The Archbishop of Canterburyrose to move the second reading of the Pluralities and Residence of the Clergy Bill. The most reverend prelate was understood to say, that the statute law relating to the subject of the Bill had been originally framed in the reign of Henry 8th, but with very little regard to the discipline of the church. Attempts to amend it had been made in several acts afterwards passed, but the whole system was extremely inconvenient, inefficient in the greatest degree, and productive of many abuses, for the correction of which no provision was made. A Bill on this subject had been introduced by a noble Friend opposite, known by the title of the statute of the 57th of George 3rd, which contained many salutary regulations and restrictions on this part of ecclesiastical government. By this act all the statutes regulating the government of the church were repealed, with the exception of that very important part of them relating to pluralities. So many difficulties surrounded the subject at that time, that it was considered expedient to leave that part of the law untouched till a subsequent period. The law, as it now stood, was to be found in the 57th George 3rd, and in that part of the 21st Henry 8th left unrepealed, relating to pluralities. In the present Bill it was proposed to repeal all the statutes now in existence respecting the government of the church, as far as pluralities, non-residence, and some other points were concerned, and to embrace the whole in one measure, making such regulations regarding pluralities as the exigences of the case might require, and providing for other matters connected with residence in such a manner 1181 as, it was hoped, might tend greatly to increase the efficiency of the church. With respect to pluralities, the most important part of the question, and that on which the rest almost entirely turned, the present state of the law was this:—The statute of Henry 8th forbade pluralities, but, at the same time, admitted certain very important exceptions. As matters now stood, two benefices at the distance of forty-five miles from each other might be held by any incumbent possessing certain qualifications, such as being chaplain to a nobleman, or having the degree of a bachelor of law or divinity. Another class of livings was entirely exempt from such regulations, of which, as the law now stood, any number might be held, being subject to no restriction but the will of the patron or of the ordinary. The remedies appointed for this state of things were seldom resorted to in practice, and the consequence was, that a considerable number of small livings were often held together, at a great distance from one another. There was also another description subject to no restrictions at all regarding pluralities. He alluded to the livings in collegiate churches. This was very hard on the clergy, because it afforded an opportunity of accumulating on one individual what might supply a comfortable competence to two or three, and at the same time occasion non-residence on many benefices, one of the greatest evils in the church. By the present law it was proposed to apply a remedy to these evils by enacting that in no case might more than two benefices be held together, and that only when they were within an interval of ten miles. In order to prevent any undue accumulation of preferments in cathedrals, it was further enacted that no person should hold more than one benefice with one cathedral preferment, and no person should hold preferment in more than one cathedral or collegiate church. The only exception to be made was in favour of archdeacons, who, as their office was very laborious, and in general ill paid, were exempted from this regulation. A further restriction in point of value would be imposed by this Bill. No two livings, under the provisions of the Bill, could be held together, unless their united value was less than 500l. a-year. No living above that amount could be held in conjunction with another benefice having the cure of souls, not excluding cathedral preferment, ex- 1182 cept in cases where it might be desirable to annex a living of small value and great population to another of larger value, in order to furnish the clergyman with better means of subsistence, and to provide better for the instruction of the people. This might be done when the bishop thought it expedient, in which case he was required to state his reasons for permitting such a relaxation of the law to the archbishop, and if he approved of it, the livings might be held together, after receiving the sanction of the king in council. It necessarily resulted from these provisions that all preferments held in contravention of the proposed Bill would be ipso facto void, and at the same time the whole system of dispensations, which formed part of the prerogative, if he might so call it, vested in the Archbishop of Canterbury, was done away with. With, regard to chaplains of noblemen, the Bill left to noblemen the power of appointing a chaplain as before, but merely deprived him of the rank which such an appointment now conferred. This, he had no doubt would be readily agreed to, when it was considered that, from the great additions lately made to the peerage, the possession of such a chaplaincy could hardly be regarded as conferring distinction. It must be obvious to their Lordships, that these restrictions upon the holding of benefices must be attended, in the present state of the church, with very great hardship to the clergy. Certainly, feeling as he did for the clergy, no less cogent motive than a regard for the good of the church and for the benefit that would be conferred on the curacies, could have induced him to have consented to such severe restrictions. There were, how- ever, circumstances that would in some measure soften this portion of the Bill. It happened in some cases that parishes of very small population and small in- conies lay adjacent to each other, neither furnishing a sufficient maintenance to the clergyman, nor giving him sufficient occupation. In such cases a union of the parishes would be very desirable. In some instances the same clergyman might be able to serve both, and might thus both obtain a larger income, and attend to the spiritual interests of his flock better than could be done by two independent incumbents. It would be the object of some enactments in this measure to give greater facilities for the union of contiguous benefices, 1183 and at the same time to prevent any abuse of these provisions from taking place. There were, on the other hand, unions now existing where large and wealthy parishes were held in conjunction, which it might be convenient to dissolve. It might be very conducive to the spiritual welfare of the people that such a separation should take place, and accordingly provision was made in the Bill for the severance of united benefices wherever it should be required. The next subject to which he would call the attention of their Lordships was that of residence. One of the greatest abuses in ecclesiastical discipline was acknowledged on all hands to be the non-residence of incumbents, It would be apparent, that as pluralities diminished, great progress would be made in reducing the number of non-residents. He held in his hand a return, made out some years ago, of the number of persons not residing on their benefices on account of exemption arising from the possession of other livings, amounting to upwards of 2,000. He trusted that some improvement had taken