PLURALITIES BILL. (Hansard, 16 March 1832)

The Archbishop of Canterbury
moved, that their Lordships should go into Committee on the Pluralities Bill.

Lord Suffield
observed, that there were several points of this Bill to which he entertained objections. He did not wish to see the privilege taken away which the chaplaincy to the peerage conferred, and which he knew to be useful in many respects. He thought the Bill would be a great injury to individual rights, and would be no benefit to the Church. He thought it would not be a benefit to the poorer clergy, nor would it be so destructive of pluralities as it was generally believed. The Bill, in his opinion, did not do what it professed to do, and it did that which it ought not to do, so that he could call it (and he used the expression without the slightest wish to offend the most reverend Prelate) nothing but the grossest delusion. It was far from his wish to attribute to the most reverend Prelate the desire to render it so. Who were the advisers of the most reverend Prelate who had framed the Bill he could not possibly tell, but certainly they had led the most reverend Prelate into producing what, he must repeat, appeared to him a gross delusion. The provision against the power of the Bishop of Norwich to erect small pluralities was highly objectionable, because in that diocess most of the parishes did not exceed 1,000 acres, and did not produce more than from 80l. to 100l. a year; and the churches were so close, that a clergyman could with ease officiate in more than one, and thus obtain what would be a decent provision. No man was more friendly to the Church than he was, and church property, he conceived, ought to be preserved and devoted to religious purposes. But this Bill passed over the abuse of the union of large livings, while it limited that of small ones. The principle on which he wished to go, was that of value, and he would give to the Archbishop of Canterbury, as head of the church, and to the other Bishops, particularly to the Bishop of Norwich, large discretionary powers, as to the granting of pluralities; but he would restrain all these pluralities within certain 316 limits as to the exercise of their power. He would not allow them to grant pluralities of a greater amount than 300l. a year, but he would have a strict return of all higher benefices. He did not make these observations in hostility to the Church, for he was one of its most zealous friends.

§ The Earl of Eldon
said, that the Bill was of an important character, and he was extremely desirous of stating his opinions upon it; it contained many provisions which were very objectionable. These might perhaps be obviated in the Committee, and he would therefore wish for time, in order to the full understanding of the measure. He hoped there would be no objection to postpone the Committee for two or three days, as he had been in that House on judicial matters since ten that morning, and he was not capable now of entering upon the Bill.

Lord Holland
was surprised to hear the request of the noble and learned Lord, for the last time the subject was under discussion, he declared he would take no more cognizance of it, but leave the Church to take care of itself; and now the noble and learned Lord asked for two or three days, because he could not attend the Committee that evening.

§ The Earl of Eldon
did not object to the noble Lord's wit at his expense, as he was happy to find the noble Lord would, upon any terms, recognize so humble a being as himself in that House.

The Archbishop of Canterbury
said, that he stood in a very difficult situation, for on the one hand he had the highest authority for doing what he did, while on the other he was told that his Bill was a gross delusion. That assertion threw discredit on the author of the Bill. At least it threw discredit on his understanding, that he should adopt the labours of men who only wished to practice a gross delusion. It was said that the Bill would operate badly upon the interests of the poorer clergy, and particularly on the poorer clergy of the diocese of Norwich. The noble Lord was mistaken as to the intentions and provisions of the Bill, with regard to the clergy of Norwich. The Bishop of that diocese, had with pleasure given up his right, and expressed his satisfaction at the provisions of the Bill, while the noble Lord (Lord Suffield) held an opinion quite the reverse. He had not heard any of the noble Lord's objections before to night, and he did licit precisely 317 comprehend them now. The noble Lord's observations were a little confused on this subject; and as he did not enter into any particulars of the plan he wished to propose, it was impossible to answer his objections. Whatever course noble Lords might desire to pursue, in order to discuss this measure, he should be prepared to agree to. It was his (the Archbishop's) wish to hear every objection that might be entertained, and his desire was, consistently with the rules of the House, to afford an opportunity for this being done. He apprehended, the Committee was the best stage for the purpose, and intended himself to propose one or two Amendments, and afterwards a day might be fixed for the discussion of the whole subject.

Lord Suffield
said, that if he had fallen into any confusion, it was owing to the want of ability, and not inclination. He should at a future stage endeavour to make his objections intelligible to their Lordships. His wish was to go into Committee to have the whole subject discussed.

