HC Deb 07 August 1867 vol 189 cc1069-79

Order for Committee read.

MR. FAWCETT

, who had given notice of his intention to move the following Instruction:— That it be an Instruction to the Committee that no new Bishopric be founded under the provisions of this Bill until a sum shall be raised by voluntary subscriptions, which shall provide not only for the stipend of the new Bishop, but shall also be sufficient to provide for all the other expenses of a cathedral establishment"— inquired of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair, whether he should be in Order in proposing it?

MR. SPEAKER

said, the course the hon. Member had intended to pursue was not in order, because the Committee had power already to make the alteration in the Bill to which the Instruction pointed. Where a thing could be done voluntarily it should not be done in a mandatory form.

MR. J. A. SMITH

said, he wished to explain that, although when this Bill was under discussion on a former occasion he had used words which had been so interpreted as to cause pain to the Bishop of Adelaide, nothing could have been further from his thoughts than a desire to cause that pain; and he was glad to be able to bear testimony to the admirable manner in which the Bishop of Adelaide discharged the duties of his office.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Schemes may be prepared by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Three new Sees).

MR. AYRTON

proposed to insert the following words:— Provided that no such scheme shall be submitted for confirmation to Her Majesty in Council until there shall have been paid or transferred to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners by voluntary gift or bequest, monies, securities, or estates, of which the annual interest, rents, or profits shall be sufficient to pay the annual income of the Bishop and of all other persons to be appointed to any office under such scheme according to the stipulations thereof, and all other charges and expenses of carrying the same into effect.

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

offered no objection to the Amendment: but the wording he thought might be improved if it were made to read—income of the Bishop and of all other persons, "if any."

Amendment, with the suggested additions, agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 (Income of new See).

MR. AYRTON

, in proposing to omit this clause, said, that in the case of persons called upon to fulfil the double duties of Bishop and Peer of the realm, there was a necessity for maintaining a certain appearance in London; but a Bishop proposing to confine himself entirely to the local duties of his office had no need of an equally large income. Accordingly, he moved the omission of the clause, rendering it indispensable that the income of the new see should be equal to that of any existing see.

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

said, that this clause was not contained in the Bill as originally introduced by Lord Lyttelton, but was inserted upon a division by a majority of 1, at the instance of Earl Grey, and afterwards affirmed upon Report by a larger majority. The Peers who voted for that clause were induced to do so by a fear lest inequality of incomes among the different episcopal sees might revive the old objectionable practice of translation from one see to the other. He believed, however, that the moral feeling of the country, very different now from what it was in former times, would prevent translations taking place except in cases where these could be plainly justified upon public grounds. Even as matters stood, there were grave inequalities between the incomes of the different Bishops. Yet the present Bishop of Sodor and Man, who had less by £3,000 annually than the majority of English Bishops, had continued in the same see for a great number of years. He allowed full weight to the motives influencing noble Lords in the other House; but he certainly thought it would be an advantage if the Bill were, in this respect, restored to its original shape.

Clause 2 negatived.

Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to with some verbal Amendments.

Clause 5 (Scheme for new See to define Particulars respecting Boundaries, Patronage, &c.).

MR. AYRTON

said, the clause was incomplete, as it only provided conditionally for the appointment of "a capitular body, minor canons, honorary canons, archdeacons, and other officers for the said diocese." The scheme, whatever its nature, ought to be complete in itself; this was a matter of principle, and therefore he proposed to leave out the words "if need be."

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

felt bound to object to the somewhat extravagant Conservatism of the hon. Member. He could not admit that the existence of deans and chapters was matter of principle in the Church of England. If a dean and chapter were insisted upon in the case of every bishop, they could hardly avoid a somewhat expensive cathedral; and these charges all thrown upon public subscription would tend to prevent or delay the Church of England obtaining those officers who were absolutely requisite for her proper spiritual administration.

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

said, it was in the highest degree undesirable to make necessary the payment of sinecure deans and chapters, and he intended to move an Amendment to Clause 7, which he thought would meet the views of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, and the noble Lord the Member for Stamford. The principle of gratuitous canons and deans, so far as this new arrangement was concerned, was recognized by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets in another Amendment of which he had given notice, referring to the salaries or emoluments, "if any," which they were to receive, and he (Sir Roundell Palmer) intended to move an Amendment to Clause 7, enabling the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to make provision for the residence, if any, and for the salaries or emoluments, if any, of the deans and chapters. The effect of that Amendment would be to recognize the principle which the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets had in view.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

trusted his noble Friend the Member for Stamford would agree to that proposal. It would be simply strangling the Bill, and making it a nullity if private subscriptions were to endow opulent deans and canons. He believed it was essential to keep up the old ecclesiastical framework, but the offices should be allowed to be honorary; and he therefore hoped that the Amendment suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Richmond would be agreed to.