place since that time, but still he did not look for any material diminution in the number. He was inclined to think that there was some amendment, as the number of dispensations to hold pluralities had been much reduced of late years. He found by the return, that the cases of exemption from residence arising from pluralities were 2,000, while those arising from other causes were only 500 in number. Under the old Act many exemptions were permitted which he thought could not fairly be allowed. He would not trouble them with a list of those proposed to be abolished, because this part of the subject could be best considered in Committee. It was not intended, however, to deprive existing incumbents of the exemptions now enjoyed by them. He believed that the number of persons non-resident, in consequence of wanting proper glebe houses, was almost as great as that of those who were absent from holding pluralities. The Bill accordingly contained a provision to facilitate the borrowing of money for the rebuilding of glebe houses, and extended the period of the payments to twenty or thirty years. He would not detain the House by going into a minute detail of the regulations by which it was proposed to carry the Bill into effect. The Bill certainly increased the powers of the Bishops, and if the 1184 Bishop did not interfere to enforce residence, then the common process was open. The penalties inflicted by this Bill were the same as before. The Bill provided for the due administration of divine service during the absence of the incumbent. Further powers were given to the Bishops in cases of incapacity. It was very desirable that the Bishop should have the power to enforce in some instances, and to dispense with in others, two full services every week, and the present Bill would carry that object into effect. There were also two provisions, giving to the Bishop the appointment of the stipends to curates, and enacting that no spiritual person should serve more than two churches or two chapels, or one church and one chapel in one day—provisions which would, he trusted, do away with practices that were calculated to bring reproach upon the church. By the present Bill the same powers were conferred over benefices that were under sequestration as in all other cases of non-residence or plurality, and care had been taken to prevent any evasion of the effect of the measure; and it was proposed that all sequestrations under that Act should have priority over all others. He believed he had stated to the House the principal provisions of the Bill, and was afraid that he had already trespassed too long upon their attention, but when the deep importance of the subject was considered, when it was remembered that the existence of the Church, nay, the propriety of the existence of any Church, depended greatly upon the manner in which the services and duties of the Church were discharged, he could anticipate no opposition to sending the Bills into Committee. In Committee any faults might be remedied; and he, for one, should feel extremely obliged to any of their Lordships for any suggestions which might be considered as improvements upon the measure as it then stood. Upon the whole, however, he felt convinced that it was a measure calculated to do much towards promoting the efficiency of the Established Church, and towards doing away with the evils of pluralities and non-residence. In conclusion, he begged leave to move, that the Bill be now read a second time.
§ Lord Ashburtonsaid, it was impossible to read the proposed measure without seeing that it was extremely stringent upon the great body of the clergy: he al- 1185 luded especially to the provisions with regard to the appointment of curates and the control of the Bishops over the clergy; all of which might be extremely proper. He did not rise for the purpose of exciting any discussion upon that subject, but only to observe—and the right reverend Prelate would himself admit the justice of the proposition—that it was but fair that that large body, so materially affected by the Bill, should be afforded full time to learn in what manner that House was about to deal with them.
The Archbishop of Canterburywas fully as anxious as the noble Lord to afford every opportunity to the clergy of becoming acquainted with the provisions of the Bill, but he must beg leave to say, in reference to the stringency of the Bill, that, in comparison with the law as at present existing, and by that it must be judged of, it was by no means severe upon the clergy; for all the most stringent clauses in his Bill were to be found also in the old Bill, which was at the present time the law of the land.
§ Lord Ashburtonsaid, it certainly had appeared to him that considerable deviations had been made from the existing law; he had, however, too great a respect for the opinion of the reverend Prelate to advance in opposition any impression of his own; but when it was considered that the Bill would affect the interest of so many persons it was only justice to afford them every opportunity of becoming acquainted with the nature of the proposed alteration.
The Archbishop of Canterburyagreed with the noble Lord as far as the object could be effected; but it was almost impossible to attain it. What with the many misrepresentations of the measure which might be made by persons interested in opposing it, if they were to wait for the acquiescence of the great body of the clergy he was afraid that the Bill would never be allowed to pass.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, in point of fact, the Bill did appear more stringent than it really was; for he begged leave to inform their Lordships that in the most stringent parts of the measure there was no departure from the present law. He could assure them that by the present Bill the clergy should not be called upon for one farthing more than they were now liable to pay; that he presumed was the 1186 stringency of which the noble Lord mainly complained.
§ Lord Ashburtonhad alluded rather to the provision which enabled the Bishop to force non-resident incumbents to employ curates.
The Bishop of Londonbelieved the only case in which there was a difference between the two measures was in the provision which gave to the Bishops the power over unbeneficed, which they now only possessed over beneficed clergymen. He agreed with the noble Lord that every opportunity should be afforded to the clergy of becoming acquainted with the measure; and he believed the whole Bill had been printed in one of the most popular morning papers. The provisions were so numerous that the Bill must certainly last more than one night's Committee, and there would doubtless be some delay before it could be carried through that House; but when it was sent into the House of Commons, where they were not so cognizant of matters of that nature as many of their Lordships, the passing of the Bill would, in all probability, be protracted for a considerable time: and he (the Bishop of London) begged to express his firmest conviction that if that measure, or some other equivalent to it in its provisions, were not carried through Parliament in. the course of the present Session, the most serious injury to the Church would ensue.
§ Lord Ashburtonhad not risen for the purpose of exciting any discussion upon the present occasion, but merely to suggest the necessity of affording the clergy the means of acquiring the fullest information upon the subject.
§ The Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed.