country having a population of more than 10,000. If the whole of the funds at their disposal will but enable them to make this increase, I ask, whether we are justified in withdrawing from the limited means under their control the sum requisite for the purpose of augmenting other livings, which, though small in pecuniary value, in many cases (I will not say in all) owing to their scanty population, involve but a small amount of duty and responsibility. I have been at the trouble, with the assist ance of The Clergy List, of going through the whole of the schedules appended to this Bill, and of investigating the value and population of every one of the livings proposed to be dealt with. I will not trouble your Lordships by going through the lists in which these livings, amounting in the aggregate to 320, are contained; I will shortly state the results at which I have arrived. In some cases; indeed, I have been unable to ascertain the population of particular livings; in one or two instances I have failed in discovering the particular benefice in The Clergy List at all; and the noble and learned Lord, I fear, has fallen into the error of including one living of the value of £350, in the list, which I understood from his statement, he wished to restrict to livings of £200 or £250. I find that in 314 of the 320 livings proposed to be augmented in value, the ave rage population is only 376, and in as many as 130 cases the population falls below 300. Now, in endeavouring from any public fund to augment the poor livings, we must always take into consideration the duties the clergy have to perform, and the responsibilities that devolve upon them; and if the Ecclesiastical Commissioners only find themselves able, from their resources, to raise to the value of £300 livings where the population is above 10,000, you can hardly say that from these same funds you ought to deduct the means of raising the incomes of small livings when the population varies from 50 to 300. Seven of these parishes have a population of less than 50; there are 23 more having populations of between 50 and 100. It surely cannot be said that these are suitable livings to be increased at the expense of the Common Fund. The average population of 314 livings is, as I have said, 376; the average value of 319 of them is £159 and a fraction, or, in round numbers, £160. But the livings which have been selected by the noble and learned Lord with a view to the improvement of their condition are actually not the smallest and most heavily burdened of those in the Lord Chancellor's own gift. I should be glad to hear from the noble and learned Lord why these 320 livings, averaging £159 a year in value, and with an average population of 376, have been selected, and why he has omitted sixty-five other livings, the average produce of which is £137, and the average populations of which are not 376, but 2,112? The great bulk of these very poor livings lie in towns, and it may be said they consequently do not offer the same temptations to purchasers as rural benefices. But to draw away the funds applicable to their gradual increase, and to leave them not only without augmentation, but without the prospect of obtaining assistance either from the Commissioners, from private benevolence, or through the instrumentality of immediate purchase, is clearly the very height of injustice. In the case of thirty four of the benefices selected for augmentation the number of the popu lation is less than the number of pounds sterling that the clergymen receive. The average value of those benefices is £170 per annum; the average population only 111. Certainly, if you make a selection, you ought not to select those livings the endowments of which, though small in themselves, yet bear a much better proportion to the population than do those of a vast number of other livings in the Church. I am also afraid that the course which the noble and learned Lord has adopted in making the selection will, to a great extent, defeat the object which he has in view. Although I am afraid that, especially with regard to the smaller, poorer, and more laborious livings, he has over-estimated the amounts which he will receive, I will, for the sake of argument, assume that all his figures and calculations are correct. He calculates that, upon the average, he shall realize ten years' purchase; one third of this sum is to be invested with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who will have to pay upon that third an interest of 7 per cent, which, according to the noble and learned Lord, will be equivalent to the addition of another third to the living. But I believe that change can only be effected by transferring the money to a new fund from another fund in which it can be most usefully employed; and the provision as to the application of that purchase money is the part of the Bill to which I most object, because I am afraid that under it funds will be applied to liv-slightest reference to their qualifications ings which do not require them, which for the performance of the duties attached ought to be reserved for those which really to the benefices. I do not think, that if stand in need of augmentation. I am these 320 livings, the patronage of which afraid that of the 320 livings those which has by every Lord Chancellor been felt to would most readily command purchasers be rather an incumbrance than an advanare those which you would least desire to tage, are transferred into private hands, augment. Of course, the livings of which there is any fear that the appointments to any one would desire to become the patron them will be made with less care and less are neither the very small ones, however judgment than if they remain in the