VISCOUNT DUNGANNONrose to call Attention to the Case of Dr. Hinds, late Bishop of Norwich; and ask the Lord President of the Council, Whether it is intended in the next Session of Parliament to introduce a Bill for making Provision for Bishops who in consequence of advanced Age or Ill-health may be desirous of resigning their Sees? He believed the case of Dr. Hinds to be one of peculiar hardship. It would be remembered that on the retirement of Bishops Blomfield and Maltby from the sees of London and Durham, a special Act was passed, settling on them retiring allowances for the remainder of their lives; but Bishop Hinds who resigned his bishopric of Norwich subsequently, did so quite unconditionally, and with no promise of receiving any such consideration. He (Viscount Dungannon) had no personal acquaintance with Dr. Hinds, and had only taken his case up as a matter of justice. He believed that Dr. Hinds, in the earlier part of his life, was principal of the Codrington College at Barbadoes, he 597 then became examining chaplain to the present Archbishop of Dublin, by whom he was preferred to a living near Dublin, was afterwards raised to the Deanery of Carlisle, whence lie was removed to the See of Norwich. In consequence of ill-health, which made him quite unable to discharge the duties of his See, he unconditionally resigned it. He could not believe that either Her Majesty's Government or the Ecclesiastical Commission would suffer such a case of injustice as that of Dr. Hinds' to be overlooked. Had Dr. Hinds retired at the same time as Bishops Mai thy and Blomfield no doubt some compensation would have been afforded to him to pass the remainder of his days in ease and comfort. The retiring pensions of those two Bishops, amounting together to £11,000 a year, reverted on their death to the Ecclesiastical Commission, and it was not too much to expect that out of that sum a small allowance would be made to Dr. Hinds, Dr. Hinds had now reached the age of threescore and ten, and he had reason to believe that a very small pension would be sufficient to meet all his requirements during the remainder of his life. It had often been complained that Bishops held their Sees to an advanced period of life, when they were no longer equal to the duties they had to discharge; and lie could not but consider that it would be very desirable to introduce a measure to make provision for Bishops who wished to retire from old age or failing health. Bishops could not be expected to resign their Sees without such a provision, and bring themselves from a position—he would not say of affluence—but of competency to one of comparative indigence. The private patrimony of Bishops was in general small, for they were in most instances selected for their high office in consequence of their individual merits and their services in the cause of religion. He could state too that, as far his knowledge went, they were as a body remarkable for their liberality and their readiness to contribute to the promotion of every charitable undertaking; and it was, therefore, the more becoming and the more necessary that some provision should be made for them in the event of their finding themselves compelled by old age or ill-health to resign their high offices. Dr. Hinds, who was a conscientious and high-minded man, had unconditionally resigned his distinguished position when he found he was no longer equal to its duties; but it was quite possible for him to have made some bargain before doing 598 so; and because he had not, it was unjust to disregard his claim.
§ EARL GRANVILLEconcurred entirely in all that had fallen from the noble Lord with reference to the high character of Dr. Hinds. He believed he was held in the highest, estimation by all who were acquainted with him. No doubt his case was a very hard cue; but, both with regard to bin) and with regard to the general question of providing retiring allowances for Bishops, there were the greatest difficulties in the way of arriving at a satisfactory settlement. The late Earl of Harrowby had endeavoured to effect some satisfactory arrangement of the question; but notwithstanding the good-will with which he embarked in the undertaking, he unfortunately failed. The present Government had taken great pains to come to some conclusion, but unfortunately they had not been able to arrive at a satisfactory one. The great difficulty was to say out of what fund a retiring pension of this sort should come. In the case of Dr. Hinds it was impossible that tin; pension could be taken from the revenues of the See. With regard to Bishop Blomfield and Bishop Maltby, there was a large property belonging to their Sees which was available for the purpose, and which reverted to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners at their deaths; but in the case of Dr. Hinds there was no such property belonging to the Sec of Norwich from which a similar provision could be made. Her Majesty's Government had not been able to frame any general scheme by which the object the noble Lord had in view could be obtained.
