§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, this Bill consisted of two parts. One part had reference to the resignation of Bishops, and the other was to amend the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 62, which provided that in the case of the mental incapacity of a Bishop a Commission should issue in order to supply proper superintendence of the diocese. The first part of the Bill met the difficulty which had been experienced in former attempts in the same direction, by providing that in case of the resignation of a Bishop the revenues of the see should be applied for the benefit at once of the retiring Bishop and of his coadjutor. It had been found impossible to provide any income for a retiring Bishop from any other source, and although inconvenience might arise from dividing the revenues of the see during the time when there was both a retired Bishop and a Bishop exercising jurisdiction, yet that inconvenience was not so great as that arising from the present state of things, there being at present no provision for the resignation of a Bishop. With regard to the second part of the Bill, he had followed as nearly as possible the precedent of the 6 & 7 Vict., which gave compulsory powers in cases of mental incapacity. Their Lordships were aware that under that Act a Commission might be issued in the case of a Bishop who was mentally incapacitated from discharging his duties, and that on the Report of that Commission another Bishop holding a see in England or Wales was appointed 1741 to administer the diocese. Provision was made in that Act that one-fifth part of the revenue should be paid to the assisting Bishop with which to meet his additional expenses; but the difficulty still remained of laying on one who had already enough to do in his own diocese, additional duties in the entire charge of another diocese. In this Bill it was proposed to meet that difficulty by providing that, instead of a Bishop already charged with a see in England or Wales, a Bishop-coadjutor, with right of succession, should be appointed. Provision was made to secure his payment and his right of succession to the see when it became vacant in various clauses, which, no doubt, their Lordships would carefully consider in Committee. The evil which the Bill was intended to remedy was one that had often been complained of, and the inconvenience arising from which had been felt by none more than by those who were charged with the administration of the several dioceses.
§ Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Archbishop of Canterbury.)
EARL NELSONsaid, he regretted the necessity, for such he feared it was, of limiting the income of a Bishop who would have to perform the entire duties of a diocese. In dioceses which were too large for the Bishops to visit their clergy, it was essential that they should have large incomes in order to be able to entertain their clergy, otherwise they would not see them at all; and he should have been glad if an arrangement could have been made for reviving some of the suppressed canonries, or for reserving some of the existing ones as a provision for retiring Bishops. He feared, however, that there was little chance of this being done. Residence in the cathedral city being very essential under the present management of large dioceses, he regretted that the Bill proposed to leave the episcopal residence to the retiring Bishop. This was, no doubt, designed as a kindness to him; but it was very desirable that his successor, having all the duties of the diocese, should also have the house, and he hoped this would be done, even should some larger sum be consequently allowed to the retiring Prelate. It being clear that a mentally incapacitated Bishop was less able to perform his duties than one who volun- 1742 tarily resigned, he could not see why the former should have a much larger income than the latter, nor why a coadjutor Bishop, who would have exactly the same duties as the successor to a retiring Bishop, should only have two-thirds of the income. Another anomaly in the Bill was that whereas a Bishop's capacity was to be determined by three judges—the Archbishop and two of the Bishops of the province—two Bishops only were, in the case of an Archbishop, to state in writing whether they considered him incapacitated. It was proposed, too, that his coadjutor should be nominated by the Crown from among the Bishops of his province; but, as he understood the Bill, the Bishop so nominated would retain the charge of his present diocese as well as that of the archbishopric. He thought the Bill might be amended as regarded some of its details.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, he thought the noble Earl (Earl Nelson) could not have read the Bill very closely. It was not necessary that the house should be occupied by the Bishop resigning, and this would be left to arrangement. He admitted the inconvenience which had been pointed out with regard to income; but a Bishop subjected to compulsory retirement was entitled to some consideration. If he retained the house he incurred a large expense, while, on the other hand, the coadjutor, beside the prospect of succession, would have the power of choosing a residence adapted to his means. As to Archbishops, they were rather better protected than the noble Earl supposed, for the only difference in their case was the substitution of another Bishop to take the place of the Archbishop, and constitute a court of three persons. He believed that on examination the Bill would be found the best practicable remedy for the sad condition of things which was at present unprovided for.
§ THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDsaid, he thought the Bill made very fair provision for retiring Bishops, but he doubted whether it went far enough. A provision should be made to meet the case of Bishops who, from their advanced period of life, though not mentally incapacitated, were incapable of performing their duties.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he must remind the noble Duke that it 1743 would be difficult to determine the particular point at which physical infirmity would justify the enforcement of a coadjutor. In such cases a Bishop could take his choice as to retiring, whereas in cases of mental incapacity he could not decide for himself. There might, in the lapse of centuries, be an occasional case which the Bill would not meet, but on the whole he believed it would be found sufficient.
