ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY'S BILL. (Hansard, 16 June 1828)

§ Mr. Hume
said, he could not consent to the passing of this bill in its present state. An account of the fees and emoluments accruing from the offices of which his grace had the appointment had been put into his hands. The salary of the principal registrar, in the year 1826, had amounted to 7,600l., and in 1827, to 8,400l., although he was free from all the labour incidental to the office, the duties of which were discharged by clerks, who had but a small stipend. Now, as this was deriving a large income from an office held entirely by deputy, such an unnecessary sinecure ought to be abolished as soon as possible. The House had formerly come to a resolution to do away with all such situations, and a committee appointed for examining into the subject, had made a report in June, 1811, making mention of the sinecure offices in the Admiralty and Ecclesiastical Courts. It appeared that the duties of registrar were discharged by three deputies at a moderate salary; while the principal, who had nothing to do, enjoyed a splendid revenue. It was high time that the public should be relieved from such an expense, and he decidedly objected to giving a power which would prolong its continuance. It was not his wish to oppose the bill, if the learned gentleman would permit the insertion of a clause, to prevent any provision therein contained from interfering with whatever future regulations respect- 1372 ing the office, parliament might think proper to adopt, during the life-time of the person whose name was now to be introduced. If not, he would move, that the bill be read a third time this day three months.

The Attorney-general
said, that the report of the committee alluded to was highly creditable to the manner in which the duties of the situation had been invariably discharged, and he could not consent to the principal officer being superseded. Such a measure could not change the nature of the office, although it would withdraw the responsibility from the persons in whose hands it was most suitably intrusted. Nor had the report animadverted on the fees of the office as being too large for the duties which it imposed. He doubted whether the hon. gentleman, though so rigid an economist, would think 12d. too liberal a remuneration for going to Doctors' Commons to inspect a will. Those small fees had increased beyond their former amount; but business had increased in the same proportion. This office had always been in the gift of the archiepiscopal see; and, therefore, the appointments and emolument attendant on it constituted a part of its patronage. The archbishop had as equitable a right to the introduction of a third life into this patent, as the law gave to any individual to do the same by a lease or copyhold in case of a renewal.

§ Mr. Wynn
supported the amendment. They were now called upon to continue a sinecure amounting to 8,000l. annually. The nomination to four other offices was involved in the question. Those salaries were in total 5,000l. per annum. It seemed, by this statement, that such patronage was more valuable than any domestic office in the king's gift, and the emoluments were still likely to increase. Feeling that a retrenchment in sinecures was required, he should oppose the bill.

Dr. Lushington
said, he was not convinced of the justice or necessity of such a course. He nevertheless was by no means prepared to say, that this office was not a fit subject for future regulation. It was at present conducted in a manner satisfactory to the public; and it ought to be remembered, that the archbishop would have the power to introduce younger lives, in the event of the bill being rejected.

§ Dr. Phillimore
said, that in 1810, on the recommendation of a committee, cer- 1373 tain sinecure offices were ordered to be abolished, and a bill was brought into that House, to make the duties be performed by the principals and not by deputies. Three offices were, upon that principle, abolished by that bill; and the present was the only one that remained. His learned friend had told the House, that the duties of this office were well performed. He did not deny that they were admirably performed; but the duties were performed by deputies, the principals being beneficed clergymen, resident at a distance from London. The office was a complete sinecure, amounting to 8,000l. per annum, not to speak of the patronage attached to it. There were five other offices in the hands of the principal registrars, amounting to 5,000l. a-year. The House had, therefore, to deal with a sum of 13,000l. per annum, attached to an office the duties of which were performed by deputies. The whole office required regulation and revision.

The Solicitor-general
said, the office had already undergone the sifting of a committee, whose report was on the table of the House: it was therefore rather hard to say now that it required revision and regulation. The real question before the House was, whether the position in which the parties stood—seeing that under certain circumstances they had been obliged to come before the House to claim its aid—was such as to call upon that House to do that circuitously and indirectly, which it had not taken up openly and directly [hear]. The commission in 1823, which suggested the abolition of certain offices, never mentioned this.

§ Sir J. Yorke
said, it appeared that enormous emoluments were attached to this office, and a great increase had taken place in those emoluments, while the duties of the office were performed by deputy. Now reductions should be made in offices of that description before the House were called upon to reduce the pay and half-pay of those poor fellows who had fought and bled for their country.