BISHOPS OF LONDON AND DURHAM RETIREMENT BILL. (Hansard, 22 July 1856)

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
Sir, I rise to move the second reading of this Bill. It must, I am sure, be admitted by everybody that it is of the highest importance that the great and extensive functions which are committed to Bishops of the Church should be adequately performed. My noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (the Marquess of Blandford) on a former occasion drew the attention of the House to the circumstance that, owing to age and infirmity, there were some Bishops now on the bench who were not able to discharge adequately the duties belonging to their high position. That statement of my noble Friend seemed to meet with the acquiescence of the House, and Her Majesty's Government were asked to take into their consideration the means of providing for those cases in which, from natural causes, the episcopal functions might not be fully and efficiently performed. I had an intention of proposing to Parliament a general measure to provide for 1267 cases of this kind, founded upon the analogy of the course of proceeding in regard to the Judges. My purpose was to establish some means by which Bishops who of their own accord might feel themselves no longer equal to their duties should, with the consent of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, retire; and also to provide for cases in which infirmity from age or otherwise, acknowledged and known to exist, should be ascertained, and in which Bishops who might not of their own accord wish to retire should, by reason of their being incapable of performing their functions, be placed upon a retired allowance. That measure, however, was necessarily deferred, and in the meantime I received communications from the Bishops of London and Durham intimating their desire to retire, being conscious, they stated, that the infirmity with which they were afflicted disqualified them for performing their duties in a manner consistent with their sense of the obligations attaching to the high station which they occupied in the Church. Thereupon Her Majesty's Government thought that the proper course would be to frame a Bill limited to those particular cases connected with which there are circumstances that, perhaps, would naturally render it necessary, at all events, that they should specially be provided for, because the emoluments hitherto received by those two Bishops are considerably greater than the regulated sums which will be paid to future occupants, and any Bill which provided retired allowances in proportion to fixed salaries would not apply to cases in which the revenues hitherto obtained were larger than those which would in future be paid to the Bishops of those sees. It is unnecessary for me to dilate upon the personal merits of the two Bishops to whom this Bill will apply. Everybody must know the high character which they have borne, the zeal with which they have performed their duties, their high attainments; and we must all of us, I feel certain, lament those physical infirmities with which they have been afflicted, and which now prevent them, unfortunately, from continuing in a satisfactory manner to discharge their episcopal functions. The letters which I have received from the two right rev. Prelates have been laid upon the table of the House, and are now in the hands of Members, who therefore know the propositions which were made by the Bishops, and which form the foundation of the present Bill. But 1268 those propositions have been objected to, and have been made subjects of animadversion. Those who have criticised it have talked of "negotiations," and have seemed to insinuate that Her Majesty's Government proposed to the Bishops to retire, holding out to them certain inducements, and that our object was that, vacancies being created, we should have an opportunity of making fresh appointments. Nothing of the kind, Sir, has taken place. The application of the Prelates was spontaneous on their part, was suggested to them by a high sense of duty, and was acquiesced in by Her Majesty's Government upon terms which we thought reasonable as arranged by them. Nor was there any bargain made between the Government and the right rev. Prelates. We undertook to propose to Parliament to make an arrangement in accordance with the conditions which the Bishops thought reasonable, and the bargain, if any, is to be made by the Legislature. There is nothing concealed in the transaction—nothing, I apprehend, that is not honourable to all parties concerned. It is well known that the Bishop of London has annually received a very large income, amounting, I believe, upon an average, to something like £18,000 a year; but it is equally well known to those who have watched his career, and to all conversant with his conduct, that he has disbursed that large income in the most generous manner for purposes of charity and public improvement; that he has been a great benefactor of his diocese; and that instead of laying up treasures on earth, he has sought rather for those treasures which are to be laid up elsewhere. It is known to all that in the performance of good actions he has not endeavoured to enrich himself—that, in point of fact, he has not made any provision for his family other than that which arises from an insurance which he has effected upon his life. Well, it is proposed that this Prelate, so generous and charitable, who is labouring under a great bodily infirmity, should not be disturbed in the enjoyment of that residence of Fulham which he has hitherto inhabited; and I think, when it is considered what is the nature of that infirmity by which he has been afflicted, and when it is considered also that there is another residence in London applicable to the purposes of the see, Parliament will not deem it unreasonable that the Bishop should not be removed during the remaining portion of 1269 his life from the residence which he has so long occupied. The question has been mooted whether the present occasion should not be taken for dividing the see of London into two. I must say, Sir, that I think that is a question well deserving of consideration; but, in communicating with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and with Lord Chichester, their president, it was represented to me that, whatever might ultimately be determined in regard to such a division, the present Session was not a fit opportunity for making the arrangement; that it would involve important details, requiring a great deal of time to investigate; and that any Bill which might be passed this year should be limited to the retirement of the Bishops of London and Durham. I am sorry to see that in the discussions which have taken place upon this question an attempt has been made to fix upon the resignation of the Bishops and the circumstances connected with it the imputation of what is called simony. Sir, there could not be an imputation more perfectly groundless, or more completely founded upon an abuse of terms. Simony implies some corrupt and secret transaction between the ecclesiastical person who retires and the patrons of the preferment. Nothing of the kind has taken place in the present instance. Nothing could be fairer or more entirely open than the whole transaction. The Bishops having stated their inability to continue in the exercise of their functions, Parliament has been called upon to make an arrangement for their retirement. It is true that other methods of providing for cases of this kind have been suggested. Some persons have proposed, for example, that the duties of the diocese of London should be performed by one of the other Bishops. I understand it has been said that the Prelate holding the appointment of Bishop of Oxford might undertake the work. I think there are many obvious reasons why that arrangement would not be a fitting one. There is no man more able from his talents and ability than the present Bishop of Oxford to perform any extra duty that might be imposed on him; but I think that no one could satisfactorily perform the duties of those two sees, and that the arrangement is one which Parliament would not for a moment be disposed to countenance. Well, then, other persons have proposed that coadjutor Bishops should be appointed; but I think that that arrangement is also exceedingly objectionable. If the coadjutor Bishop had no 1270 succession he would be simply in the position of a subordinate, and he would not exercise the influence which ought to belong to his office. Then it is said that we might appoint Bishops coadjutors with succession when a vacancy occurred; but I think that that would be a very objectionable and inconvenient state of things, because if the infirm Bishop and the coadjutor were to have co-ordinate authority you would have possibly a conflict of opinion and a diversity of judgment upon all the matters that belong to the functions of a Bishop. If on the other hand, to avoid those two inconveniences, you were to transfer the authority from the existing Bishop to the coadjutor, then you come to the very arrangement, substantially, which this Bill is calculated to establish. You would then have the coadjutor performing all the functions of the Bishop and exercising all the authority in the diocese, but still he would not have that influence and consideration which are essential to the due performance of the duties, and you would have two Bishops in one diocese, which in my opinion would be a highly objectionable arrangement. It appears to me, therefore, that when a Bishop, either by age or infirmity, is unfortunately disqualified from performing his functions, the only fitting arrangement is to allow him to retire, to deal with the see as if it were vacant in the ordinary course of nature, and to place in it a new Bishop, who should be invested with all the privileges, functions, and authority that belong to a Bishop. That is the arrangement which we now propose in regard to these two sees, and I should hope that the House will have no objection to such a measure. With regard to the bishopric of London. it must be remembered that the functions of that office are of all others the most important, and that they are those which can with the least convenience to the interests of the Church be suspended for any length of time. Not to mention the great and increasing population of the diocese, it is well known that he exercises functions with regard to places abroad, which require constant intercourse with other persons; and it is also well known that, independently of those duties which may be performed by correspondence, the Bishop of London is under the necessity of weekly personal intercourse with a great portion of the clergy of his diocese. It is, therefore, very important for all the interests of the Church and of the established religion that there should be in the diocese of London 1271 a person capable by health and age of effectually performing the duties attaching to his office. I therefore move, Sir, that this Bill be read a second time.

