BISHOPS RESIGNATION BILL— [BILL 241.] (Hansard, 2 August 1869)

MR. GLADSTONE
said, he wished to move the second reading of this Bill, and, if it were convenient to the House, to postpone any statement of the objects of the Bill until it could be taken at a more convenient hour, which he would secure by placing it as the first Order on Thursday. The hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins) had given notice of a Motion, from which he gathered that the hon. Member desired that the Bill should not be proceeded with. But he wished the hon. Member to observe the effect of an Amendment which he proposed to move in the Bill. An Amendment had been introduced into the Bill in the Lords which very materially altered its character, and introduced subjects of 1126 difficulty and complexity not originally included in the measure. He referred to the 3rd clause, which made the Bill applicable to physical incapacity for the purpose of appointing coadjutor Bishops. That was not at all in harmony with the general structure of the Bill, and he wished the House to consider the Amendments he would place on the table tonight, and how the Bill would stand in the event of those Amendments being adopted. He moved that the Bill be now read a second time.

§ MR. COLLINS
said, he did not object to that part of the Bill which applied to resignation; but he hoped that, if the Bill were to proceed this Session, all the clauses with reference to the appointment of coadjutor Bishops would be dropped by the right hon. Gentleman. The Bill might have been sent down from the other House three months ago, seeing that they had nothing to do there but idle away their time in the early part of the Session; and he hoped, taking into account that it was a measure of so much importance, it would not be proceeded with at a period when it could not be adequately discussed.

MR. HENLEY
said, the first clause of the Bill appeared to him, to say the least of it, to be rather oddly worded. It stated that an Archbishop or Bishop was canonically to resign his benefice, and then went on to state that that was to be done only if he were incapacitated by mental or physical infirmity. The same words "mental infirmity" were used in the second provision of the Bill, in which the process was rendered compulsory. The difficulty lay in supposing that a different meaning was to be attached to those words in the same document. If mental infirmity existed to a degree which produced complete mental incapacity, he did not sec how a Bishop could canonically resign, or an Archbishop report to the Crown that he was infirm. He also saw another difficulty in the Bill as it stood. It was set forth that an Archbishop or Bishop was as a preliminary matter canonically to resign, and afterwards that the Crown was to be satisfied by proof that he was either mentally or bodily incapable. But should the proof fail, in what position, 1127 he should like to know, would things then be placed? If a see had been canonically resigned it could not be taken up again, and if the proof failed it was not easy to perceive what was to be done. He quite concurred in thinking that it would be inconvenient to discuss a Bill of so much importance at so late an hour, and under all the circumstances of the case, he thought the wisest course to adopt would be to pass it only for one year.