The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-16 00:00:00

- ___-----
the inereate of the clergy and the Vial'''.
how was the question to be dealt with ? ThereTheh
were, he b hovei, only 0 ree modes of dealing
Kith the enbje, t. One was the seppeintreent of
suffragist) bishops or assistant bishops. In some cases,
• psrhaps, that might be desirable, but, as a general 111',,
ii?e did Lot think it would he eatieficiory, because a sui
ten bishop Wise not a dioc, u one wai t l aitheut
tier,urisdiction had esan b
the power of pe raeinte episeaPLl da -
des - Ifirable the cren of diocesan bishops was thought
there atio L
were only two modes of dealing with the
uestion—the fleet Ives that pursued in the case of th,
diocese cf Manchester. He, however, thought it n!cea
less to go into the merits of that sehsree, because ear-
liament was not likely to create new bishoprics on the
footing of the bishopric of Mancheen-e. The- queetin,
then arose, was it advisable to create new leshoptice
°Pon a humbler and more restricted basis? If that was
the only plan, setting aside matters of detail, he
would
any n
wculsl they open the door to the foundation of
new bishoprics, or would they close it under all cir-
cumstances? The work of the Church was not done in
. large towns. It was not possible to make all people 7,€), her
Christians, but it was the duty of the Church t s bring nordinances home to every man. In many of the ruraldis-
tricts that was the case, but it was impossible it should be
Bo in large districts and towne, where there was scam ly
anY Per relation between' the clergy rine and the iiilia- bitants. The best way to make the Church effective
fur
Pastoral purposes in large towns was to found episcopal
sees in one or other of those towns.—(H (ear, hear.) )1 reason against the foundation of new hishoprics was the
belief that such a course would fritter away the refs.-
rues of the Church in supporting a few idle
steed of providing' small incomes fur the hard-working
ele,rgY. On thisarsons, in- i
point he might refer to the colonial aopu-t
pointireats. The ancient practice was to send naen
with salaries of 400/. or 500/. a year, and under such
cir-
cumstances it was difficult to procure men fitted for the
Pastoral work.
The economical view with regard to our . _
prov
colonies Would have been to say, " Do not give 2,000
or 3,0001 a year to bishops, but husband your
resources
the
1
that
to ide fur the clergy." y." But it was well known p
olicy of founding
bishoprics in the colonies had
been beneficial. What had been the effect ? Why,
since the foundation of the bishopric
1825,
eleven bishoprics were founded, and the cer
of Jamaical in.
legeYtil3heerti under them at the foundation were alto.
In th
Year6s2. 1842 the bishopric of Tasmania was founded,
and the clergy of the diocese numbered only 19, but in
1813 they amounted to 43; similar results hid taken
Place
the rest of the new !bishoprics' Why not,
tuti , adopt the same principle in England? The insti-
on of additional bishops in England would also in
o
Crea
h;
LSO the number of clergy and communicants. T zai.0..,p0 would form a centre around which congregations
he spoke
taorgy would spring up
such he meant
in great numbers.. When
spoke of the formation of new bishoprics, _e as were presided over by men whose time wouldf
exclusively devoted to the ecclesiastical duties o tshehir
raTective dioceeee. He proposed that in each case ethao
expressed
bishop should be appointed in accordance with
—Pressed desire of a large number of the inhabitants,
Wh° 'should subscribe towards maintaining him;
"useet of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and also
.f
the A that theo_
Ad of
of the day, should likewise be plao
tained, and that the whole scheme should be laid before
the Quo
The en in Council for the sanction of the Crown.
appointment of bishops like that 'of Manchester was
Only paltering with the question. He hoped the Co%-
raittee would approve of the practical scheme which he
hatdoprrdop
J. RUSSELL
for their consideration.—(Hear, hear.?
RUSSELL wished to express a doubt re-
-BP"tfog the propriery of adopting the clause moved by
,the
...Fright Ron
Gentleman, rather than to argue against
its adoption he'reafter. He could not think with the
Right 1101). Gentleman that we ought to give up alto-
gether the prospect of creating new bishoprics like
POthose of Manchester or Ripon. It appeared to him that
was a practical plan, and one in accordance with.
' a present constitution of the bishoprics of this
coon present
Great advantages must arise from creating
wuiachn bishoprics in large districts.
