WHO IS TO BLAME FOR THE BISHOP'S BILL ?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL has had small success in his attempt to lay upon Mr. HUME'S shoulders a share of the blame which attaches to the supporters of the Established Church Bill. Ile must search for some better excuse for using the plenitude of Minis- terial influence to push such a measure through the House of Commons. His Lordship having with some triumph appealed to the Mirror of Parliament, we subjoin from that record the report of what Mr. Husie said on the 10th of March, when the Second Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. was presented to the House ; and our readers will judge how far it authorized a Minister of the Crown to assume that no opposition would be given to the bill brought into Parliament two months afterwards.
"I think the Commissioners have done a considerable benefit to the Church, and to themselves, in thus coming forward to meet the wishes of the country. The honourable baronet will not admit that any power but the Convocation [This was an allusion to a speech of Sir Robert Inglis] ought to interfere with the matters contained in this Report. The Church should have done long since what is now proposed ; and if the honourable gentleman who has just sat down wishes to support the Church, I do not think he con adopt a worse course than that of throwing difficulties in the way of carrying the recommendations we have just heard detailed to the House, into effect. Nothing can be possibly more beneficial for the interests of the Church than to do away with pluralities. I doubt whether it is consistent even that a living should be attached to the Heads of Schools. They should be paid from separate funds. I trust, when the matter comes before the House, we shall all be prepared to do that which will tend to the support of the Established Church. But I believe that if any thing Vie pluralism is allowed to remain, the country will not be satisfied."
In the first place, the bill was not founded upon this Report. but upon a corrected version of it, not presented to the House till the 20th of May; the subject having been in abeyance during the interval. As, however, the recommendations of the two Reports were substantially the same, this is of little consequence. Mr. HUME'S praise of the Report was founded upon Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S speech, in which there was a great deal indeed besides the apportionment of vast incomes to the Bishops. Lord JOHN talked largely of the abolition of sinecures and non-residence. He said—" The Commissioners propose, that in future the exemption for non-residence shall be very much reduced, giving it only to chaplains in immediate attendance upon his Majesty or the Bishops, the Heads of Houses, of Universities, and of the principal Schools." This looked something like real reform. But it turns out, that the restrictions on non-residence are merely nominal, and that it depends entirely upon the will of the Bishop who may or may not be non-resident. Lord JOHN went on to state, that there were 3,528 benefices under 1501. a year, and 1926 under 100/. a year ; and he intimated that the surplus of 130,0001. derived from the suppression of Cathedral sinecures, would be applied to the augmentation of these poor livings. But the manner in which these reforms were to be effected was never clearly laid down. Every thing was to be placed under the control of a Board, of most objectionable constitution; and finally, the measure itself was abandoned, in consequence of the powerful opposition, not of the Radicals, but of the Deans and Chapters.
The case, then, stands thus—
Lord JOHN RUSSELL developed a plan for the better apportion- ment of Episcopal Revenues, for abridging Non-residence and Pluralities, and increasing the smaller livings. Though divided into separate parts for the convenience of legislation, the subject was properly to be regarded as a whole. It was in this sense that Mr. HUME opposed, by approval, the disapproval of Sir ROBERT INGLIS, —especially dwelling on the abolition of pluralities. But as the session advanced and the measures themselves came to be ex- amined, it was found that the execution of this scheme was com- mitted to men most interested in the perpetuation of the abuses; that the abolition of pluralities and non-residence was a pretence, nota reality ; and that the augmentation of poor livings was put
indefinitely, ndefinitely, while the power and patronage of the Bishops was greatly extended. It thus appeared, that Mr. HUME had incautiously trusted to Ministerial professions instead of waiting for Ministerial deeds; and before Lord JOHN Russet 1. can fairly reproach the Mem- ber for Middlesex with inconsistency, he should himself produce measures answering to the description lie gave of them in his speech on the 10th of March. That, however, he has not done, and he never will do as long as he acts as the instrument of Tory Bishops.
But Dr. LUSHINGTON was still more laudatory than Mr. HUME. True, he was so: Dr. Lushington was also deceived into the belief that an extended project of Church Reform was about to be produced. Moreover, as an Ecclesiastical Judge, the Doctor is no mouthpiece for the Reformers on Church affairs.
It was not till the 20th May that the Third Report of the Commissioners, on which after all the Established Church Bill was founded, made its appearance in the House. On the same day, Lord JOHN RUSSELL had leave to bring in the bill ; and Mr. CHARLES LUSHINGTON, in compliance with Lord John's sugges- tion, gave notice that he should move an amendment as an in- struction to the Committee. So that, on the very presentation of the Third Report and the introduction of the Bill, Lord JOHN had notice that the measure would not be satisfactory to the Radicals. The opposition to a measure could not have been sooner commenced. The bill was read a second time on the 17th of June, after some opposition from Sir ROBERT INGLIS; but, for the convenience of Ministers, the discussion was deferred till the motion for going into Committee,—when, as we correctly stated last week, a formidable opposition was begun, and kept up till Monday last. Lord Howlett, to be sure, said that the Ministers had large majorities in the Committee ; but what was their composi- tion? Lord HOWICK knew that he was indebted to the Tories for the ability to make that boast, which was no argument against the men to whom it was addressed. On one occasion a majority of eight or ten Reformers voted against the Ministers ; who yet per- severed in doing the Tory job.
We hope, whether Ministers take warning or not from late occurrences, that the Reformers have seen how dangerous it is to speak approvingly of any measure without special inspection. The amount of all that Lord Joins Russet'. could say for him- self was this, that Mr. HUME had approved of a measure which, upon further examination, he found he could not support : yet this was urged as a reason—ay, and many thought it a good reason too—why the Representatives of every large town in England should withdraw their opposition to a bad measure. How excessively childish ! It was the duty of the Radicals to oppose the bill in the very last stage, if they only then became aware of its real quality : are not the various steps of Parliamen- tary procedure framed expressly for such a purpose? The Minis- ters must have seen from the beginning—for they at any rate had an opportunity of examining it—that the Established Church Bill was not a measure which a Liberal Government ought to have sanctioned. The approval of Mr. HUME and Dr. Lusa- INGTON could not alter its real character; and it seems to us unhandsome in Ministers, to endeavour to shift the unpopularity attaching to this proceeding, from themselves to the Radical leaders.
Previous page
