of £4,000 a year should be given to the new Bishop. The house at Kennington, now the residence of the Bishop of Rochester, would become the residence of the Bishop of Southwark, and certain sums arising out of the sale of Addington are to be applied to the provision and upkeep of a new house for the Bishop of Rochester, whose income will suffer to the extent of £500 a year. There is a power for further re-adjustment of boundaries between Canterbury and Rochester, should it be thought desirable at any future time to diminish the area of the arch-diocese of Canterbury.

This scheme has

been

rendered

necessary, in the opinion of those best qualified to judge, by the enormous increase in the population of the diocese of Rochester, and by the inconvenient shape of the present diocese, formed in 1875, which consists of two portions. Anyone who looks at the map will see that South London, and the area round Rochester, are divided into two by Canterbury, the cathedral of Rochester being at the extreme end, and by no means convenient for the county of Surrey. We cannot expect the people of Southwark to have an acute feeling of affection for the cathedral of Rochester, from which they are separated by so great a distance. This scheme owes much to the late Bishop Thorold, who worked so wisely and so strenuously for the restoration of the Collegiate Church of Southwark, which is now, if this Bill obtains the sanction of the House, to be constituted the cathedral of the new See. I should like to read a few words used by Bishop Thorold in regard to the increase of the population in his then diocese. He said

"In 1891 the population of this diocese was 1,938,787, or a little short of 2,000,000. During the ten years between 1881 and 1891 it increased by about 350,000 souls, that is, at the rate of about 35,000 a year. Two

English dioceses, and two only-London and Manchester-have a larger population, and each of these possesses advantages of wealth with which we cannot in any way compete. Our single diocese exceeds by 500,000 the total population of Wales. . . Of our 2,000,000 people 1,600,000, or about four-fifths of the whole, are South Londoners."

I think that this will be enough to prove that no Bishop, however devoted (and the diocese has been exceptionally fortunate in its Bishops), can cope Colonel Stopford-Sackville.

with such a population as this. The House will remember that one of the most learned and versatile of modern prelates, Bishop Creighton, broke down under the weight of the See of London. The House will wish to guard against a similar calamity again befalling the Church and will, I believe, be ready to carry out the wishes of the inhabitants of South London. I may be asked how can their wishes be shown. I shall not dwell upon the approval of Convocation in January, 1902, and of the House of Laymen for the Province of Canterbury, which has had this question under consideration since 1888, and passed a resolution in May, 1897, stating that of the four proposals then considered by the Committee that in regard to Southwark was the most pressing of all, and also the ripest for action. But I would call the attention of the House to the fact that the Rochester Diocesan Conference, in November, 1901, on a resolution proposed and seconded by two evangelical clergymen, unanimously approved of this scheme. If there are any details in it which do not commend themselves to all they can be discussed in Committee.

It is no new principle that increase of population justifies an increase in the number of Bishops. That principle remained dormant for many years after the Reformation, but during the last reign it received great development. In 1847 Lord John Russell, who was then Prime Minister, was responsible for legislation by which the diocese of Manchester was founded. During the administration of Mr. Disraeli, St. Albans was founded in 1875; Truro in 1876; and Newcastle, Liverpool, Southwell, and Wakefield in 1878. In particular may I call the attention of Gentlemen on the other side of the House to the fact that when the late Mr. Gladstone was Prime Minister he took into his own hands the reconstitution of the Bishopric of Bristol. It was under his special auspices that the arrangement which had lasted some time was altered and that Gloucester and Bristol were again divided. All these sees, with the exception of Manchester, were founded by the private munificence of members of the Church of England, and that, of course, will be the case in connection with the proposal I am now making. I

illustrious University of Cambridge, would still be a dismal swamp, the home of the coot and the bittern.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

(4.45.) MR. BRAND (Cambridgeshire, Wisbech): In moving the Amendment standing in my name, I should like to say, in answer to the hon. Member who moved the Second Reading of this Bill, that I fully appreciate all the difficulties which the Bishop of Rochester has had to encounter in the administration of his See. There has been an enormous increase in the population of the district of late, and we could have had no objection to a Bill of this kind unless other matters had arisen. We consider, however, that the vast majority of the Bishops of the Church have not done all that they could do in suppressing disorders in ritual, and seeing that the clergymen perform their duty according to the law of the land. The hon. Gentleman stated that everybody in the diocese was in favour of this Bill, but I have a letter from one of the rectors in the diocese which is certainly antagonistic to the Bill, and which I will read to the House. It is from the Rev. W. J. Sommerville, rector of St. George-the-Martyr, Southwark, and is dated 28th April, 1902. He

says

I

"You ask me my views on the Southwark Bishopric Bill now before Parliament. cannot class myself as a supporter of the measure, for the following reasons-First, it seems to me only a nibbling attempt to deal with a very great and pressing problem. It is high time that the question of episcopal super

vision for the whole of London should be dealt with in a broad and statesmanlike way. In the meanwhile, however, all that is necessary in this diocese is the appointment of a new Suffragan Bishop for the district round Rochester and Chatham. We get on exceedingly well under our two present and popular Bishops. The Canons of the Cathedral

are

not by any means underpaid or overworked, and one or two of them might be made suffragans to relieve the Bishop of the diocese of much routine work. Second:There is no getting away from the fact that in that portion of the Rochester diocese which it is proposed shall form a part of the new diocese of Southwark ecclesiastical excesses and vagaries are rampant. The law is openly defied. Some of the churches are Roman in everything else but in name. It is high time that Parliament took steps to secure a reasonable compliance with the law of the Church and realm, which the Ritualists, in common with the rest of us, Colonel Stopford-Sackville.