§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDEKLEYthought that every one must sympathize with Dr. Hinds, who had acted so disinterestedly. No doubt there were difficulties in the way of applying a remedy to the case of Dr. Hinds, but he did not see why the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should not come forward to meet the case. It was the more incumbent on them to do so, as he understood that they had recently added £1,000 a year to the stipend of the Dean of York, out of their Common Fund, and he should like to hear what objection there was to drawing on the same fund for pensioning Dr. Hinds. Deans bad fewer duties to perform than any of the functionaries of the Church, and if the Commissioners could afford to increase their stipends at this rate, they might justly apply an equal sum to providing a pension for any Bishop who might wish to take the same course 599 as Dr. Hinds. He should be glad to hear from any member of the Ecclesiastical Commission who might be present, whether there was any truth in the statement that this increase to the stipend of the Dean of York was objected to by all the lay members of the Commission, and that it was carried entirely by the ecclesiastical members. He should also be glad to know on what ground the Commissioners justified themselves in making this increase, which was the most inexcusable he had ever heard of. When they considered that £1,000 would have increased 50 livings from £50 to £100 a year, and that every one agreed £100 a year was the minimum which a clergyman of the Church of England ought to receive, it did seem that this £1,000 a year increase to the Deanery of York was an appropriation of money which would have been more properly applied to the increase of small livings.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONregretted that the noble Earl, who was a prominent member of the Ecclesiastical Commission (the Earl of Chichester), was not present to give an answer to the question as to the Deanery of York. It was an inaccurate statement to say that the ecclesiastical members of the Commission voted on one side and the lay members on the other side, upon this question of the income of the Dean of York. According to his recollection, there had not been any division in the Ecclesiastical Commission on the subject. The case of the Deanery of York was peculiar. It was not true that the income had been raised from £1,000 to £2,000 a year. The question referred to the Commission was this,—what was tie proper salary which ought to be given to the Dean of York under the Act of Parliament? and the Commissioners had come to the conclusion that it should be £2,000 a year. The Deanery was worth nearly £3,000 a year at the time it became vacant, on the appointment of the gentleman who now so worthily held it. It was impossible to conceive anything more inaccurate or untrue than the impression that all deaneries were reduced to £1,000 a year. It was required that all above £2,000 a year should be reduced to £2,000 a year, and all below £1,000 a year should be raised to £1,000 a year, but there was no law which stated that no deanery should be above a £1,000 a year. The question referred to the Commissioners was simply what was the proper income to give to the Dean of York, and they were acting as to the law of the case 600 in accordance with the opinion of two sets of law officers of the Crown—the law officers of the late and of the present Government—when without a division, as he believed, the lay and ecclesiastical members recommended to Her Majesty in Council to give the Dean of York the income to which he was entitled under the Act of Parliament. He had great pleasure in being able to say that the statement which the noble Lord had heard was erroneous.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he had heard with some surprise the statement of the right rev. Prelate. Although he had not expected the question to be raised, he had a perfect recollection of what took place when he was in office with regard to the Deanery of York. When the right rev. Prelate spoke of the question submitted to the Commissioners, he did not know by whom it was submitted; but this he knew, that a relative of the Dean assured him that the Dean had made no application or request for an augmentation of salary, and was not aware of the intention until he was informed that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had come to the conclusion to raise his stipend. He was free to admit that, looking at the circumstances of the Deanery of York and some other deaneries, and considering the amount of buildings to be kept up and the general expenses those dignitaries were expected to incur, a person without a private fortune would find it difficult to hold the office and do justice to it with £1,000 a year. But, as to there having been no difference of opinion between the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the contrary was represented to him when he was in office. He did not say that the difference of opinion was between lay and ecclesiastical members, but there was a considerable difference of opinion, and his right hon. Friend who informed him of the facts of the case also told him that he feared the Commissioners would come to the Resolution to raise the stipend to £2,000 a year, in opposition to the intentions of Parliament. He (the Earl of Derby) requested his right hon. Friend to state to the Commissioners that he hoped no such question would be raised, and that, if such a decision were come to, he should exercise his authority as First Lord of the Treasury to refuse the sanction of the Treasury to the arrangement until it had received the authority of Parliament. He had heard with surprise the statement that there had been no difference of opinion among the Commissioners. He said no- 601 thing as to the merits, but he thought that, after the general impression which prevailed, it was a most unfortunate circumstance that the Eclesiastical Commissioners, without the sanction of Parliament, should have taken on themselves to increase the income of the Dean of York from £1,000 to £2,000 a year.
§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYasked whether any record was kept of the votes of the Commissioners? He understood that there had been in the Ecclesiastical Commission some proceedings of such a nature that one of the members, for some reason or another, moved that henceforth divisions should be recorded so that they might be presented, if called for, to Parliament. It was clear, from the language of one of the Commissioners "in another place," that he must have opposed the proposal.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, his statement was this—that, whatever difference of opinion there might have been individually among the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who were a large body, many of whom did not often give the Commission the benefit of their presence, yet, with regard to the Dean of York, the decision of the Commissioners was adopted without any indication that their opinions were divided.
§ LORD OVERSTONEwished to repeat the question which had been put to the right rev. Prelate by the noble Lord near him (Lord Stanley of Alderley). Was there any record kept of the divisions of the Commissioners? He would ask, further, whether it was not true that it was in consequence of the difference of opinion which had prevailed upon this very subject that one of the Commissioners had proposed that their votes should in future be recorded?
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, such a Motion had been made, and had been unanimously adopted; but he could not say what were the motives that had induced its author to propose it. It certainly, however, had nothing to do with any division in reference to the stipend of the Dean of York, because no such division had taken place.
§ LORD OVERSTONEasked, whether there was any record of any proceeding upon this subject.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that there was, and that the papers were ready to be laid before Parliament.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR,as an ex- 602 officio Commissioner, regretted that he was unable to give their Lordships any information on the matter, and disclaimed all responsibility in connection with it.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYwished to know whether the noble Earl the President of the Council had received any communicaltion on the subject from the Ecclesiastica Commission, and whether his sanction was given to the Order in Council by which the increase of salary was authorized?
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he had received the Order in Council unaccompanied by any other document.