.The bishoprics of
k. chester and Ripon, and the division of the arch-
'&Bb9Pric of York, had produced great benefit to thed
"nreb• What the Right Hon. Gentleman propose
'was, that there should be a kind of dioceses separated
totally from those at present existing. He (Lord J.
Russell thought there were strong objections is the
Withconstitution of a new kind of bishoprics unconnected
a seat in Parliernent, and totally independent
for
this
present order of bishop. If funds were to be voted
.f
ts new order of bishops, they would have to be supplied
Out of • •
diltieB order
bishoprics, under the plea that
.thoe
• of existing bishops would be ditniaished—.la
rate effect of which would be that existing
I,lBerltpros
meat, be deprived of the means of attending
It would then be said " You have now a
r)tiotriher of bishops having seats in Parliament without
eft mates of attending there, and you have others ;with-
o° outtseats in Parliament. Is it not better to put them all
_ he same footing? " That would be the argument;
and, whether a good one or a delusive one, it would be
bli:kll3 to
ted the
be successful. If, however, you prevee e
w'seeops from attending Parliament, you
(E;Y_ towards separating the Church from the t
would gosaagoo.Ld
in'snr' bear.) It appeared to him (Lord J. Russell)t that,
of toad of creating new bishoprics according to the
the 'esollight lion. Gentleman, it Would be much more for
_
parogelh
elitaintage of the Church to incr'&se the number of
districts. There would be great difficulty in
:11:214,Y,,ing on the affairs of the Church with bishops pos-
reent-g such different pole era and occupying
Wer P,.°s:itien. For irivance, if any large subscription
such diffe-
iznead.b!is,stisodpifn.orWestminster for the purpose of appoint-
that district, you would have a Bishop of
Nestor.ol holding a seat in Parliament, and a Bishop of
independent not not holding a seat in Parliament, entirely.
'?` lunctionsef the
13`8"13
said that of London, and exercising
Sep%rately. The Right 'lion. Gent!eman
iee„,, fiche (Lord J. Russell) had himself introduced an
eeistn of this kind—that there were bishops now, in
1, --nee who hal not a seat in Parliament. The aeo-
h et had not introduced a system
bier.etoee,
. seepii
eeee-would have seats in Parliament, and tweiGyo.
by which tweintty.
ve__l would have no seat. The innovation the
enrerai;ll4ltlade left a junior bishop without a seat to
get he u . during the earlier- period of
hiti_ cl panted with his diocese, but with the prospect of
h,_,`"telY gettinghis episcopate, to
intietil:nitt the
at thernis°ll a seat in Parliament. It appeared to
plan Of the Right Hon. Gent!eman was not
he f atne tWirnithe,the present constitution of the Church;h
in future years, such a system inlgi_t
hussrnd gestic,
at present, however, he (Lord J.
ttee(ll?, could not consent to the clauses being read a
.., a otee
ee.e4ord j. ea
eluding MANNERS could not gather from the con-
was g observations of the Noble Lord that there
the an? schente on the put of the Government foe:.
ehurciirP,Te Enf rendering the episcopacy of th
of its ea "I, gland sufficient for this due discharge
of edgiest an Dud
duties. It was the opinion
lipiritu iPersons who had taken az interest in the
f
spiritual Welfare of the Church, that an increase o
°o the" was, absolutely necessary. All who had written
Ch the"
were agreed that the bishops of the. it BPititU 1
u (if England ought to be the spiritual rulers of Posed the conarnonwealth. The Noble Lord now. op-
Proved f'verY Moderate scheme that he had himself. ap-
kanne $3) two or three years ago. His (Lord John
"Peet"' conviction was, the Church of England need
nr her no favour and very little justice at the hands
steoe„ ,!attiestYs Government. Under these circum-
of the' u° hoped his Hon. Friend would take the sense
After
Ilouse on his motion.
L 47,1,!. few words from Mr. GLADSTONE,
Would u.
RUSSELL hoped the Right Hon. Gentleman
re
411t(it divide on the motion, as the Government
Ited he nrsed
Otto give their best attention to the subject,
kr.GuLd hto negative the motion.
esihitlizzohtA..isDroSuTtOtoNn.E, under these circumstances, would
aion was accordingly withdrawn.
