HC Deb 10 March 1853 vol 124 cc1437-8

Order for Third Reading read.

Bill read 3°.

MR. FREWEN moved that a clause be added, enacting that, after the passing of the Act, the provision relating to the union of benefices in the Act of 1 & 2 Vict, to abridge the holding of benefices in plurality, and to make better provision for the residence of the clergy (except in the case of any benefices situate in any city or town where it shall appear desirable to the bishop of the diocese to pull down and re-move one or more churches), shall only ex-tend and be applicable to and for the union of the two benefices, or one benefice and one spiritual sinecure, rectory or vicarage, the aggregate yearly value of which does not exceed 600l.; and the churches (or, if there are more than two, then the churches which are the furthest from each other); shall be within one mile and a half of one smother by the nearest road, and the annual value of one of the said benefices, or spiritual sinecure, rectory or vicarage, shall not exceed 200l., or the population of one of them shall not exceed 100 persons, according to the last census taken by the authority of any Act of Parliament; provided always, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to alter the provisions of the 26th section of the said recited Act for annexing isolated places to the contiguous parishes, or making them separate benefices. He proposed also to add these words to the title of the Bill, "and to prevent the union of benefices above a certain value." His sole object in making the Motion was to prevent the consolidation of two or three contiguous parishes with more than adequate endowments, except under reasonable circumstances. He did not think Her Majesty's Government could object to the course he had deemed it desirable to take in the matter, and he contended that the clause might be very properly introduced into the Bill.

Clause brought up, and read 1°

MR. SIDNEY HERBERT

said, that the clause which the hon. Member proposed to add to this Bill, constituted the main part of one which was thrown out on Wednesday week last.

MR. FREWEN

said that this clause was withdrawn and not rejected.

MR. SIDNEY HERBERT

said, that the fact was that this clause, which the House had already considered and decided against, was one so entirely foreign to the subject matter of the Bill upon which the hon. Member proposed to engraft it, that he was actually obliged to alter the title of the Bill. If the hon. Member had proposed to add this clause to the Bill for the repeal of the Attorneys' Certificate Duty, it would have had as much reference to that as to the Bill now before the House, which did not relate to the cure of souls further than by enacting that for the next two years any appointments made to fill vacancies occurring after the 3rd of March, should be subject to any enactments recommended by the Commission now sitting. He would not now discuss the clause on its merits, but merely remind the House that Parliamentary proceedings would be involved in inextricable confusion, if on the third reading of a Bill they allowed a clause to be inserted in it which had no reference to the matter in hand.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the said Clause be now read a Second Time.

The House divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 65: Majority 42.

Bill passed.