hands little duty the incumbent may have to per- of the Lord Chancellor; and in saying form, nor those which, although the income this I do not mean to cast any imputation may amount to £250, involve the adminis- either upon the present or any previous tration of a large district with a popu- Chancellor-all I mean to say is, that palation of 5,000 or 6,000 persons. Those tronage in private hands is not, in my livings which have the largest amount of opinion, less conscientiously administered incone under £250, in proportion to the than is that of public bodies; and therefore amount of duty, will be those which will I think that if the patronage now in the be most readily sold, and which will be hands of the Lord Chancellor is transferred augmented partly out of the purchase into private hands, there is any likelimoney and partly out of the public fund. hood of its being better or worse adminis A living of £60 a year will be raised to tered than heretofore. The real question £88, while one of £200, which approaches is not in whose hands the patronage shall to a fair, reasonable, and decent mainte- be, but how you will best attain your great nance for a clergyman-that is, if the parish object-the augmentation of the smaller is not very populous, or the duties very benefices of the Church. I am afraid that onerous, will be augmented to £296. So there are great difficulties in the way of the that those livings which are, comparatively operation of the scheme proposed by the speaking, the most richly endowed, will noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. derive the greatest benefit from the opera- He lays great stress on the augmentation of tion of the Act. My noble and learned the particular benefice which is to be sold; Friend (Lord St. Leonards) expressed a re- and thinks that it will be an inducement luctance, which I do not share, to divest to persons to purchase livings when they the Lord Chancellor of this patronage. I obtain not only the value of the living, entirely agree with him that it is a great but also that of the additional endowment. advantage and signal benefit to the Church I do not think there will be many offers to that there are various different sources of purchase these livings, except where pecuecclesiastical patronage. I think that it liar circumstances exist; and those peculiar would be very objectionable if all the pa- circumstances would arise in the case tronage were in the hands of the Crown, or where a small living is situated on the of the Lord Chancellor, or of bishops, or of property of some landed proprietor, and private individuals, or of universities, or he, because of his family and tenants, colleges, or corporations. It is a great wishes to have it in his own hands. advantage that there are a number of such a case he would, perhaps, be willing sources from which persons who would to give a fair price for the advowson. But have but little chance of obtaining pre- that advantage will be dearly purchased ferment from any one, may have a chance under the scheme of the noble and learned of gaining it. And, with regard to the Lord. I cannot, I might add, help depurity or impurity, I do not think that siring that the noble and learned Lord had, there is much difference between public in introducing his measure, adopted a difand private patronage. Patronage in the ferent principle, and had sought to carry hands of public bodies may be, and I am into effect some plan for the augmentation afraid sometimes is, perverted to political of the smaller livings in the gift of the purposes; while that which is in the hands Lord Chancellor. I will venture to state of private individuals is often swayed by a plan which I think would be desirable family interests and family connections. in substitution for that of the noble and The worst kind of patronage is that pos- learned Lord. It is said that the livings sessed by colleges, according to which liv- that most readily command purchasers are ings which are not accepted by the senior those which vary in value from £150 to fellows are left to the juniors, without the £400 or £500 per annum; but I do not VOL. CLXX. [THIRD SERIES.] F In then I apprehend the proposal under discussion is, to a certain extent, an inroad on the prerogative of the Crown. I rose, however, principally for the purpose of stating my opinion that the case of those livings was not so urgent as to justify us in withdrawing any portion of the endow ments from the Common Fund at the disposal of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; that the schedule does not comprise all those livings at the disposal of the Lord Chancellor which require assistance most, and that of those likely to be augmented under the conditions of the rule proposed there would be many which required augmentation least, while those which stood most in need of it would be left to labour under great pressure. I also ventured, very humbly, to suggest to the consideration of the noble and learned Lord a plan which I think would be likely to prove more effectual in carrying out the object which he has in view, and which, I believe, would afford greater satisfaction than that which he proposes to the vast body of the clergy. I do not, however, presume to set up my plan against that which he has submitted to your Lordships; and if he should see good reason to adhere to his scheme, and I should happen to be a Member of the Select Committee to which it is referred, I should be prepared to do my utmost to carry it forward, with such mo difications as would, in my opinion, be calculated to render it more effectual. think there will be a very great demand for the smaller livings in the gift of the Lord Chancellor. I do