HC Deb 24 July 1856 vol 143 cc1408-16

Order for Committee read.

House in Committee.

Clause 3.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, he should now move to omit the sum of £4,500, and to substitute the sum of £3,000 (the former being the amount proposed as the retiring pension of the Bishop of Durham). He took that course upon the following grounds—He was told upon the highest authority that the Bishop of Durham was entitled by law to a salary of £8,000 a year, but, that by an ingenious arrangement made between himself and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, he was to pay a certain sum of money, and receive all the proceeds of his estates after that amount. In that way, instead of £8,000 the Bishop had been in the receipt of some £14,000 or £16,000 a year. His proposition was to limit his retiring salary to one-third of that which it was originally intended he should have received.

Amendment proposed, in line 16, to leave out the words "four thousand five hundred" and insert the words "three thousand."

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he could not but think that the Motion of the hon. and learned Member had some claim upon the consideration of the Committee. No one could say that £3,000 was too small a sum for a Bishop who was wholly incapacitated for further business. He should support the Amendment, believing that the question stood upon different ground from the sum voted to the Bishop of London. In spite of what the Government said, the Bill would form a precedent for the income to be fixed hereafter in any general measure. There was nothing to justify so high a charge as this. The Bishop of Durham had had a larger income than £8,000, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had parted with property which did not belong to them when they gave him more than that sum.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, that one reason which had been stated for giving the retiring Bishops those high salaries was, that they had establishments to maintain both in town and in the country; but it was idle to talk of voting away the money, and to suppose it was necessary for any such purpose; because, on their retiring, they would give up one at least of their establishments. By the present state of the law an active Bishop, in the full enjoyment of his faculties, got upon an average a sum of £5,000 a year, but in this instance they had already voted one Bishop who was retiring—because, according to his own statement, his infirmities had incapacitated him from performing his duties—a sum of £6,000 a year, which was actually more than they gave to a hardworking Bishop. That was an instance of the poverty of virtue. Our Bishops professed to be the successors of the Apostles; but certainly that was a curious mode of imitating their humility and poverty. He proposed that the retiring pension of one of these successors to the Apostles should be £3,000, and upon that he would divide the Committee.

MR. WILKINSON

said, that the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) had not put the case quite fairly when he stated that the Church must pay the Bishop of Durham £4,500 a year, or, if not, he would continue to enjoy an income of £16,000 per annum. By the arrangement proposed by the clause it was clear that there would be a gain to the common Ecclesiastical Fund.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, that he did not say that the Committee was asked to vote £4,500 a year to a Bishop, but to one who had ceased to be a Bishop.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, he could not allow the Committee to come to a vote upon the clause without informing it that the notion which had been suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that the Bishop of Durham had hitherto received £8,000 per annum only, was not correct.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, he must explain that he had stated that the arrangement made between the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Bishop was—the law being that he was to receive £8,000 a year—that upon his paying a certain round sum to the Commissioners he should receive the whole revenue, and in consequence of that arrangement his income had been from £14,000 to £16,000 per annum.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, that was just what he was coming to. Upon the ground of the Bishop's retiring, it was proposed to give him this salary; and it appeared to him (Lord Palmerston) that £4,500 was a sum not disproportionate to the actual receipts which had been taken by the Bishop of Durham, and which were admitted to be between £14,000 and £16,000. The result therefore was, that, after giving the Bishop this pension, and paying his successor £8,000, there would still be a surplus left at the disposal of the Ecclesiastical Commission.

LORD ROBERT CECIL

said, he wished to call the attention of hon. Members to an argument which had been used, that unless the Committee yielded on his own terms the Bishop would retain his see. He (Lord R. Cecil) could not believe, after the confession of incapacity which had been made, that, whatever the vote of the Committee might be, the right rev. Prelate would retain his see in opposition to public opinion. He could not believe that they were in misericordiam as regarded those Bishops. The Bishop of Durham, by law, was entitled to £8,000 a year, but, by a particular arrangement, he had managed to obtain double that amount; and now he came to Parliament to ask for an allowance based upon that doubled income more than equal to the salary allowed to the working Bishops.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he was anxious to correct a mistake into which the noble Lord had fallen, and it would be important that he should state to the Committee what the law really was. If there were any arrangement, it was not framed by any ingenious contrivance between the Bishop of Durham and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but its terms were imposed by an Act of Parliament, which provided that certain incomes should be assigned to certain Bishops, and, amongst the rest, that a salary of £8,000 should be assigned to the Bishop of Durham. Under that Act it was arranged that the salaries should be estimated upon the average receipts of the diocese, taken for a period of seven years before the acceptance of the see. Whenever those receipts should be in excess, the salary was to be a charge upon those revenues; on the other hand, if the revenues of the see fell short, the deficiency was to be made up by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He considered that that was a very bad arrangement; and it had been admitted by the House to be so, for it had been repealed, and they passed a Bill, prescribing other terms which were better calculated to carry out the proposed object. The Bishop of Durham was, therefore, legally in possession of the income which he now received; and being in possession of that income, and spending it, as he (Sir G. Grey), living as he did in his diocese, could testify, most munificently; and having devoted large sums to the augmentation of small livings, he was now returning £2,000 a year to the Ecclesiastical Commission.

