§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSETasked, Whether any arrangement has been made or any measure is in contemplation to replace the three Right Reverend Prelates in the South-western counties who have now been for some 5 time incapacitated by illness from the performance of any duties? He was anxious not to say a word which should give the slightest pain to those right rev. Prelates or their friends; but it was desirable that attention should be called to the unfortunate position of the counties in the South-west of England, with two of which he was especially connected. It was well known that in the Civil Service a person who could no longer discharge the duties of his office could retire, some provision being made for him; but in the ease of the episcopate no such practice existed, though it was obviously unsatisfactory that men should continue for a long period to receive the emoluments and exercise the patronage of an office when they could perform none of its duties.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYI do not know whether. I am quite in Order in answering the noble Duke's Question, or whether it should devolve on some Member of Her Majesty's Government; but perhaps, as I know more of the matter than anyone else, I may be allowed to give an explanation. It would not, I think, be right to regard all the eases to which the noble Duke has referred as alike. The case of my right rev. Brother the Bishop of Salisbury is that of a man of about my own age, who has been struck with sudden illness, the result of which no one can at present foresee, and it would be out of the question to suppose that any permanent arrangement could be made in that instance. Those who know that right rev. Prelate are aware that a more zealous and conscientious man does not exist, and that no person would be more unlikely than he to remain in possession of any office the duties of which he was not able to discharge. The experience of all of us shows that a man in middle age may be struck by sudden illness—as, for example, a Judge while going Circuit—and it is impossible and unreasonable to expect that any arrangement can be made for such a calamity. The noble Duke, no doubt, referred rather to the cases of two right, rev. Prelates who, far advanced in life, have, through the failure of their bodily strength, been unable lately to discharge fully the duties of their office. Now. I may remind your Lordships that last year I endeavoured to convince you of the propriety of making some arrange- 6 ment by which a Bishop thus disabled might be relieved from the active discharge of his functions. The discussion occupied more than one evening, and I am sorry to say that, notwithstanding all I urged, the House was of opinion that it was not advisable to do anything in the matter at that time. The result, therefore, is that these right rev. Prelates are unable to retire, because no arrangement whatever has been made whereby their retirement, would be possible. In the case of Judges there is a settled arrangement; but. when I endeavoured to urge on the House a similar arrangement for members of the Episcopal Bench, far advanced in years and suffering under great infirmity, the House thought it better nothing should be done to facilitate their resignation. The Bishop of Exeter, as your Lordships are aware, has been in failing health for a number of years. He is now of the advanced age of ninety years; but I am bound to say, from my communications with him, that he still preserves that vigour of intellect—when he is able to rouse himself—which characterized him in former times. It ought to be known that, now many years ago, he applied to Lord Palmerston's Government to put into effect the Act of Henry VIII., whereby he might have been relieved of the discharge of his duties by the appointment of a Suffragan. The Government, however, I have been told, acting under the best advice, thought it was not desirable the Act should be put in force. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Bishop of Exeter has not taken the only step which the law pointed out for securing the appointment of some one to perform such duties as, from advancing age, he was unable personally to perform. With regard to the Bishop of Winchester and the Bishop of Bath and Wells, of course it may well be supposed that the Bishop of Exeter having failed to induce the Government to take the course of appointing a Suffragan, they were deterred from making a similar application, believing that it would be equally fruitless. I do not attach any blame to Lord Palmerston's Government for not having taken that course, for no doubt it is difficult to put in force an Act which has not been applied for a very long time; but what I wish to point out is that, there being no provision whereby the 7 right rev. Prelates can be relieved of their office, they have taken such steps as were within their power to secure the performance of their duties. I hold in my hand communications from those right rev. Prelates, stating the arrange-merits they have made; and in order that your Lordships may see that, as far as it has been possible, the duties of those sees have been performed by deputy, I will read a portion of the letter I have received from the Bishop of Winchester—
I was laid low by illness a little move than a year ago. At the earliest possible period I issued three commissions, one to Bishop Ryan, for the performance of purely episcopal acts, and one to each of my archdeacons for the performance of other offices which do not require the intervention of a person of the episcopal order. I have desired my secretary to send your Grace a copy of these commissions. For the last six months I am thankful to say that it has pleased God so far to restore me to health and strength as to enable me to resume the supervision of my diocese. From a difficulty which I have in utterance, I am unable to take any part in the public duties of my office, nor can I hold such intercourse with my clergy as could wish. No work, however, is undertaken in the diocese without my knowledge or consent. The work which for six months my archdeacons undertook for me I have in a great measure resumed. All the business of my diocese is brought under my immediate notice. I read all my correspondence myself, and by means of my domestic chaplain, who is resident with me, I communicate with my clergy on every subject which is brought before me. Bishop Ryan continues to undertake purely episcopal acts which, owing to my infirmity, I am unable to perform; and I am thankful to be able to say that during the past year there has been no delay either in the ordering of confirmations or consecrations. Since March, in 186S, confirmations were held last year throughout the county of Hants, and in the South London parishes, where desired. In Hants, 11,350 young persons received the rite of confirmation, and in Surrey 1,606. This year, by the middle of this month, confirmations will have been held in fifty-eight churches for the parishes of Surrey. During the same period of time fifteen new churches and about twenty additional churchyards have been consecrated, and seven churches have been re-opened after restoration. Bishop Ryan has also ordained sixty-seven deacons and priests for the work of the ministry in my diocese. I am happy to say that I do not think any application from any clergyman for episcopal work has been unattended to. I beg most heartily to thank your Grace for your kind expression of feeling towards myself, and to assure you that you read my feelings a right when you say that you feel sure that the care of my diocese is very near my heart.I do not, of course, mean to say that that is the best possible way of superintending a diocese under such circumstances, but it is the only way which the law at present recognizes. If your Lordships 8 would consent to a re-consideration of the question, I am sure a more satisfactory state of things might be introduced. I am happy to be able to say that Her Majesty's Government have been in communication with me as to the best mode of drafting a Bill whereby it would be possible for Prelates disabled by age or infirmity to be relieved from the discharge of their duties, and I trust that measure will soon be submitted to your Lordships, and that it will receive your sanction.
