HC Deb 20 May 1885 vol 298 cc972-9

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. ACLAND,

in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the object of the Bill was very simple. Under the present law, when a Bishop had, on account of inadequate performance of duty, or non-residence, or any other cause, to appoint a curate for a benefice, the salary or stipend which he might assign from the living to the curate was often inadequate to enable him to secure the services of a clergyman for that purpose; and the main object of that Bill was to empower the Bishop to assign, within the value of the benefice, such a sum as might enable him to find a curate to do the work which had to be done. The measure was called the Pluralities Acts Amendment Bill chiefly because it was desired to draw the attention of those who would have to deal with it to the Acts which it was intended to amend. Those Acts were 1 & 2 Vict., c. 106, and 13 & 14 Vict., c. 98. Those Acts dealt with several other points besides pluralities, and their general purpose was to define the relation between endowment and work. The main question in regard to the appointment of a curate by the Bishop was whether the ecclesiastical duty of the benefice was adequately or inadequately performed. The 2nd clause of the Bill defined what ecclesiastical duty was, the definition being taken from the Rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer, the Ordination Vow, and the 59th. Canon. It was also provided that in the case of benefices within the dioceses of St. Asaph, Bangor, Llandaff, and St. David, and of any benefice having a population of not less than 500 Welsh-speaking persons in England, the term "ecclesiastical duties" should include such ministrations in the Welsh language as the Bishop of the diocese should direct to be performed on Sundays and holidays. By the 3rd clause it was proposed to change the constitution of the Commission for inquiring into the inadequate performance of the duties of a benefice, by providing that the Commission should be issued to four Commissioners, one of whom should be an Archdeacon or Rural Dean, another a member of a Cathedral Chapter, another a beneficed clergyman of the Archdeaconry in which the benefice was situated, and the fourth to be appointed by the Chairman of Quarter Sessions for the county ad hoc. Deans and Chapters would elect one of their body to act for three years as one of those Commissioners; and the beneficed clergy of every Archdeaconry would also elect one of their body for a similar period. That would give more satisfaction than if the Commission were appointed, as now, simply by the Bishop. It was not proposed to interfere with the amount of stipend which any rector or incumbent might give to his curate if he could got one; but in cases where there was a difficulty in getting a curate to take the charge where the living was exceedingly small, it was desirable to empower the Bishop, when the incumbent failed to get a curate, to appoint one and assign such a salary as he thought necessary. The 8th clause would enable the Bishop to assign an extra stipend of £70 to a curate appointed by him under Sections 75 and 77 of 1 & 2 Vict., c. 106. That clause was the vital clause of the Bill. The 14th clause of the Bill, the only clause which dealt with pluralities, proposed that two benefices might be held together by dispensation if the churches were within five miles of one another, and the annual value of one benefice did not exceed £200. At present the limit of distance was three miles, and the amount £100; and it was now proposed, as the result of experience, to increase them to the extent mentioned. If it was desired by the House to send the Bill before a Select Committee in order that its clauses might be carefully looked into, he should be ready to accede to that course; but he might add that the provisions of the Bill had been thoroughly discussed in both Houses of Convocation, and also by the House of Lords. The hon. Member concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Acland.)

SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAY

expressed his thanks and congratulations to the hon. Member who had just sat down for having undertaken the conduct of that Bill. The title of the measure, however, was, ho thought, very confusing and even misleading, and the explanation of its provisions which had been given was certainly necessary. He thought it most desirable that the existing Acts should be amended in regard to smaller livings, certainly as to distance and income. The Bill possessed great recommendations, both on account of the way in which it had been prepared, and of the high authority on which it came before them; and it deserved very careful consideration. The 2nd clause would require exceedingly careful handling. The Bill partook, to a very considerable extent, of the character of a Church Discipline Act; and he remarked that while in the statement of ecclesiastical duties the visitation of the sick and the instruction of the young were specifically alluded to, there was no mention of the Burial Service. He referred to that point merely as indicating how very careful they should be if they were to have that definition of ecclesiastical duties introduced for the first time into an Act of Parliament of that kind. He thought that the Commission of Inquiry proposed under the Bill was a very great improvement upon the Commission under the existing Acts. He was glad that the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill was willing to have it referred to a Select Committee.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he would not detain the House further than he felt it his duty to do, in the relation in which he had long stood to his hon. Friend and those who had preceded him, to echo the congratulations which had been so freely given to the hon. Member who had moved the second reading by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Mowbray). He was very glad to see that the House was disposed to encourage what he might well describe as an effort at self-reform on the part of the clerical profession, because this was an attempt to develop and insure the application of greater vitality and efficiency to the provisions of the Pluralities Act. Undoubtedly he was glad that the Bill was to be referred to a Select Committee, because the House would bear in mind that the pluralities were in former times a scandal and a shame in the Church of England, to a greater degree, probably, than in any other religious body; and, therefore, he thought it most proper and becoming that even in the reforming provisions of his hon. Friend a jealous eye should be directed, lest in any case there should be the possibility of facilitating the re-introduction of that gross abuse. But undoubtedly the main fact recognized by the Bill was one of obvious necessity—namely, that as the value of labour had increased generally during the last 40 or nearly 50 years since the first Pluralities Act was passed—and he well recollected taking part in the discussions upon that Bill when it was in the House of Commons—they should therefore enlarge the provisions relating to the labour of curates so as to restore to efficiency provisions which had lost their efficiency in consequence of the increase of that value. He could only echo what had been said with respect to the difficulty of filling small benefices in certain cases. There happened to be a rather curious instance of a benefice of only £80 a-year, which, when he came into Office in 1880, had lapsed from the patron to the Bishop, and then from the Bishop to the Crown. The Crown was not able to fill it. Every effort was made, but he thought it was about three years before they succeeded. Now, a stipend of £80 a-year seemed very small indeed, but it was with a house, and with a population of only 40 persons; so that although the allowance relative to the amount of duty was by no means inconsiderable, it was a matter of the extremest difficulty to find a person to fill that benefice, and they thought themselves very fortunate when it was filled. He thought the best service he could render to his hon. Friend was to be brief in touching upon this matter, and in expressing his satisfaction on finding that the intelligence and ability which the hon. Gentleman had on different occasions exhibited in debate was now being addressed to the work of legislation, and he could only hope that they would be successful.

MR. PICTON

said, he had no doubt the object of the Bill was good; but he questioned very much the means by which it was proposed to be accomplished. The Prime Minister appeared to be pleased with that Bill, because it was a token on the part of the clerical profession of its desire to reform itself. He thought, however, that the clerical profession might reform itself without coming to that House for an Act of Parliament. He thought it highly improper that legislation should be brought to bear on an object which could be much better effected by the clergy in their own way. The Bill was based on strong denominational lines, which he thought very objectionable. The Commission of Inquiry into lapse of duty in a benefice was to be composed of three magistrates, members of the Church of England. He did not suppose that the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill meant that the term "members of the Church of England" should be used in the Bill in its wide legal sense; but, if so, he should have restricted it by some qualifying words. All such legislative reforms of the Church, however, had invariably been futile, and would continue to be so. To be successful they must be voluntary, and not brought about by law. The only possible reform of the Church was by disestablishment and disendowment; and he protested against the time of the House being occupied by such a Bill as was now before it. He would not challenge a division, however, and it would probably be hopeless if he did; but the Bill would, no doubt, be referred to a Select Committee, and then they would not hear of it again.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he did not think that was a suitable occasion for discussing the relations of Church and State. As to the point referred to by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton), he would suggest that, as in the Act establishing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the requirement should be not that the member "shall be a member of the Church of England," but that he "shall state that he is a member of the Church of England." This would avoid certain legal difficulties. On behalf of the Church he had to tender to the hon. Member thanks for introducing this Bill, and also to thank the Prime Minister for having given it his support. It was a proposal with which the clergy were in full accord, although some people might possibly think it was an interference with their rights.