MR. CARDWELL

said, that without imputing any contrivance to the Bishop, the fact remained the same. The Legislature had intended the income of the Bishop of Durham to be £8,000 per annum, while he had actually received about £16,000. In granting a retiring pension, if the amount was to be one-third of the income, the question arose in this case, was that proportion to be based upon the income which by error—of Parliament if they would, but certainly by some error—had been actually received by the Bishop, or upon the amount which it had been the intention of all parties he should receive? He was inclined to adopt the second rather than the first proposition. The noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) had referred to some arguments, that if the terms proposed were not accepted there would be no resignation; but he (Mr. Cardwell) did not believe that if Parliament should vote a pension upon just and equitable terms, consistent with the spirit of precedent, any Prelate who had already admitted his incapacity to continue in his office would venture to refuse those terms.

MR. SPOONER

said, he had supported the allowance of £6,000 to the Bishop of London upon the understanding that it was one-third part of his present income. He had been prepared to support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield in the case of the Bishop of Durham, believing that the sum proposed by it was one-third part of the income to which that right rev. Prelate was legally entitled. He found now, however, that the Bishop was entitled legally to receive £16,000 per annum, and, therefore, he thought Parliament ought to deal with him as it had done with the Bishop of London, and calculate the retiring pension upon the amount he was legally entitled to receive.

MR. MOWBRAY

said, he was of opinion that the retiring pension should be calculated upon the basis of the actual receipts of the Bishop, whose habits and expenses had been formed by the actual amount of his income. With respect to the Bishop of Durham, he could fully corroborate the statement of the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) of the munificent uses to which that income had been applied. The Bishop had been accustomed for many years past to contribute to all local charities within his diocese, nor did he confine his gifts to those institutions connected with the Church merely, but he extended them to such objects as the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield himself would take an interest in.

MR. DUNCAN

hoped that the working clergy would be dealt with upon the same principles which were applied to Bishops.

Question put, "That the words 'four thousand five hundred' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 19: Majority 33.

On the Question that Clause 3 should stand part of the Bill,

MR. MOWBRAY

said, there was one point to which he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary. As, in consequence of the change which was about to be made, a number of poor clergymen would be deprived of the assistance which they now received from the Bishop of Durham, and as the "Common Fund" would benefit considerably by the new arrangement, he thought the case of such clergymen would be deserving of the special consideration of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in their application of the "Common Fund." He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) was not present to hear this suggestion.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that the surplus would, of course, form part of the "Common Fund," but he was not aware whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had power specially to consider those peculiar cases. If they had such power he had no doubt they would do so; but he could not pledge them to the adoption of any course.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, the point which had just been raised gave a new aspect to the matter. The statement that £4,000 to £5,000 a year would be saved for the "Common Fund," no doubt induced many Members to support the proposed arrangement. It now appeared that a portion of that sum was to be impounded. The same question might be raised in reference to the diocese of London, seeing that the Bishop of London had, as every one knew, contributed enormously towards the support of the poorer clergy out of his episcopal income. It really appeared to him that the Bill had been introduced, if not under false pretences, at least under a sort of promise which could not be fulfilled. It would be impossible to keep up the charities of the present Bishops and to replenish the "Common Fund" at the same time.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that he had not stated that those claims should be considered, because he was not sure that the law would allow their consideration. He had only said that if the law gave them power to do so he had no doubt that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would take into consideration the small benefices time been augmented. The raising of the question made him sincerely glad that an Amendment moved in another place, that all the surplus under the Bill should go to an episcopal fund, had been negatived.

MR. HEADLAM

said, he thought that the claims of those clergymen stood so high that, if it was possible, they should receive every consideration from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. It was clear that if Parliament had not interfered they would have derived this addition to their miserable stipends during the life of the present Bishop. He, therefore, thought that if Parliament interfered, they ought not to do so at the expense of their incomes.

MR. RIDLEY

said, he hoped those claims would not be lost sight of by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who had the large sum of at least £450,000 in their hands, and yet spent but little of that in the augmentation of small livings.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, the Report of the Commissioners, which was about to be produced, entered fully into the subject.

MR. CARDWELL

said, that as one of the Commissioners, he hoped that nothing that had passed in the present discussion would be understood as committing them, and that the Committee would reserve their opinion upon it until they had read the Report.

Clause agreed to; as also was Clause 4.

On Clause 5. Every Bishop who shall succeed to the dioceses of London and Durham respectively shall held his See, and all the property, patronage, and rights belonging thereto subject to any provision which shall be made by the authority of Parliament within the space of three years next after the passing of the present Act, "any Law, Statute, or Canon to the contrary notwithstanding."

MR. ROEBUCK

As it stood at present the clause provided that any future appointed Bishops of the two sees mentioned in the Bill should be subject to any provision which might be made "by Parliament within three years after the passing of this Act." He would propose to strike out those words, and insert in lieu thereof, "by the authority of Parliament relating to the extent of his duty or the amount of his emolument."

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, that he hoped the hon. and learned Member would not press his Amendment, as his right hon. Friend (Sir G. Grey) intended to propose a somewhat similar emendation upon the third reading. The Amendment of his right hon. Friend did not, however, propose to deal with the limitation of three years.

MR. HADFIELD

said, he thought that if this provision, limiting the time to three years, were not got rid of, the clause would be valueless.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, he would suggest that the advisability or non advisability of retaining the limitation of three years would be better discussed to-morrow, when the Amendment to which he had referred was before the House.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, he would remind the Committee that they would discuss the subject upon the third reading, under the disadvantage of being able to speak once only. He did not wish to obstruct the progress of business, but he thought it right to place the fact before hon. Members.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD ROBERT CECIL

said, he took exception to the last phrase, as at best unmeaning, and as possibly calculated to create some difficulty in the interpretation of the clause. He did not profess to be learned in the Ecclesiastical Law, but there was upon the Treasury Bench one hon. and learned Gentleman, the Solicitor General, who ought to be proficient in the science, having devoted a whole hour to it that day, and he should be glad to be informed by him what was the meaning of the word "canon" as used in the clause.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, he would willingly give the noble Lord the benefit of his opinion as regarded the application of the three words "law, statute, and canon." The first was used with reference to the Common Law, the second with reference to Acts of Parliament, and the third with reference to the Ecclesiastical Law. But the whole phrase was, as every one must be aware, little else than surplusage—mere words, of course.

MR. ROEBUCK

The hon. and learned Gentleman follows the precedent of former Bills, and trudges on in a beaten track.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

Allow me to assure the hon. and learned Member that he is mistaken in supposing that I framed the Bill. I never saw it till it came down from the House of Lords.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that, strictly speaking, both the words excepted to by the noble Lord, and even the entire clause, he considered were unnecessary. They had no enacting power, and were only introduced to save the honour of Parliament.

LORD ROBERT CECIL

said, he still objected to the words, and should move that they be omitted.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, he must beg the noble Lord not to press the Motion; though the words might be unnecessary, they were justified by precedent, and, at all events, could do no harm.

LORD ROBERT CECIL

said, he would consent to withdraw the Motion, but he should renew it to-morrow.

Clause agreed to.—On the Preamble,

SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE

said, he must protest against the supposition that he approved of the Preamble in its present form. An Amendment would probably be proposed to-morrow.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he wished to know whether it was intended to propose any material Amendments in the Bill on the third reading? If so, notice of them should be given that evening, as there only remained four days of the Session.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, that the only Amendment contemplated was the technical one of substituting the words "that he has under his hand and seal" for the words "duly and canonically, with reference to the manner in which the Archbishop of Canterbury should accept the resignation of the outgoing Bishops.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he deemed that Amendment a very important one, and would oppose it.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General would state to-morrow the grounds upon which he rested his Amendment.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, his objection to the Preamble as it stood now was that it was not a true one; and he wanted to know whether the Government were prepared to make it accord with the facts? At present it stated facts about the resignation which never occurred. The dates were made very different from the actual dates. The Bishops had offered to resign upon condition of having certain sums as retiring pensions, but that was not stated, though it ought to be, in the Preamble.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that to any Amendment which proposed to strike out the words "duly and canonically" he should, when it came to be considered, offer every opposition in his power. At the same time, deferring as he did to the sense of the Committee which had been unequivocally pronounced, he had no wish whatever to obstruct the Bill.

Preamble agreed to.—House resumed.

Bill reported, without Amendment.