think, however, that if he were to dispose, at a certain price, and with the sanction of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, of a certain number of those livings, and were to apply the sum derived from their sale to the augmentation of the smaller livings still remaining in his patronage, he would, in the first place, be likely to be taking a course which would be more effective than that which he proposes; while, upon the other hand, he would have a considerable fund at his disposal for the augmentation of those smaller livings which are not salable, and which would therefore, in all probability, remain on his hands. When I look at the schedule of the livings with which the noble and learned Lord proposes to deal, I find that there are at his disposal 240 or 250, the value of which exceeds £300 a year, while the value of about 100 of them is more than £400. Now, I would suggest to the noble and learned Lord whether he would not make his measure more practical if he were to consent to bring into the market a certain number of the comparatively more important livings the value to be fixed by Parliament -than by proceeding as he proposes. If, for example, out of 350 livings of the value of £300 a year and upwards, the Lord Chancellor were prepared to divest him self of the patronage of 150, averaging say £400 a year each—which is, I think, THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, not taking a very high amount-the pur- I am exceedingly glad this discussion has chase money would amount to no less than taken place. My great anxiety has been £400,000, which would place at the dis to produce a beneficial measure, whilst posal of the Lord Chancellor a perpetual dealing with this important subject, and I annuity of £16,000 a year, for the purpose therefore hail all discussion which tends to of increasing the poorer livings which he throw a light upon it as a most welcome must retain in his hands. That sum, contribution towards the promotion of the distributed among the number of poor end which I have in view. I wish to comlivings in the gift of the Lord Chancel- mence the observations which I have now lor would, if it did not make them to offer to the House, by briefly adverting very valuable pieces of patronage, at all to the topics which the noble Earl, who bas events place them in a position of com- just spoken, has introduced. The noble parative comfort. I have not followed my Earl says, and with great propriety, that it noble and learned Friend near me into the is a thing by no means desirable that this discussions which he originated in refer- Bill should interfere with the course of ence to the position of the Crown with action which has already been laid down regard to those livings. He has, however, by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, when shown that the patronage of the Lord that course of action is directed to the end Chancellor extends over 720 benefices, in of augmenting those livings which must all; whereas the patronage of the Crown always be regarded as the poorest-nameextends over 120, one-sixth of that num-ly, those which combine small incomes ber. This question I will not enter into; but if the doctrine of my noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) be right, with large populations. In that view, I entirely concur. Therefore, there is a discretion allowed by the Bill to the Lord Chancellor, to select those cases in which benefices being delayed for a time painful he may deem it right to apply to the Ec- to contemplate. Therefore it is that I clesiastical Commissioners. The number, adhere to the principle which has been however, of livings in which I should adopted in this Bill of giving the living require their aid is exceedingly limit with the certainty that the value will be ed. I cannot pretend to say that I speak applied to its augmentation, and I believe with the sanction of that body, because it the knowledge of that certainty will be an was impossible to consult them. But be inducement operating with the landowner fore bringing in the Bill I took steps to to make the purchase. All that part of ascertain whether it would have their assent, the Bill which relates to the Ecclesiastical and I was assured that it would not in- Commission may be dispensed with without terfere with the action of the Commis- affecting the principle. I look upon those sioners. It is not part of the principle of provisions only as details to be considered the Bill to supersede the functions of in Committee, and I do not regard the the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. It is House as pledged to the adoption of them brought in by way of addition; and when in assenting to the broad principle of augmaking so large a contribution to the mentation. If your Lordships take out object which that Commission was founded the figures in the schedule, you may be to establish, and which, unfortunately, it surprised to find that the purchaser of an has done little in effecting-namely, the advowson, upon the terms which I have augmentation of poor benefices-it would ventured to anticipate, will receive a have been very wrong in me if I had not living of value equal to 10 per cent. on sought in some manner their co-operation. the purchase money, and I think that There is no desire to interfere with the action with such a sufficient inducement even the of the Commissioners, and it will always smallest living will find a purchaserbe in the discretion of the Lord Chancellor because you must remember that the rank to limit the application of the Bill if it and status of a beneficed clergyman are should be found to interfere, for there is things which command a value independent no obligation upon