THIRD READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE. (Hansard, 4 July 1870)

THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

said, that having given the matter his best consideration he was willing to accept several of the Amendments suggested by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns); but he did so reluctantly, and in order to facilitate the passing of the Bill, and to secure an instalment of justice. The principle ought to be understood and acted upon that benefices existed for the good of the parishioners, and not merely of the incumbents, and in that view he thought the provision of the Bill which entrusted the removal of a bankrupt clergyman to the Bishop of the diocese was the best course; but he clearly perceived that unless he acceded to the Amendments there would be no chance of carrying the Bill, because their Lordships intimated plainly that unless he consented to give an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council he could have no hope of carrying the Bill through. Rather than lose the Bill he was prepared to accede to that demand, although he was convinced there was no necessity for it, and that in suggesting that the appeal 1345 should be from the Bishop to the Archbishop he had been proposing nothing new. He might venture to say most distinctly that he never intended, under the guise of bringing in a Bill to remedy a very great abuse and scandal in the Church, to get any more power for the Episcopal Bench; and he thought he might appeal to the noble and learned Lord who had opposed the Bill, to say that he had not intended to impute any such motive. The appeal originally proposed in this case was analogous to that provided in the deprivation of a curate of his curacy. It was not intended that the Archbishop should have the power of taking from a clergyman his freehold, but simply that he should be the instrument to exercise a checking power over the Bishop by declaring, in certain cases, that it was expedient that that which was the law of the land should operate to prevent a clergyman who was utterly and hopelessly bankrupt from leaving his parish in the care of an underpaid curate, while the greater part of the income of his benefice went to satisfy the claims of his creditors. For his own part, he could not see what advantage could be derived from giving an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In a case where a Bishop or an Archbishop had given judgment against a clergyman on the ground that he had preached false doctrine, there might be good ground for permitting an appeal to the Privy Council, because it was possible that the Bishop or the Archbishop might have misjudged the case; but all that would have to be done by the Bishop or the Archbishop under the Bill would be to determine whether, the facts of the case being beyond dispute, the law should be enforced against the bankrupt clergyman, and he saw no ground in such a case for an appeal to the Privy Council. The Bill, as proposed to be altered by the noble and learned Lord, would at any rate give an instalment of the principle for which he contended, by enabling the Bishop, where an incumbent had been declared bankrupt, to make such provision for the performance of the spiritual duties of the office by appointing curates, and paying the necessary stipends. This would be an admission so far that the clergyman was not to have a right to give his benefice as security to an unlimited amount to his creditors; 1346 and, as he had previously observed, rather than lose the Bill he would accept the suggestions of his noble and learned Friend.

§ LORD CAIRNS

entirely agreed with the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Winchester) as to the motives which had actuated those who had introduced this measure. The Bill had been introduced to remedy what had been most properly described as a very great scandal, arising in cases where the incumbent of a benefice had become bankrupt, where the parish was left in the hands of an improperly paid curate, and where the income of the benefice was enjoyed by the creditors of the incumbent. All were agreed upon the necessity that existed for devising some means for obviating such an evil, and the only question that could arise upon the matter was as to the mode of effecting the object which all had in view. It was scarcely necessary for the right rev. Prelate to have disclaimed any intention of surreptitiously increasing the power of the Episcopal Bench by means of this Bill, because no one had ever thought of bringing such a charge against him. There was no foundation for any suggestion of the kind, and it would be most unfortunate if they were unable to discuss the merits of measures that might be proposed without imagining there was some underhand motive on the part of those who brought them forward. There were two ways by which the scandal to which he had adverted might be obviated—one was to give greater latitude to the Bishop of the diocese than at present existed to appropriate the income of the benefice to the spiritual wants of the parish, and the other was to allow the benefice after a certain lapse of time to be declared vacant and to be filled up in the ordinary course. He confessed he had a preference for the first method and a great objection to the latter. The Bill proposed to give the power to the Bishop in the first instance, with an appeal to the Archbishop. Since then it was clear that the Bishop or the Archbishop would have to exercise a judicial discretion under the Bill, he saw no reason why in this case the ordinary course in relation to ecclesiastical matters should not be followed, and an appeal he to the Privy Council. The course taken by the right rev. Prelate now was the right one. They should 1347 hold their hand, and not go further than was necessary at present.