§ Bill, as amended, considered.
The SOLICITOR GENERALmoved the addition of the following Clause after Clause 29:—
After next avoidance, Bishop may cause a church to be provided in any benefice having a population of forty persons, and an income exceeding 150l., where there has been no church for ten years.
§ Clause brought up, and read 1°.
§ Motion made, "That the said Clause be now read a Second Time."
§ MR. FREWENsaid, he must complain that he had not been fairly treated in this matter. He thought this clause would not apply to a great number of cases which 1811 he thought ought to be met by such a provision, He objected also to the clause being limited to incomes of 150l. a year. He thought, likewise, that the clause ought to be made to apply to benefices which were now void.
The SOLICITOR GENERALcould assure the hon. Member (Mr. Frewen) that he had endeavoured bonâ fide to carry out what appeared to be the expressed wish of the House when this Bill was last under its consideration. He admitted the clause assumed rather a strong character, but he had founded it on the precedent which enabled a bishop to compel a clergyman to erect a parsonage house. The hon. Member said 150l. was too high a sum; but he would remind the hon. Gentleman that a bishop could compel a clergyman with an income of only 150l. a year to build a parsonage. Where there was no parsonage house the clergyman could be charged 600l. upon his income of 150l. to provide a parsonage house, the payment of that 600l. being spread over a period of thirty years. By this clause he would be charged with the payment of 750l. more, which would reduce the annual value of the benefice to little more than 100l. But if the hon. Gentleman reduced the sum below 150l., then on an income below that sum the clergyman would have to pay from 1,200l. to 1,300l. over a period of thirty years.
§ SIR JOHN DUCKWORTHsaid, he must protest against the passing of a clause involving so important a principle in the way proposed. With regard to the building of parsonage houses, that was a legitimate charge on the fund set apart for the income of the clergyman; but this clause went on a totally different principle. As the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Frewen) who introduced the clause first of all, to which this was an amendment, had stated that the clause as now altered was not one to which he attached any value, he (Sir J. Duckworth) trusted the Government would allow it to be negatived.
§ MR. GOULBURNsaid, in his opinion this Clause proceeded in a wrong direction. His view of dealing with the case would be this: that the bishop should exercise the power which he had of insisting that a clergyman should live in his parish, and then the building of a parsonage house would very soon be accomplished.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, if the House was opposed to the proposition, he was not disposed to press it.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Amendments made; Bill to be read 3° To-morrow.