the Lord Chancellor to of the mere money return. I am therebring any case whatever before the Ec- fore still sanguine, and I trust that my clesiastical Commissioners. Another ob- sanguine hope will be fulfilled, that in the servation was made by the noble Earl as end there will be hardly a living which will to bringing in a greater number of bene- not find a purchaser; although I quite fices, so as to give more certainty to the agree that some livings will be disposed of augmentation of the smaller benefices, and more quickly than others, and more espeI hope some day to see that accomplished, cially when it is remembered, that whenever even if I am not able to accomplish it. I a living is augmented to £300 a year, the shall be extremely happy, after some ex- surplus of the purchase money is immeperience, to make additions to this Bill in diately applicable in the hands of the Lord respect of including a larger number of Chancellor to the augmentation of the benefices. But I must dissent altogether poorer livings. With respect to the obserfrom the plan which the noble Earl wishes vation of the noble and learned Lord (Lord to see adopted, because he would desire St. Leonards) that the ownership of these the plan adopted by the Ecclesiastical advowsons is in the Crown, the Lord ChanCommission, the working of which has cellor is an officer who may be changed been by no means favourable or encou from year to year, and it is impossible, raging. On the other hand, I prefer the therefore, to vest the ownership in him. plan laid down in this Bill, because we The actual legal estate of necessity remains ave the assurance that all the money vested in the Crown, but it is a mere barren which the advowson will command will be inheritance; and although it would be applied in the augmentation of the par- neither fitting nor right to bring forward a ticular living. There is, therefore, a cer- measure like this without being able to tainty that the object which we seek will assure Parliament of the assent of the be accomplished. But if the money were Crown, it nevertheless deals with property thrown into the Common Fund, applicable which in reality is attached to the office of to the augmentation of an indefinite uum- the Lord Chancellor. I accept everything ber of small livings, there would be great which the noble and learned Lord bas said danger of that occurring which has already as merely matter of caution and suggestion, occurred in the Ecclesiastical Commission with a view to the improvement of the -namely, the augmentation of poorer measure, as I should greatly regret if he QUESTION. were to throw any impediment in the way THE SEIZURE OF THE "ALEXANDRA." of its passing into law. The augmenting the condition of the poorer benefices of the Church is a great question, and one upon which I am sure your Lordships feel deep interest, because the holders of those benefices have always been the great support of the Church in time of danger, and they cannot be replaced by an inferior order of men without lowering the position of the Church itself. This is a small contribu tion to that end, and, although only a beginning. I hope it will lead to other things which will never lead your Lordships to regret having assented to this Bill. In answer to a Question from the Earl of DERBY, THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, that he had included in the Bill the poorer livings only, and the proceeds of those livings were to be applied to their augmentation up to the value of £300 a year. No doubt, prima facie, the town livings seemed to have the greater claims to charity. The point was one which might very properly be discussed in Committee, though, so far as his own examination of it went, he had found it surrounded with great difficul ties. LORD ROBERT MONTAGU said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government will lay upon the table of the House Copies of the Papers or Documents which justified them in seizing the Alexandra at Liverpool? MR. LAYARD: Sir, as the case of the Alexandra is still under consideration and discussion I am unable to lay the Papers in question on the table of the House. GREECE-ELECTION OF PRINCE QUESTION. LORD HENRY LENNOX said, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question respecting the recent Election of Prince William of Denmark to the throne of Greece. He would put his Question in three portions-First, Whether it was by the recommendation of the English Government that the National Assembly of Greece had proceeded to the Election of Prince William of Denmark to the throne of Greece? Secondly, Whether it was with the consent of the King and Government of Denmark, and full knowledge and consent of Prince Christian, that so decided a step was taken? And thirdly, If not so, whether it was after consultation with the Danish Minister in London; or, if not, by whose authority the step had been taken? MR. LAYARD: Sir, I am unable to give the noble Lord any answer to his Questions. MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House what is the state of the negotiations with respect to the throne of Greece? LORD HENRY LENNOX: I will repeat the Question to-morrow, when I hope to receive a more satisfactory answer. MR. LAYARD: If the noble Lord repeats that Question to-morrow, I shall not be able to give him a satisfactory answer. In the present state of the negotiations it would not be for the public benefit that the Question should be answered. MINUTES. NEW WRIT ISSUED for Dublin DEATH OF SIR GEORGE CORNEWALL County, v. James Hans Hamilton, esquire, Chil- NEW MEMBER SWORN-Colonel the Hon. Henry LEWIS. ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE. MR. BUXTON having risen, at the call |