HC Deb 14 November 1882 vol 274 cc1396-7
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been called to a Circular issued in July last by the Bishop of Bombay, in which he prohibits the chaplains and other clergymen from performing their functions in accordance with the Law of the land, and expressly places their religious duty in opposition to the duty imposed on them by the British Parliament; whether he has received any complaints of the conduct of this Bishop on this and other occasions; and, whether he proposes to retain in the service of Government an officer who inculcates disregard of the Law, and contempt for the authority of Parliament?

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

Sir, my attention has been called to a Circular issued by the Bishop of Bombay—originally read by him in church as a Pastoral Letter—in which he intimates— That no persons who have contracted a marriage after one of them has been divorced for adultery, and during the lifetime of the former wife or husband, can be admitted to the Lord's Table in this diocese, so long as they continue to live together; and that no clergyman who performs a marriage ceremony for a person divorced for adultery, during the lifetime of the former wife or husband, can continue to retain my licence to minister in this diocese. This is, no doubt, the Circular referred to by the hon. Member in his Question. I have received a complaint of the conduct of the Bishop from persons who have recently, and apparently in consequence of this Circular, been refused admission to the Communion; and, in reply, I felt compelled to say that I was not aware of any power enabling me to interfere in the exercise by the Bishop of his ecclesiastical jurisdiction. In publicly giving notice that no clergyman who performs a marriage under certain circumstances can continue to retain the Bishop's licence to minister in the diocese, the Bishop of Bombay has apparently overlooked the provisions of the law—20 & 21 Vict. c. 85, s. 57; Act IV., of 1869, s. 58—which declares that no clergyman shall be liable to any penalty or censure for solemnizing or refusing to solemnize a marriage under the circumstances indicated. Possibly, also, he may have overlooked the fact that the law reserves to the clergyman no option in the matter of performing the marriage ceremony, except when called on to perform it for a person who has been divorced for his or her adultery. But I need scarcely say that it is an exceedingly delicate and difficult matter to interfere with a Bishop who professes to be exercising merely ecclesiastical or spiritual jurisdiction. The salary of the Bishop is payable under the Statute 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 85, and is payable to him so long as he exercises the functions of his office within the diocese of Bombay.