Lord
eleuee . • MANNERS then moved the following
Ptietor-7 And be it enacted, that the owner or pro-
-Bhall and etly impropriation tithes or portion of tithes,
Part the tnaY have power to annex the same or any
the there Unto the Panel, , parsonage, vicarage, or curacy of
or to
8,‘,., onurch or chapel whence the same lie or arise
soilage:l'l4,e the saute in trust for the benefit of such par-
loeeer :iearaae, or curacy, any statute or law what-
steoain
,), the contrary thereof in any wise notwith-
Tee g.
The eNiullie vvas agreed to. ha • NOB
Lona
ving for ite h. then oved the followinlgeocmlarousise:
stoners from 0 iect to inhibit the Ecclesiastical neestioo al parting With any propertythe class in
of .
.6 .
he it d Which should comeunder their direction, And
hereiZlared and enacted tat the provisions of the
exehan @lore recited Acts relating to the sale, transfer, or
8411 not
of any lands, tithes, or other hereditaments,
reoi.olut extend to authorise the sale of any tithes or
tlaiderihotpre:faorrgteoin lieu of tithes belonging to the see of any
any chapter, or in the possession or enjoy-
ed °Mee any dean ,canon, prebendary, or other dignitary,
tosseiair °fa, collegiate church, or in the
latide, nu of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Eng-
, Sir o.
Ivo thingsßEY said that the Noble Lord confounded
tele /0„--alienation and sale. He was favourable to
(Ittesti: et) alienation
purposes; but alienation was not a
to alienate
111 the Bin. The Commissioners had no power
'nate oh ,
-eller e urcn property.
an-
te,,,tB ,'ew words from Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Goulburn,
.114.-644.• Groevenor, the clause was withdrawn.
W4ich es-'"ur-'I3IJRN then' moved the following clause',
ei
Atidere
E ugreed to:—
rasut, .0e It declared and enacted, that the arrange-
the reference to peculiar or exempt ecclesiastical
the prec„tl°,llB which the said Commissioners are under
Utaori'"toors of the said first-recited Act empowered and
qfeet B°d to pro .
e an, pose in any scheme ~) . . into
.8 reeo_a of the recommendations thefrermearrercyitiehdg, may
Whete_unended and proposed in any
43,
,;;;_f relating tansch arrangements solely, or also to
scheme or schemes
laid re`°.l,r Matter thing contained in any or either of
4. !_tt!ti Acts or this Act.
any "LZ? be it declared and enacted, that in the case of
erehireelloodeaconry which shall no longer be held by the
Beeoedia" who was at the time of the passing of the
1100 "-recited As • • c
tik' I°l the es In possesstons thereo., the up id eoto_,l°7le Act Which relate to the transfer to the
yon itB
eutis toners of the estates of any archdeaconry
Idea ndewnsent in either of the modes therein pro.-
deae ' and also th
NI Gory of
ane dlsannexing from any such arch
,i, strool
..., Y °bnefice with cure of souls, shall be
&seal:lo4,7'2u held to authorise such transfer and such
eleocee,
.._no,_With the consent of the bishop of the
`leitutteo4),Tt
the
the archdeacon in possession of the arch-
An,t' with the time, or if the archdeaconry be then va-
, , e consent of the bishop only.
lOtho q be it deo
Harr. ray rn,_., ared and enacted that the powers and
;lets ceov't7ititng to the alteration of the boundaries of
k .hatneet h lied in an Act passed in the session of
8/est , eld in th tte Et Y a roe, . 0 seventh and eighth years cf her
e roeuri ft , intituled 'An Act to explain and amend
"terit an ea,t, f
di , , aal eee
slates se of lee
or making better Provision for the
the e s new 9,,,.
_. upulous Parishes,' may as to any such
41,equete Aot;_sung, notwithstanding the limitation in
3%1411 ftotnutltaained, be exercised at any t me within
- P4B6ing of this Act, and as to every

such district herettfier to be constituted within five years
from tl.te dire of the licence of the minister first licensed
thereto, and this notwithstand:ng Oa% any such d:s
trict may have brcome an w parish by viTtus f the
provisions of the Act under which such district w9s con-
utfd."