§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, he hoped the right rev. Bench would agree on the adoption of an Amendment in the 3rd clause, which would make the same provisions apply to physical as to mental incapacity, for the public would expect that this should be secured.
THE BISHOP OP GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOLadmitted that the noble Duke's (the Duke of Somerset's) suggestion was deserving of consideration. It was difficult, however, to draw a line between that degree of infirmity which caused the loss of a Bishop's services to a diocese and that in which the presiding power of the mind might remain, though accompanied by physical weakness.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he was grateful to the right rev. Bench for having taken up a question of such urgency and importance, and he felt that it was a rather ungracious task to criticize the provisions of the Bill; but it was desirable before going into Committee to point out how it would strike lay Members of the House, and persons outside. The Bill proposed that a coadjutor Bishop should be appointed in certain cases, and should have an income of at least £2,000 a year from the see. Now, he would have to bear the whole burden and responsibility, and though Parliament would wish to deal tenderly with the retiring Bishop, it was not desirable that there should be so unsatisfactory a contrast between his position and that of the coadjutor as would exist under provisions of the Bill, which assigned to the retiring Bishop not less than £2,000 a year, besides all the temporalities and other emoluments, and, in certain cases, the episcopal palace. He would, moreover, have the power of initiating this state of things, for unless the incapacitated Bishop desired to retire, this part of the Bill could not come into force. In the case of a Bishop not taking the initiative the Bill shadowed 1744 out rather than detailed the course which was to be adopted, and pointed to the establishment of some tribunal the constitution and functions of which were not explained. Such a court would hardly be a satisfactory one, unless it contained a lay and legal element, competent to determine with precision the difficult question of mental capacity. One of the anomalies of the Bill was that in the case of an Archbishop the tribunal would not be the same. It might be greatly to the interest of the Church that an Archbishop should retire, but the Bill merely proposed the appointment of one of the Bishops of his province as coadjutor.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he understood that clause to provide that a Bishop-coadjutor might be appointed in the case of an Archbishop being incapacitated, and that where an Archbishop's capacity was in question there should be substituted for him such Bishop of his province as Her Majesty might appoint. This seemed to him consistent with his statement that a Bishop of the province might be appointed the Archbishop's coadjutor.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYexplained that the substitution of a Bishop of the province for the Archbishop was not for the purpose of acting as coadjutor, but for the purpose of sitting on the Commission, it being obvious that an Archbishop could not sit on the Commission by which his own lunacy was to be tried. When the Archbishop had been ascertained to be a lunatic, another person, and not one of the Bishops of the province, would be appointed to act as his coadjutor.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONaccepted this explanation as removing an objection which he was about to offer, but thought the terms of the clause were open to the construction he had put upon it. His criticisms were not conceived in a hostile spirit, but it was important, especially at this late period of the Session, that the details of the Bill should be carefully considered, and that ambiguities should be removed.
THE EARL OF LIMERICKremarked that while an incapacitated Bishop would be relieved from all his other duties, the Bill would continue to him the privilege of sitting in this House. The explana- 1745 tion given by the most rev. Prelate of the 11th clause raised some other objections to that clause, because from that explanation it would follow that the person to be appointed to assist the Archbishop need not necessarily be a Bishop at all.
§ THE EARL OF POWISsaid, he thought it was undesirable that the burden of the retiring allowance of a Bishop who was incapacitated should be thrown upon his successor. There was no doubt that, if not at the present moment, at least eventually, the episcopal property in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would be much more than sufficient to provide all the regular episcopal incomes, and, therefore, he thought such retiring allowances would form a legitimate charge, to be placed either wholly or in part upon those surplus funds. With regard to Bishops retiring on account of age, as in the case of the Civil Service, he thought there ought to be some limit as to the age at which applications to retire should be entertained—say, only from sixty-five or seventy years. With respect to the provision for investigating cases of alleged lunacy against a Bishop, it would, in his opinion, be much better that, as a Bishop was a public officer, on a representation being made to Her Majesty, Her Majesty should direct the Lunacy Commissioners, who were men of legal and medical experience, to conduct a formal inquiry and ascertain whether the alleged infirmity really existed. The part of Clause 11 which related to Archbishops and their coadjutors required some consideration. The coadjutor who was to be appointed was not only to discharge the ordinary duties of the Archbishop—that was to say, to carry on the discipline of the archdiocese of Canterbury or York; but, although a new man and just appointed, and being incapacitated from sitting in Parliament, he was to have power to institute legal inquiries, not only against priests, but against other Bishops of the province; for example, he might be allowed to prosecute the Bishops of London, Durham, or Winchester, who might have occupied their sees for ten or twenty years. It was difficult to say, in the case of the incapacity of the Archbishop, how his metropolitical functions were to be discharged; but it would not be proper to place those metropolitical functions in the hands of his junior and temporary successor.