Νο

A

In

undertook to observe. Third:-My third and very strong objection to the Bill is based upon the ground of clerical poverty. The financial condition of many of the rural clergy is pitiable in the extreme; and is a scandal and disgrace to the wealthiest Church in Christendom. other Church, as far as I am aware, degrades its ministers by making them the objects of a pitying sort of contempt, and the recipients of doles, gifts of old clothes, charity dinners, &c. During the past year some cases of almost incredible hardship have come to my notice. beneficed clergyman and his wife in Essex d ed within six months of each other practically from starvation. Both the Rural Dean and the doctor told me they were unable to supply themselves with medical necessaries and comto go on unchecked, disaster is in store for us. forts. If the present state of affairs is allowed Religion will be brought into contempt, as the English nation will never respect a clergyman out at elbows, and down at the heels. Everywhere nowadays one hears the cry for more curates; but no wonder young men are declining to take orders under present conditions. this diocese alone, which is not by any means among the poorest, a capital sum of more than £100,000 is necessary to bring the stipends of the incumbents up to the by no means excessive figure of £200 per annum. It seems to me, and to many other incumbents to whom I have spoken on the subject, that the attempt to raise a huge sum of money while many of the hard-working parochial in order to pay another Bishop £4,000 a year, clergy are lacking even the necessaries of life, and are totally without the means of educating their children and making provision for old age and sickness, is not only ludicrous but altogether out of place and wrong. cannot wish the attempt success. I am at all times reluctant to differ with my Bishop on any point, as I have always received from him the utmost kindness and consideration; but I feel so strongly on this question that I have written to the secretary of the New Diocese Fund to say that until the Church wakes up to remove this gross and crying scandal, I decline to contribute a single sixpence, or to ask my congregation to contribute. You may make what use you please of this letter." Well, that is

I

a very strong and reasonable letter, but when you look at the return of the incomes of the

clergy of the diocese of Rochester, you will find some with an income of only £72 a year, and that twenty-four have only an average of £200 a year.

But my main objection to this Bill is not that it proposes to endow a Bishopric with £4,000 per annum, while nothing is being done to raise the salaries of the working clergy; it is that the Bill proposes to add another member to the Bench of Bishops, the great majority of which regard with an indulgent eye the Romanising practices of certain clergy in the Church, while

they look with a very severe eye upon evangelical clergymen who desire to conduct the services of the Church according to the reformed Protestant faith. I would ask what practical and effectual effort has been made by the Bishops to put down illegal practices in the Church, and to restore order within the Church, since the debate on the Clergy Discipline Bill three years ago. I should like to see the Bishops condemn the irregularities which are carried on, and which they know to be wrong. I have here a report of the services held on Good Friday last, 28th March, at the church of All Hallows, Southwark

"A visit was paid to the church at 10.20 on Good Friday morning, when the reserved Sacrament was being carried from the Lady Chapel Altar Tabernacle to the Tabernacle on the High Altar. There were a few worshippers in the church, about a dozen, and these fell on their knees as the priest, vested in surplice and cassock, and accompanied by an acolyte, and carried the Pyx containing the Blessed Sacrament and deposited it in the High Altar Tabernacle, beside which a red light was then placed. Shortly after this the choir came in with the Vicar, and took their places; and then the celebrant, one of the curates, entered, accompanied by a server in black cassock. The priest was vested in a large black cape. Distributed throughout the church was a form of the special prayers which were to be used. These were marked 'Not to be taken away';

but as I had both a Missal and a Roman

6

Catholic Holy, Holy Week-Book' with me, I was able to compare the special prayers for this service in them with those used by the priest at All Hallows. The differences in most of the prayers were of the slightest possible kind, and were probably due merely to the

differences in translation."

66

Well, I could go on and read the whole of this report, but I need only say that there seems to have been very little difference in the services in this church from those of a Roman Catholic church. What I ask is, why do not the Bishops stop such practices? The Tourists' Church Guide," a handbook published by the English Church Union, contains lists of churches, with details as to the ritual observed in certain churches in the country. The last edition was published last year, and the previous edition in

1898. An examination of the two editions was published in the Record newspaper of October 18th, 1901, and

the result was as follows

decrease of twenty. In 1898 illegal vestments were used in 1,528 churches; and in 1901, 1,637 -an increase of 109."

Now, I find that in the diocese of Rochester incense has been used in one church since 1899, while illegal vestments have been abolished in one church, but introduced into four. Why does not the Bishop of Rochester put down these illegal practices in the Church and restore order within the Church? Since the debate on the Clergy Discipline Bill three years ago, things have remained exactly the same; in fact, if anything they are worse, and in the circumstances I feel that I am fully justified in opposing any increase to the Bench of Bishops until something is done by His Majesty's Government to restore order within the Church.

(4.56.) MR. CHARLES MCARTHUR (Liverpool, Exchange): I beg to second the Amendment. A very grave situation exists in the Church of England at the present moment. A concentrated effort is being made on the part of a considerable section of the clergy to revolutionise the Church, to destroy the character it assumed at the time of the Reforma1 tion, and to bring it closer to the Church of Rome. It is a movement to sacerdotalise the Church of England, and to substitute clerical government for the law of the land in Church matters. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading of the Bill likened it to an attempt to bring another policeman into the Church; but when the present police fraternise with the rioters, and not only strive to screen them from justice but encourage them in their malpractices, I fail to see the advantage of having an additional policeman when

the chances are that he will be of the same character as those who have gone before. The head and front of the offending of the ritualistic party is that they are seeking to introduce into the Church of England that which my friends and myself are determined at any cost not to have viz., the Mass and the Confessional. That is what we have to face. doctrine of the Mass, which the Articles of our Church condemn in the most emphatic manner, is, by these Gentlemen, being brought into our Church again in

This