Mr. S. HERBERT then enev:.!cl 19 clauses, having re.
ference to the holding benefices with the cure of souls
by ch,aes, canons resid,ntlary, the residence of the same,
the augmentation of canonries, the establishment of pas-
toral colleges, &c. He di i not intend that all the re-
solutions which he proposed should be applicable to
every dein and chapter, but he would give them a choice
in selecting those by which they were to be re-
gulated. It had been an evil which had been felt in the
Church for some tune throughout England, that every
dsy the number of small cures was increasing. The
nuailaa of these small cures not exceeding 150/. a year
was iner4asieg. It was of great importance that they
should have men of elevated minds in the ministry, st,:d
it a lower class of persons were encouraged to enter the
Church as in other countries, they would be doing a
great injury to the cause of religion and morality. He
had in making these propositions Ahered strictly to the
provisions of the old statutes. It had been asked, if
that were the case, why should he go to the House of
Commons to carry out his views? Hs had consulted
legal authority upon his propositions, and he hall arned
that the statutes in question wute so old that their pro-
visions could not be brought into vigour. The Noble
Lord might tell him that his clauses were a Bill in them-
selves, and ought to be brought in as a separate mea-
sure; but the Noble Lord knew very well the dificulty
a private Member laboured under in bringing in a mea-
sure of that importance. Ile therefore trusted the Go-
vernment would give every fair consideration to his
clauses, and he would then conclude by moving the first
of them.
Sir G. GREY said the Hon. Gentleman himself had
anticipated the objections which might be made to his
clauses. That Bill had come down from the House of
Lords with a certain number of clauses; but the lion.
Member proposed to add no less than 19 to it. These
clauses might be very important, and the Hon. Gentle-
man asked them to agree to them, and add them to a
Bill which lad no connexion whatsoever with the same.
NJ doubt these causes ought to be the subject of a
separate Bill, and no doubt were deserving of separate
and distinct consideration. It was quite clear that
many of the clauses could not be adopted in their pre-
sent state, however worthy of consideration, and, there-
fore, he trusted the Hon Gentleman had only introduce I
them in order that they might be fully considered by the
House.

Mr. GLADSTONE would wish to hear a more defi-
nite assurance from the Government of their opinion
upon those clauses that had been given. It had been
said that a certain reform had taken place in the Church
in 1840. He denied that it was any reform. Excepting
the case of the archdeacons, however, they had not
effected any practical reform. Tho objection, then
was, that there were large emoluments to largo
bodies of men with no duties. Well, they had re-
duced the number of the men, but they had not
made any proportionate reduction in the emo-
luments with respect to the duties for those who re-
mained. Thus the evil had remained.—(Bear, hear.)
It was impossible to say how immense was the difficulty
of calling the attention of Parliament to the subject, and
putting a plan of reform into a practicable shape. The
question could riot be brought on except at the close of
the session, and it was then difficult to get the House to
give their mind to the consideration of the practical de-
tails of the proposed reform. The only objection to the
series of clauses proposed by his Right Hon. Friend was,
that the rights of patronage would be affecte I; but then
that objection was more apparent than real. The reform
that had taken place in 1840 was no reform at all. The
system was, in fact, made more absurd and anomalous
than before. The real salutary principle of annexing
duties to these high preferments had been recognised
but had not been fully acted upon, and until that prin-
ciple was fully carried out—until those anomalies had
been rectified—they would not have carefully attended
to the interests of the Church, and to the noble
principles on which our cathedral establishments were
founded.
AGLIONBY pointed out one part in which he
considered the clauses would not be sufficiently operative.
Mr. J. STUART considered the reasons aedgned by
the Government for not a (opting the additions were
meagre, slight, and unsatisfactory. The reason assigned,
that the clauses might be embodied in a separate Act,
was not a valid argument for rejecting them. They
were essential for the interests of the Church, and ought
to be adopted.
Sir B. HALL considered that the propositions of the
Hon. Gentleman would go far to effect the desirable ob-
ject of making the Church more useful and respected.
There was a scheme for dividing populous parishes pro-
mised by Government, and this scheme was so good and
so essential that the Government ought to have given it
attention before this. He wished to know whether Go-
vernment intended to propose a scbease early in the ea-
suing session for dividing certain large parishes, and
also whether a scheme of a similar sort had no been
prepared this session, but not brought forward. He
hoped the Government would say why. He cordially
thanked the Right Hon. Gentleman for the additional
clauses which he had brought forward.