§ LORD CAIRNSsaid, he wished to make a suggestion in regard to the amendment of the Bill. The 3rd clause pointed out the steps by which a coadjutor Bishop was to be appointed. Their Lordships' attention had been already called to the fact that it applied merely to the case of mental incapacity; and it was obvious that if the Bill became law in its present form it would be entirely inoperative to reach some of the cases which had occurred under their own observation, as to which certainly a strong public feeling had been expressed that there ought to be some legislation. There was another objection to the clause as it now stood. It contemplated proceedings of a somewhat judicial character; and there was this great anomaly, that the Archbishop, who was to be the principal Judge, was also the person who put the whole judicial proceeding in motion. The Archbishop was to be, he would not say the prosecutor, but the mover in setting the inquiry on foot. That was open to grave objection, and what he would suggest was that a great improvement of the Bill might be effected by providing that upon a representation being made to the Archbishop, emanating from the Dean and Chapter, who were the guardians of the spiritualities, the Archbishop should then call to his aid the two Bishops, as the clause provided, and should hold an inquiry. He would suggest that the clause should go further, and enact that upon the Dean and Chapter undertaking to prove a degree of physical infirmity sufficient permanently to incapacitate the Bishop from the discharge of his duties an inquiry should take place, and in the event of the Archbishop being satisfied of the truth of the representation he should have power to appoint a coadjutor. The case of infirmity of an Archbishop was a matter of great difficulty, and great caution ought to be exercised in providing for the discharge of the duties of the office. It would, in his opinion, be very objectionable to devolve the performance of the functions of an incapacitated Archbishop upon a coadjutor, who from the necessity of the case was not likely to have the experience that was required in a person appointed to such an office. It would be far better to provide for the actual resignation of the most reverend Prelate, the revenues of the sees being large enough to provide a retiring pen- 1747 sion for the Archbishop, and a sufficient income for his successor.
§ LORD REDESDALEsaid, he wished to call attention to one or two points which appeared to have been overlooked. Sometimes a man might for two or three years be subject to a slight infirmity, and a report might be made upon him according to the Bill; but when he recovered, what was to be his position, and what was to be the position of the see with two Bishops? Again, if some infirmity should happen to the coadjutor, what was to be done?
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that several of the difficulties which had been suggested were worthy of consideration, but most of them were met by the fact that this was in every respect a voluntary Bill. It was not intended to effect by any compulsory procedure whatever the resignation of any Bishop. If a man was absolutely incapable of having a will, evidence as to his supposed mental incapacity was to be submitted to one of the Secretaries of State—he supposed the Home Secretary—and then it remained for the Crown to make or not to make the appointment of a coadjutor as it should think fit. Under such circumstances there could not be any contemplation of doubtful cases, or such as involved serious difficulty in investigation. The Bill had for its object simply to provide for the discharge of necessary duties, in the one ease at the desire of the Bishop, and in the other where there was a clear and undoubted case of mental incapacity. That object seemed to him very desirable, and he had no doubt that their Lordships might make this in Committee a valuable measure.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, that the various suggestions which their Lordships had made should be taken into serious consideration before the Bill went into Committee. The noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns) had mentioned that the Dean and Chapter, being regarded as the guardians of the spiritualities, were the proper persons to make the representation. But the Dean and Chapter were not to be regarded as the guardians of the spiritualities except in the case of Archbishops' sees. The Archbishop was the guardian of the spiritualities in other cases, and therefore this Bill, as regarded incapacity, followed the prece- 1748 dent of chap. 62 of the 6th and 7th of the Queen. He himself thought there was an incongruity in a Bishop appointed coadjutor exercising metropolitical jurisdiction, and a provision to remedy that would be introduced in Committee. He trusted that it was only the first part of the Bill that would really have to be put into operation, and he would take that opportunity of saying that he could not but believe that as soon as the Houses of Parliament should have provided proper means to enable Bishops afflicted with physical infirmities to retire there would be no hesitation on the part of the persons incapacitated from availing themselves of the arrangements which should be made. From the correspondence which he had had with the right rev. Prelates who were so afflicted, he knew that their position was very painful to themselves, and he could not but believe that they would be very thankful to their Lordships and the other House of Parliament if they should put it within their reach to do what he was sure they were very anxious to do—namely, to commit their sees to more vigorous hands.
§ Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.