§ MR. HENLEY
Sir, I will state as briefly as I can the reasons that induce me to ask the House to defer the second reading of this Bill. The importance of the question cannot be overrated. The Bill has not yet been delivered to Members, and I do not suppose any Government has ever asked the House to discuss any measure not in the hands of the Members.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
A copy may be had at the Vote Office.

§ MR. HENLEY
I am aware that a copy may be had at the Vote Office, but the Bill has been got up in such a hurry as to have inscribed on it that it is a Bill brought up from the Commons. I have no idea whether the Bill I have in my hand is the measure we are called upon to discuss. I cannot make my Motion without expressing my entire concurrence in what the noble Lord has said of the high qualities of the Prelates, especially the Bishop of London. It would be impossible for language to do justice to the way that Prelate has discharged his highly important duties. In moving that the debate be adjourned, I wish to say that I do not believe there has been any wish on the part of the noble Lord to take any step in this for the sake of patronage, and I believe the course he is taking is in the full persuasion it is for the public good. But, though I acquit the noble Lord on those points, that is no reason why the House should be hurried into a discussion of a measure of this importance. In proportion to the importance, so in proportion ought to be the deliberation with which we should discuss it. We ought not at that hour to lay down principles that may hamper us injuriously; and all those circumstances, I consider, are enough to induce me to ask the House to put off the discussion until to-morrow, when it can be fully discussed. What is the state of the case? From hon. Members not receiving the Bill, they could not expect the Bill would come on to-night. And when we come to the great importance of the Bill, that is an additional reason for having another day to consider the measure before we discuss it. A false step in this direction is not easily repaired. For though this Bill only applies to two 1272 Prelates it contains principles that are widely applicable, and appear to be such as ought to be comprehended in a general measure. For these reasons, I hope the noble Lord will consent to postpone the discussion.

MR. GLADSTONE
Sir, I rise to second the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The request which he has made is so strongly recommended by those general rules for conducting the business of this House, the observance of which is absolutely necessary for the satisfactory performance of our duties here, that I scarcely think it is requisite for me to add anything to the right hon. Gentleman's arguments. He has, in my belief, rather understated than overstated his case with regard to the printing and distributing of Bills. It would be hardly too much to say that it is an absolutely necessary and indispensable preliminary to the discussion of all measures, with the exception only of two classes. The first is, where the safety of the State being at issue from some apprehended disturbance, or from something connected with the security of the person of the Crown, we have seen Bills passed through all their stages at a single sitting. The other is that class of formal measures which are renewed regularly from year to year—such as Bills for the renewal of Exchequer bills, which run always in the same form totidem verbis, and with the printing of which—as Members are supposed to be acquainted with them—the House dispenses altogether. With these exceptions, I do not remember a single instance in which this House has been called upon to debate a Bill without it having been printed and distributed among Members, as it is quite plain this Bill has not been. I owe my possession of a copy of the Bill to a pure accident. I looked for it anxiously among the papers distributed this morning, but I did not find it. I have had no means of holding communications, therefore, with respect to it, or even of examining its terms with that care which such a measure demands. I doubt very much whether we have bad a Bill before us, during the present Session, involving such a number of points, or bringing before the House so many alternative methods of proceeding, or altogether raising questions of so great difficulty, and requiring such mature consideration. It is quite plain that the debate upon this Bill ought not to be restricted by anything like duress put upon Members of this House, and as no debate, therefore, upon the Bill 1273 can take place to-night which can satisfactorily deal with its merit, I do not apprehend that we shall really lose anything by complying with the very reasonable request of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) to postpone the second reading until to-morrow. I quite agree in the right hon. Gentleman's opinion that the Government have not been actuated in this matter by any love of patronage; but nothing, I am sure, would be more likely to give rise to such an insinuation than that my noble Friend at the head of the Government should set at defiance the ordinary rules and forms of the House, not in a mere technical matter, but in one connected with the substantial securities for the satisfactory transaction of public business.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
Sir, having received a copy of the Bill myself this morning, I was under the impression that it had been distributed among Members; but if it is stated that it has not been generally distributed, of course it would not be reasonable to expect Members to proceed with the discussion of it this evening. I agree, therefore, to the debate being adjourned until to-morrow, on the understanding that it will be taken the first thing.