Mr. P. WOOD said the Hon. Member for Montrose
had fairly stated his wish that deans and canonries
should be abolished, but he hoped Government had no
such intention or wish. The deans and canonries were
formerly collegiate bodies, but in course of time they had
lost their duties, and had dwindled down into mere offices
of large emolument. Now, he hoped the Government
would take this circumstance into consideration, and be
induced to acknowledge the expediency of joining duties
to those offices, so that they should no longer bo mere
sinecures. He hoped Government would bring forward
some scheme which would do away with the present
abuses of the cathedral and canonry system. When Go-
vernment were about this reform, it would be a good
opportunity to take into consideration the increase of the
episcopal e. Indeed the whole. question might then be
fully and completely considered.
Mr. HUME would recommend those Hon. Gentlemen
who wished to re- establish these large collegiate and ca-
thedral institutions to recollect the different circum-
stances of the country now to what they were when
there institutions were established. He was sure if ca-
thedral establishments were re-established in all their
magnitude and grandeur that the interests of the Church
would suffer, and he further declared that he was cer-
tain the people would not endure th.m. He recommended
the abolition of all sinecures in the Church Establish-
ment as the best means of securing the interests of the
Church.
Mr. HENLEY did not think the clauses, as proposed,
would eff,ct the objects which their proposer and sup-
porters appeared to consider to be so desirable. The
operation of such a set of clauses would really effect that
which the Hon. Member for Montrose wished to see—
namely, the abolition of these bodies altogether. Such,
at least, would be the effect of these clauses as be read
them. He regretted that a measure of this great import-
ance had not been introduced in a separate Bill.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought that the Hon. Member
for Oxford, when he found fault with the Bill of 1840,
had nut recollected the object of the Ecclesiastical Com-
mission, which was to provide for spiritual destitution
by funds obtained from a diminution of the eauonries.
He doubted very much whether the scheme proposed by
the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Wilts would
be found to answer its purpose. The Right HOD. Gen-
tleman proposed that a clergyman holding a canonry
should not hold a living, except within the cathedral
city. That might answer in populous places, like West-
minster; but he doubted whether it would answer
throughout the country generally.
Mr. S. HERBERT, in answer to the remark of the
Hon. Member for Montrose. denied that his plan was to
restore all the old cathedral establishments quite the
contrary. He was glad be had called the attention of
the House to the subject.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the clauses ... ... 84
Against them ... 104
Majority against them .. ... —2O
The Bill was then ordered to be report d.
The report on the resolution for a monument to Sir R.
Peel was brought up and agreed to.
The Militia Ballots Suspension Bill, the Loan Socie-
ties Bill, and the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Bill, were
read a third time and passed.
The Poor Relief Bill, as amended, was considered
and ordered to be read a third time on Friday, at twelve
o'clock.
The Bills of Exchange Bill passed through Committee,
as did alto the Stock-in-trade Bill, and the Turnpike
Acts Continuance, &c., Bill.
POPULATION BILL.
On the question that the Population Bill be read a
third time,
Mr. NEWDEGATE wished to know whether any
arrangement had been made for the provision of a better
occupation abstract than had hitherto been given. In
the last abstract the whole proprietary body were to-
tally omitted, and not one London proprietor was
named?
Mr. C. LEWIS said the census would not be taken
till the latter end of March next, and there would be
ample time to prepare a proper scheme for making the
abstract.
After a few remarks from Mr. HENLEY,
The Bill was read a third time, and passed.
The Population (Ireland) Bill was also read a third
time and passed.
passed The thhirigohugwhayCßomstmesitßteiel
The Upton-cum-Chalvey Marriages Validity Bill
The Public-houses (Scoitlwaaosdr)eaßddal
wseascoonrddteirmede.
read a second time that day six months to be.
Mr. SOTHERO N postponed the Friendly Socities
Bill until next Friday.
The Cruelty to Animals (Scotland) Bill was read a
second time.
The Committee on the Engines for Taking Fish (Ire-
land) Bill was postponed till this day.
MARRIAGES BILL.
Mr. S. WORTLEY moved that this Bill do pass.
Mr. GOULBURN was not disposed to offer any fur-
ther oppostiou to it.
The Bill then passed.
The House adjourned at a Quarter past One.