MR. R. H. PAGET

joined in thanking the hon. Member for having introduced this Bill. As to the objection that the lay Member of the Commission was to be "a member of the Church of of England," he desired to point out that in the Benefices Resignation Act, 1871, there was an exactly similar provision. He regarded the Bill as an honest attempt on the part of the leaders of the Church to remove certain defects and to add to its efficiency. It should, in his opinion, be welcomed as an instalment of the legislation required to remove certain blots which now existed in the Church, and the removal of which would make it more efficient and more thoroughly able to discharge its duties and responsibilities to the great mass of the people of this country.

DR. CAMERON

said, he should not like it to be supposed, as it might be if the remarks of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) were allowed to pass unsupported, that there did not exist a strong feeling against this Bill. He objected to it, and he thought the mass of the Members on the Ministerial side of the House objected to it, on principle; but he did not suppose they would vote against it after the speech of the Prime Minister, although, when they were in Opposition, and sat on the other side of the House, they voted against all such legislation as this. There was a Bill introduced in the last Parliament for the reform of the Church of Scotland, for the abolition of patronage. That, in the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite, was a most laudable attempt to increase the efficiency and impartiality of the Church of Scotland; but it so happened that the Liberal Party sat on the other side of the House, and they voted en masse against the Abolition of Patronage Bill, and hon. Gentlemen who voted in that manner were not merely those who went in for Disestablishment, but the whole mass of the Liberal Party, which comprised in its ranks many friends of the Establishment. They had another example of the same sort—the Ritualist Act passed in the last Parliament. The Bill was brought in by the late Prime Minister for the purpose of dealing with what many people considered to be evils in the Church of England. A great number of Liberals admitted that the evils complained of existed; but, viewing the matter from the point of view inculcated by his hon. Friend, the whole Liberal Party went against the proposed Ritualistic legislation. It was not much use appealing to the Treasury Bench at this moment—the only occupant being his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kincardineshire (General Sir George Balfour)—and he did not know whether his hon. and gallant Friend had been left in possession of plenary powers; but if he had been, he hoped he would rise up and repudiate such retrogression from Liberal principles as that they had seen on the part of the Prime Minister to-day, viewed in the light of the spirit in which the Liberal Party had always approached these matters when they sat on the other side of the House.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

supported the Bill. He could not, however, approve of the exceptional power placed in the hands of the Welsh Bishops; and he thought that they ought not to act without the sanction of the Commission, which was established to strengthen Episcopal hands. There was no reason why a Welsh Bishop should have more power with regard to requiring certain services than an English Bishop. In the hope that an Amendment would be introduced in that respect, he should not object if it were thought best to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.

MR. WARTON

observed that every line of the Bill bristled with unconsidered points and crude suggestions, and involved innumerable difficulties. It was also wide enough to include all ecclesiastical duties, after having mentioned only a few, and placed too much power in the hands of the Bishops to the disadvantage of the clergy. This was not a time in which additional pecuniary burdens should be thrown upon the poorer incumbents. For the reasons which he had given he should move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Warton.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

MR. TOMLINSON

supported the second reading of the Bill, in view of the proposal of the hon. Member in charge of the measure that it should be sent before a Select Committee. He then proceeded to make some detailed criticism upon the Bill, and suggested various Amendments which ought to be introduced into the measure in Committee.

MR. J. C. HUBBARD

supported the Bill, but thought Clause 14 would require consideration in Committee, because there was at present no limitation in' regard to the population.

COLONEL MAKINS

said, he was glad that the Bill had met with so much approval on both sides of the House; but as it contained some provisions which might prove dangerous he could only support it on the understanding that it was to be referred to a Select Committee.

Question put, and agreed to.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill committed to a Select Committee.