MR. AYRTON

explained that his object was to determine at the outset whether the deans and other officers were to be endowed or not; so that after their appointment they would have no ground for coming forward and contending that revenues ought to be attached to their official positions unless this were distinctly expressed.

MR. NEATE

held that the dean and chapter as now existing constituted an innovation upon the ancient system under which the bishop was master of the diocese. He knew cases in which the bishop had been turned out of his own cathedral by the dean and chapter.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. MONK

proposed to add at the end of the clause words to the effect that in any provision for the appointment of a capitular body the status and duties of such body should be regulated according to the mode prescribed by the 4th and 5th sections of the 13 and 14 Vict., so far as the same might be applicable to the circumstances of the case. He said that on the formation of the diocese of Manchester, a complete scheme was elaborated, the Act was most carefully considered, and it was desirable that any new dioceses to be formed in this country should be formed on the mode thus provided.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

said, it was not fair, at a moment's notice, to ask them to adopt the provisions of that Act.

MR. COLERIDGE

said, it was not necessary they should do so. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners had the precedent before them, and if they thought fit to follow it they could do so.

Motion withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 (Congé d'èlire for new Sees).

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

said, that the Amendment of the clause had rendered it unnecessary, and he therefore proposed its omission.

Clause omitted.

Clause 7 (Residence of Deans and Canons).

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

proposed to omit the words— Until the dean and canons of any new diocese shall have been completely endowed, according to a scale to be fixed in the said schemes, they shall not be bound to reside at the cathedral, and to insert words to the effect that it should be lawful for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, in settling any scheme, to make such provision as to them should seem fit concerning the residence to be required from the dean and canons of any new diocese, having regard to the amount of the endowments, if any, leaving it optional to them to provide (in the concluding words of the clause) that the dean should hold an ecclesiastical benefice within the limits of the diocese. This Amendment, he said, would simply declare more effectually the object of the clause as it stood.

MR. WHITE

objected to an Amendment of this nature, which opened up so very large a question, being agreed to now. The hon. and learned Gentleman ought to have given notice of the change which he proposed. It would be much better if he would bring up this Amendment on the Report.

MR. AYRTON

, who had given notice of an Amendment for striking out the clause, said, his reason for doing so was that it seemed to contemplate that at some future period the deans and canons were to be endowed, and it left the House hereafter to find the endowment as it could. In any Amendment care should be taken that any funds intended for the benefit of the people should not, by any contrivance, be appropriated for the endowment of dignified clergy. If his hon. and learned Friend would take care that the words introduced would not open the door to that abuse, but would secure to the inhabitants of a parish the funds that ought to be applied to their benefit, he should not see any objection to the clause.

MR. COLERIDGE

said, the best plan would be to omit the clause altogether. The present position of the capitular bodies was a great scandal. He could understand a collegiate body living together for the common pursuit of a common object; but nothing could be more inefficient for its purpose than the present mode of regulating the residence of deans and chapters. What could be the common feelings of persons who never met together, and simply resided in a place for a set time? The hon. and learned Member for Richmond dropped a word which, to his mind, was a very fatal word for a Member of the Church of England—he spoke of "sinecure canons." The existing state of things as to sinecures was a scandal, and he did not wish to see any more sinecure canons created. If the canons had nothing to do why did they exist? It seemed to him that, under the 5th Clause there was abundant power to regulate generally the performance of Divine service, and the conditions of the existence of the titular authorities. It would be a bad thing to pass a clause which said that the present regulation of residence was the sort of thing that was satisfactory, and which implied that the term of residence was to be proportionate to the amount of stipend paid, and he thought it would be better on general grounds to omit the 7th Clause altogether.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that the purpose of the clause was to obviate and prevent just that which was apprehended by the hon. and learned Member for Exeter; it was to provide against deans and canons falling into the present stereotyped condition of the law with respect to residence, and to enable the Commissioners to do that which was obviously desirable — namely, to vary and depart from the present condition of things. He therefore hoped the hon. and learned Member for Exeter would take a different view of it.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, the dean and chapter were to elect the Bishop, but who were to elect the dean and chapter? It would be desirable for the hon. and learned Member for Richmond to consider this matter, and bring up an amended clause on the Report which would provide for it. He suggested, further, that the dean, in the first instance should be appointed by the Crown, and the canons by the Bishop of the diocese out of which the new diocese was to be carved. Subsequently the future deans and canons should be appointed by the new Bishop of the new diocese. There was ample precedent for that course. Many of the English cathedrals had canons appointed by the Bishops, and in the four Welsh bishoprics the deans were also in the patronage of their respective Bishops.

