measures, with respect to the
management of church property.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR said, if the noble lord
(Lord Blandford) went to a division, be should vote
with him, for the noble lord was asked to adjourn the
measure by two pasties—one, that thought to attempt
to reform the church at all was to uproot it, and the
other, that you ought not to attempt to reform it unless
you were determined to uproot it. (Hear, hear.)
Sir G. GREY suggested that the noble lord (Lord A.
Vane) would agree to withdraw his motion for adjourn-
ment, and that the real question before the house should
be debated on its own merits now that they had heard
the views of the Government stated by the noble lord
the member for London. (Hear.)

After some remarks from Mr. H. T. LIDDELL and Mr.
MOWBRAY in favour of an adjournment of the debate,
The Marquis of BLANDFORD having expressed his
great satisfaction at what. had been elicited from the
noble lord the leader of the house on this subject, and
the kind expressions of the house with reference to him-
self ; briefly replied to the principal objections to his
measure, concluding by statinc, it as his opinion that,
looking at the circumstances of the country he thought
it essential that the house should affirm the second read-
ing of the bill, and if they did so now they could get
into committee by the time the commissioners on Capitu-
lar estates should have made their report. (Hear.)
Mr. GOULBURN expressed his intention to vote
against the second reading of the bill.
After a few remarks by Sir NV. CLAY,
The house divided, when the numbers were—
For the adjournment of the debate 62
Against it
_ _ _

The Marquis of BLANDFO RD then said, after what
bad now taken place, he could have no objection to con-
sent that the bill be read a second time pro forma, and
that it should be committed on the 21st June.
The bill was then read a read a second time accord-
ingly.