HL Deb 21 July 1856 vol 143 cc1102-3

Die Lunœ, 21° Julii, 1856.

Against Third Reading of The Bishops of London and Durham Retirement Bill. DISSENTIENT—"1. Because, by the Act of 26 Hen. VIII., c. 14, ss. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, Her Majesty may, by her Royal letters patent, at the instance of any Bishop, out of two spiritual persons being learned and of good conversation, appoint a Titular Bishop for each diocese, in aid of the several Bishops, for a time to be limited by them, and such Suffragan Bishops may lawfully be paid by them out of their several revenues. 2. Because any Act of Parliament on the subject of Resignations and Pensions of Bishops should be first considered (as it is in the nature of a Money Bill) in the Honourable the House of Commons, and should provide for the case of all living and future Archbishops and Bishops and Incumbents, and might therein incorporate an Act similar to 52 Geo. III., c. 62 (which applies solely to Ireland), for England and Wales. DENMAN. DISSENTIENT— "1. Because the Bill is one of an abstract and personal character, framed to meet the case of two individual Bishops, and not one of a general and comprehensive nature. 2. Because the Bill was introduced at so late a period of the Session as to render any discussion as regards either its principle, or the consequences it might involve by establishing an inconvenient and mischievous precedent, impossible. 3. Because no serious evils to either diocese or to the Church in general could reasonably be apprehended from allowing matters to continue in their present condition a few months longer, when ample time would be afforded for the proper framing and full consideration of a general measure of relief calculated to prove essentially beneficial to the interests of the Church and the extension of sound religion. 4. Because the sees of London and Durham are not at the present moment the only instance in which dioceses are deprived of the benefit of the active services of their Bishops, through age or infirmity; that such dioceses have an equal claim for consideration with those of London and Durham. Therefore, a Bill introduced to meet the case of two individual Bishops is unjust in principle, dangerous in practice, mischievous in example, and calculated to impede, rather than accelerate the progress of any future useful and comprehensive measure. DUNGANNON. For first and fourth Reasons, DENMAN.

House adjourned till To—morrow.