§ LORD LYTTELTONmust express his regret that the Episcopal Bench appeared neither willing to press forward an increase of the episcopate themselves, nor to co-operate with any one else who might be disposed to take up the question. Sir John Coleridge, whose name would carry the greatest weight, had suggested to him the outline of a measure on the retirement of Bishops, founded on the analogy mentioned by the most rev. Prelate between Bishops and Judges; and knowing nothing of the communications between the Government and the most rev. Prelate on the subject, he had had a Bill prepared. He hoped the matter would be settled by legislation during the present Session.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he was willing to give every consideration to the noble Lord's Bill, and assured him he was mistaken in attributing to the right rev. Bench any unwillingness to co-operate with him with regard to an increase of the episcopate or any other question. With the encouragement of the Government he did not despair of a scheme being agreed to which would meet the difficulty.
THE BISHOP OF ST.DAVID'Ssaid, that some exaggerations, proceeding from opposite quarters, but both calculated to do mischief to the Church, were prevalent as to the true nature and limits of the episcopal functions, and were calculated to do a great deal of harm to the Church. On the one hand zealous and well-meaning friends of the Church had formed an idea of the episcopal office that could not be realized, without a system of personal visitation which would involve such a multiplication of dioceses as would be neither practicable nor desirable—the diocese of London, for example, would require, supposing a Bishop to be required for a given number of population, not two but twenty Bishops. Now, 9 he took a very different view of the duties of the office, believing that while it was the business of a Bishop to organize, direct, and stimulate every good work going on within the diocese, it was not necessary or even desirable that he should personally lay his hand to the work. On the other hand, it had been urged—and it was an exaggeration that lurked in the speeches of his noble Friend (Lord Lyttelton)—that if a diocese was deprived of the personal presence and action of its Bishops for a considerable length of time, it was either in danger of falling to pieces and the whole administration coming to a dead-lock; or that if this were not so the episcopal office must be a superfluity. Now. if a person were attacked by influenza or bronchitis, and were able to stand against it, though it might be fatal to others, the natural inference was that he enjoyed the blessing of a very strong constitution; but did it follow that, while the malady lasted, he stood in no need of medical assistance? A see deprived of the personal presence and activity of its chief pastor was certainly not in a normal state, but there were many things which very much mitigated the misfortune. The illness of a Bishop did not necessarily incapacitate him for all the duties of his office, for there remained many which he might be perfectly able to fulfil. He received the assistance of his brother Bishops for episcopal duties; and a great amount of help was habitually given by the archdeacons for duties not strictly episcopal. In all these cases the parochial machinery which was the pride and strength of the Church of England might be going on for a very long time without any interruption or abatement of its vigour, notwithstanding a misfortune of this kind which might befall the diocese. He should be sorry to make light of the disaster which had befallen these dioceses; but he thought that these considerations, if they were allowed to have the weight which was due to them, might servo to protect the Church both from groundless despondency even under very unfavourable circumstances on the part of its friends, and from groundless and mischievous reflections on the part of its enemies.
§ THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDsaid, the question of an increase of the episcopate —on which he would now offer no opinion—ought to be kept distinct from 10 that of the appointment of Suffragans in cases of permanent illness. When a diocese was for any lengthened period presided over by a Prelate who was incapacitated for performing its duties, the episcopate itself fell into discredit with those who were not friendly disposed towards the Church. He did not doubt that the strictly episcopal duties in Winchester and Exeter were well performed by those appointed for that purpose, and that the archdeacons were quite competent to discharge such duties as were not strictly episcopal; but it was discreditable; to the Church that there should be no arrangement with regard to Bishops unable from age or infirmity to perform their duties. It was unreasonable to suppose that Bishops, unless in affluent circumstances, would retire without any pensions, and he hoped some funds would be found for that purpose. The subject was of very great importance, and he trusted the right rev. Bench would aid the Government in preparing a measure which would put a stop to the mischief.
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he desired it to be understood that the Bill now being prepared by communication between the most rev. Prelate and the Prime Minister dealt solely with the question of Bishops incapacitated from physical or mental causes, from discharging the ditties of their dioceses.