The Bishop of London
rose merely for the purpose of correcting an erroneous impression which had gone abroad, that the holders of small benefices would be injured by the Bill. In his opinion it would have the contrary effect; inasmuch as it would enable the poor clergyman to hold two livings without a dispensation, the expense of procuring which was now considerable. At the same time he must say, that he felt some objections to the Bill, but these might be obviated in Committee. He did not think that the noble Lord ought to be censured for his objections, for when noble Lords suggested objections of this sort, it should be taken for granted that they did so for the advantage of the Church. He gave the noble Lord the credit. Of having done so in the present instance. He only regretted that an earlier opportunity had not been taken to state these objections, so that they might be discussed in time to allow the Bill to pass in the present Session; for if a measure of this kind was brought in—was suffered to be several weeks before the House—but was not passed through Parliament, and that course was pursued from year to year, the public would believe that they were in a conspiracy to defeat the real intention of the Bill, which was to restrain, if not to abolish, pluralities of benefices.

Lord Ellenborough
thought, that in 318 justice to the right reverend Prelate, who had taken so much trouble with this Bill, some day ought to be fixed upon when it might be brought forward for discussion, and he hoped their Lordships would fix the day, and that there should be no disappointment.

Lord King
agreed with his noble friend, that the standard of value ought to be taken in preference to the standard of distance, so that two or more rich livings should not be held together by the same individual. For instance, Stanhope and Winwick, in Lincolnshire, of 7,000l. a year, might both be held under this Bill, as in fact they were at present. If the standard of distance alone were taken, a clergyman who looked to a private patron might be utterly unable to obtain two livings from that patron, whose estates might lie scattered all over the country, while a clergyman who looked to the patronage of the Bishops would be sure to obtain that advantage, as almost all the patronage of a Bishop lay within the limits of his own diocese, and both these livings, if the standard of value was not adopted, might be rich livings.

The Archbishop of Canterbury
begged to be permitted to say one word as to the possibility of holding large livings under this Bill. The noble Lord who had spoken of this had made no allusion to the power vested in the Archbishop of Canterbury, who under the Bill was to have the power of giving a dispensation, or a licence for the holding of more than one living. By the Bill his powers, hitherto doubtful, would be settled; and when he accepted this power under the Bill, he did so under a responsibility, which it was not at all likely he would violate.

Lord Suffield
meant no discourtesy, nor had he an opportunity before to-night of stating his sentiments respecting this measure; but unless the standard of value were adopted, it would be quite possible under this Bill for the same person to hold the Bishopric of Winchester, the Deanery of Durham, the Rectory of Stanhope, and the Rectory of Winwick, the richest living in England.

Lord Kenyon
said, that with all due deference and respect for the right rev. Prelate he must object to the discretion which was given by this Bill to him in respect of the dispensing, power. What he anxiously wished for was, that a better provision should be made for the poorer 319 clergy, who were laborious and exemplary characters. At the same time he must express his surprise at the eagerness displayed by the right rev. Prelate opposite (the Bishop of London) in supporting a measure of this description, which went to prevent in future others from holding pluralities, when he had himself held at the same time a large living in London, and another in a distant part of the country.

The Archbishop of Canterbury
said, he regretted that his noble friend who had just spoken had fallen into the error of thinking that this Bill would not improve the condition of the poorer clergy, but he regretted still more the allusion to his right rev. friend, which he thought was most ungenerous. He could take upon himself to say, from personal observation, that if the duties of all the pluralities of England were as well performed as the two parishes alluded to, there could be no objection made as to pluralities.

Lord Kenyon
wished to explain. He did not mean to assert that the discretion vested in the Archbishop of Canterbury would be abused. Nothing was further from his intention than to question the manner in which the duties of the two parishes had been performed whilst the right rev. Prelate had been the incumbent. He, however, thought it strange that the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) should now be so eager to prevent the union of small livings, When he recollected that the right rev. Prelate had himself been the possessor of a large union.

The Bishop of London
said, that before he had accepted the Rectory of Bishops-gate, he had laid out more upon the Rectory of Chesterford than would have purchased the advowson of it. He had kept one curate at that parish, and had two in his London parish, whether he was in town or not. Under these circumstances, he had not had much scruple of conscience in accepting both livings; but even if he had been wrong, that did not afford a reason why he should wish the same erroneous system to be continued. He was in favour of the present Bill, because it was a step towards the restraint of pluralities, and because the line it adopted was in conformity with the ancient canons of the Church. He could not conceive upon what ground he was charged with an eager support of this Bill; as yet he had not shown any, and what hereafter 320 he might manifest, must necessarily be disinterested, as the Bill went to limit his own patronage. He begged at the same time to observe, that the number of episcopal was very small, compared with the number of lay pluralists.