MR. BARROW

said, rural deans would make good capitular bodies without the necessity for residence.

MR. AYRTON

said, the dean and chapter would be appointed in the manner proscribed by the scheme, and would proceed to elect their Bishop.

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

said, the 5th clause enabled the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to provide for the appointment of the titular officers in the first instance, so that there would be no difficulty on that point. With regard to what had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Exeter, his objections were sound and solid objections to the present law, and applicable to the present capitular bodies, but they did not touch the present Bill in any way.

MR. SERJEANT GASELEE

said, the hon. and learned Member for Richmond had given way too much, and the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets had made confusion worse confounded. The best plan was to let a Bishop be appointed if there were the money, and to strike out all the nonsense about the dean and chapter.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, that when the hon. and learned Member for Richmond regarded a clause as clear and satisfactory, it might be taken for granted that it was so. He quite agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Exeter that recent legislation had greatly impaired the utility of their old cathedral institutions, but he did not believe that the existing canons were all sinecurists.

MR. COLERIDGE

said, he only remarked that the hon. and learned Member for Richmond dropped the word "sinecure."

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

said, he only used the word in its legal sense, sinecure benefices being those without the cure of souls.

MR. HIBBERT

thought it would be better that the deans should hold benefices within the limits of particular cities.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 (Real and Personal Estate to vest in Bishop upon his Election).

MR. AYRTON

moved to insert after the word "see," the words— Except any capital monies or securities of which the interest may be payable to the Bishop, and which shall be held in trust for him and his successors by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, subject to the directions, if any, of the donors thereof.

Words added.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 (Number of Bishops sitting in Parliament not to be increased, 10 and 11 Vict. c. 108.).

MR. AYRTON

moved the omission of this clause. He thought it extremely undesirable that these new Bishops should have the right under any circumstances of sitting in the House of Lords. By giving them that privilege they would be placed in a false position—a position which, with the endowments they would probably possess, would be found irksome and burdensome, while their dioceses would be deprived to a great extent of their care and attention.

MR. BARROW

supported the clause. The Bishops had now ceased to sit by tenure, their property being subjected to the control of the same Commission under whose management that of the new Bishops was to be placed.

MR. GLADSTONE

wished to join in the appeal made by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets. To assent to the clause would render the position of the Bishops having seats in the House of Lords very anomalous. We had assented in principle to the creation of great ecclesiastical officers, whose temporal circumstances would in all probability be such that to impose upon them the duty of sitting in the House of Lords would be to impose upon them the burden of sitting in the House of Lords. It would be to call upon them to assume a rank, and to discharge the social duties connected with that rank, to which their temporal means would be quite inadequate. It was to the fact of poor bishoprics such as those of Exeter and Oxford, which in former times did not exceed £1,500 a year, being connected with seats in the House of Lords, that the objectionable system of translation had grown up.

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

said, that when the Bishop of Sodor and Man had no seat in the House of Lords it could not be contended that the proposal introduced a novelty. If we established new Bishops for ecclesiastical purposes alone, without connecting them with Parliamentary duties, we should get rid of the objections to any future increase of bishoprics, which would inevitably recur, if every such measure must involve a re-consideration and re-settlement of the title of the Spiritual Peers to their seats in Parliament. Having charge of the Bill, he should have felt bound to support the retention of the clause had there been any material differences of opinion in the Committee. As, however, it appeared to be the general feeling that the clause should be omitted he should not raise his voice in its support.

SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE

said, the effect of this Bill, in connection with the existing law, would be to exclude four Bishops at a time from seats in the House of Lords, thus making an approach to the system of rotation adopted in the case of the Irish Church. He therefore did not see his way so clearly as his right hon. Friend the Member for South Lancashire; but, with the precedent of Sodor and Man before them, he saw no reason to apprehend evil consequences.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he would have been inclined to support the retention of the clause if his hon. and learned Friend had insisted upon its being retained. Still, he was desirous that the unanimity with which the Bill was received should be undisturbed, and he should not oppose the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets. He might, perhaps, hope from the unanimity which had marked the progress of the Bill that the same absence of political considerations would attend the appointment of these new Bishops, and that they would be selected solely on account of their fitness for the duties.

MR. KINNAIRD

anticipated great benefit to the Church from the Bill.

Clause struck out.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

MR. HADFIELD

moved the insertion of the following clause:— No Bishop hereby authorized shall, as such Bishop, be liable or entitled to be summoned to attend in Parliament, or to sit therein.

Clause negatived.

MR. HENLEY

moved the following clause:— And whereas it is expedient that assistance should be provided for Bishops who may be disabled by old age or other infirmity, and that for this purpose facilities should be given for the more ready and convenient application of an Act passed in the twenty-sixth year of the reign of King Henry the Eighth, chapter fourteen, intituled 'An Act for nomination of Suffragans and Consecration of them,' which Act is still in force: Be it Enacted, That so much of that Act be and is hereby repealed, as relates to territorial titles to be taken from certain towns in England, as episcopal sees for such suffragans, and that any suffragan who may be henceforth nominated and consecrated under that Act, be called and styled Suffragan Bishop, or Coadjutor, without any such territorial title; and that in case of mental decay and failure, duly certified, of a Bishop of a diocese: Be it Enacted, That the Archbishop of the province in which the diocese is situate, be and hereby is empowered to act on his behalf, and to provide a Suffragan or Coadjutor for the said Bishop according to the terms of the said Act, as modified in the manner hereinbefore mentioned. The law on the subject was in a most disgraceful state, and the Report of the Committee of the Upper House of Convocation was a sufficient justification for his endeavouring to amend the present Bill by such a clause as he proposed.

MR. HENRY SEYMOUR

objected to the clause on the ground that there was already a remedy existing, and which had been applied hitherto without difficulty—namely, by passing a short Act of Parliament. If the Bishop died, and the Suffragan succeeded as a matter of course, this clause would give a great increase of power to the episcopate, and if the Suffragan was not necessarily to succeed to the see, the clause would be open to the objection that it would largely increase the number of Bishops in the anomalous position of being without dioceses.

MR. AYRTON

asked how these suffragan Bishops were to be remunerated under this clause. It would be necessary on adopting this clause to pass another directing what portion of the income of the Bishop should be given to the person appointed as Suffragan to discharge the Bishop's duties. He considered that legislation was necessary with regard to the mode of paying Archbishops, Bishops, and clergymen. When they could not do their duties it was not right that they should, as at present, receive the full emoluments of their offices. The clause opened a very wide question which he thought had better be dealt with next Session in a measure dealing with the whole question of superanuation in the Church.

MR. GLADSTONE

admitted that the right hon. Gentleman had raised a question of considerable interest and importance, but thought they were hardly in a position at present to come to a decision on the clause. Means should be afforded to remunerate the Suffragan; but it was not easy at a moment to decide how the provision should be made. He advised his right hon. Friend not to press the clause, because, although there was no objection to make provision for the payment of the suffragan Bishops in the case referred to, they were not at once prepared to adopt the proposal submitted to them.

MR. HENLEY

said, that the Act of Henry VIII. provided that the Archbishop should submit the names of the ecclesiastics of the Crown, and that the Crown should nominate one of them. No arbitrary power of appointing suffragans would therefore be given by the clause.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

admitted, that the present state of superannuation in the Church was a scandal, and he should like to see a remedy applied. What they wanted was to have a person to discharge the episcopal duties in the diocese of an incapacitated Bishop. No person suggested that there was any evil in the proposed remedy, and if they agreed to the clause there was nothing to prevent them from making a better arrangement in a future year.

MR. HENRY SEYMOUR

remarked, that the adoption of the clause would increase the power of the Bishops, and he was not surprised that the Upper House of Convocation was in favour of it.

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

urged his right hon. Friend not to press the clause, because it was not germane to the present measure. The question was raised in the House of Lords, but the proposition met with considerable opposition, and was rejected.

Clause negatived.

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

moved, in consequence of the rejection of the 9th Clause, the addition of a clause to the effect that the number of Bishops in the House of Lords should not be increased by virtue of the operation of this Act.

Clause agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 307.]

House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock.