Lords Sitting of 12 July 1870

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Consolidated Fund (£9,000,000)*; Ecclesiastical Courts (26)postponed.
Committee—Prayer Book (Table of Lessons) (127–202).
Report—Dividends and Stock* (200); Sligo and Cashel Disfranchisement* (201).
Third Reading — Benefices Resignation (178); Sale of Poisons (Ireland)* (149), and passed.
Withdrawn — Contagious Diseases Prevention (Metropolis) (151).

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES PREVENTION (METROPOLIS) BILL—(No. 151.)
(The Marquess Townshend.)
CONTAGIOUS DISEASES PREVENTION (METROPOLIS) BILL—(No. 151.)

  SECOND READING. BILL WITHDRAWN.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE MARQUESS TOWNSHEND, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he regretted that a subject of such importance had not been taken up by the Government. If during the Plague of London certain districts had been placed under regulations in order to prevent the spread of the visitation, while in other districts no precautions were taken, it would have been thought very anomalous; yet this was

  97
  the course the Government were pursuing in applying preventive measures to certain garrison towns, while leaving the rest of the country uncared for. No reason could be given why the civil population should be excluded from the benefit of the Acts, nor why our soldiers and sailors should lose the protection which they enjoyed at certain garrison towns if they removed to other places. London was the very hotbed of the disease; and here, if anywhere, the provisions of the Acts were necessary.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess Townshend.)
  THE EARL OF MORLEYthought that, considering the delicate nature of the subject, he should be consulting their Lordships' wishes by confining his remarks within as small limits as possible, especially as a prolongation of the discussion could lead to no practical result, and was likely rather to injure than promote the cause of those who desired an extension of those Acts. His noble Friend proposed to extend the operation of the Contagious Diseases Acts front garrison towns to the metropolis, and ultimately to the whole country. The noble Marquess must excuse him if he declined to follow him through the arguments by which he endeavoured to support that proposal. A Commission had already been issued by the Government to inquire into the operation and effects of the law as it at present stood in relation to this subject. That Commission had been issued at the earnest request and desire of a large proportion of the Members of the House of Commons, and in consequence of a feeling which had been loudly expressed in many parts of the country adverse to the existence of those Acts. Considering that a Commission was sitting upon the subject, it was in his opinion premature now to bring the matter forward. He hoped, therefore, that the Bill would be withdrawn.
  THE MARQUESS TOWNSHENDthought that the appointment of the Commission had the effect of delaying legislation upon the subject.
  Motion and Bill (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS BILL—(No.26.)
(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS BILL—(No.26.)

  SECOND READING POSTRONED.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that on previous occasions he had been compelled to postpone the second reading of this Bill, and was again forced to do so, for reasons which he hoped their Lordships would allow him briefly to state. In March last he moved for some Returns on finance and business from the diocesan Courts; but up to the present time, out of 27 dioceses, seven had failed to recognize the authority of their Lordships' House, having made no Return whatever. These seven defaulting dioceses were St. Davids, Chichester, Manchester, Bangor, Worcester, Hereford, and Salisbury. Twenty dioceses had made Returns, but had made them so late that it was quite impossible to have had them printed in time for discussion this evening. With reference to the Returns relating to the registries of the various dioceses, which had long been in a most disgraceful condition, and which were moved for by the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls, Returns had been received from 10 dioceses. His object in moving for Returns of the moneys received by the diocesan Courts was to satisfy the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and several right rev. Prelates, who doubted whether the receipts were as large as he had estimated them. As far as he had been able to read them, he could not say that the Returns were very accurate. He had, however, applied to another source for information—namely, to the Registrar General's Office, in order that he might procure a Return of the number of marriages celebrated yearly by licence and by special licence. He had accordingly obtained a Return of the yearly average number of these marriages for the 10 years 1859 to 1868, inclusive. That average number was 19,861, and the fees paid to the registrars for these licences was £40,226 per annum. This sum by no means represented the whole sum paid to the registrars, for he had shown that the fees levied on the parochial clergy, no Return of which had yet been made, amounted to £20,000 a year—and, indeed, he believed

  99
  to as much as £30,000. In that case £70,000 a year was raised from the public and paid into the hands of the registrars, while no account whatever had been given of the way in which the money was expended. The Bill having been a considerable time before their Lordships, he thought he was justified in asking them to say Aye or No to its principle; he should, therefore, whether the Returns were ready or not, propose the second reading on Tuesday next, and, if necessary, take the sense of the House upon it.
  THE BISHOP OF MANCHESTER, as the representative of one of the dioceses described as delinquents, wished to state that, before leaving Manchester last week, he inquired whether the Retimes had been sent in or not—he had made previous inquiries and had endeavoured to expedite the matter — and he was informed by the deputy registrar that the Returns were sent in on Thursday last.
  Second Reading put off to Tuesday next.

PRAYER BOOK (TABLE OF LESSONS) BILL—(No. 127.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
PRAYER BOOK (TABLE OF LESSONS) BILL—(No. 127.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1 (Short title).
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYmoved to omit the word ("Lectionary") and insert ("Table of Lessons").
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Substitution of Table of Lesson in Schedule for old Tables) agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORmoved an additional clause, suggested by the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of York), providing that—
  "No suit shall be instituted against any clerk for any offence against this Act in following the Topic of Lessons hitherto in legal use, alleged to be committed prior to the 1st of January, 1872."
  The Act would come into operation on the 1st of January next; but, as in rural districts the Prayer Books might not be altered by that date, it was thought reasonable that no prosecution should be
  100
  instituted for non-compliance with it during the ensuing year.
  Clause agreed to.
  Schedule, Part II.,
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved to omit from the Schedule the paragraph setting forth the "Order how the rest of Holy Scripture is appointed to beread;" to omit the paragraph relating to alternative Lessons at Evening Service, on the ground that this service was sufficiently explained without it, and that it might, by its ambiguity, lead to the inconvenient practice of reading a later chapter of a particular Book before an earlier one.
  Amendment agreed to; Paragraph struck out.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKmoved to insert in the paragraph permitting "other Lessons" with the consent of the Ordinary to be substituted for those appointed in the Table, the word "special," with a view to limit the permission by the Ordinary of a deviation from the Table of Lessons to special services, as harvest thanksgivings for instance. It was not desirable to make the choice of lessons entirely an open question between the Ordinary and the clergyman.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE BISHOP OF LINCOLNsaid, that according to the Schedule as it stood at present a clergyman who held three services in his church would be obliged to repeat in the evening the same set of Psalms which had been read in the afternoon. This would become a merely mechanical operation with some clergymen, and, moreover, it might happen that mournful Psalms would have to be read on joyful occasions, and vice versâ. He therefore moved the insertion of words to remedy this inconvenience.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPremarked that the Psalms did not form part of the Lessons, and, consequently, it would be necessary to alter the Preamble of the Bill if the right rev. Prelate's proposal were carried. This might open the door to other alterations, and he therefore trusted their Lordships would not accept the Amendment.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKagreed in the reason of the noble Earl. They were carrying out only a part of the recommendations of the Ritual Commissioners, and were strictly limited to the Table of Lessons.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORappealed to his right rev. Friend to withdraw the Amendment.
  THE BISHOP OF LINCOLNsaid, he would accede to what appeared to be the general opinion of the House. He might, however, bring the subject forward on some future occasion.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Schedule agreed to.
  On Question? That the Preamble be agreed to,
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYmoved to omit, lines 18, 19, and 20, the words—
  "And such revised Table of Lessons have been considered and approved of by the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury and by a Committee of the Convocation of York."
  He objected to anything that might seem to imply that the consent of Convocation was a necessary basis of legislation. If the words were intended to be a mere recital of a fact, he denied that the alleged act of Convocation was in any sense a legal act; and if they were intended as the recital of a fact of no importance whatever they were simply surplusage, and surplusage was very injurious in any Act of Parliament. Any Act of Convocation derived its authority from the subject-matter having been submitted to its consideration by the Queen, and from Her Majesty having subsequently approved the decision arrived at. But this question of the Table of Lessons had not been submitted by the Queen to Convocation, nor had Her Majesty in Council given her assent to the decision which was come to. Again, it was a very curious thing to state in an Act of Parliament that the whole of the Southern Province of Convocation, and only a Committee of the Northern Province had signified their approval. Besides, this was contrary to precedent. The Calendar and the Table of Lessons rested on the Act of 24 Geo. II.; but in the Preamble to that statute there was no reference whatever to Convocation. It might, perhaps, be urged that Convocation was not sitting in the year 1751, when that Act was passed; but surely that circumstance only afforded an additional proof that the approval of Convocation was not deemed necessary. He confessed his estimate of the two Houses of Convocation had not been raised by what had lately occurred. The debates on the subject
  102
  of the Œcumenical Council seemed to imply a complaint that His Holiness had not invited the representatives of the Church of England to sit at Rome with the other Bishops of the East and West. This was a sign of a spirit totally unsuited to a deliberative and independent body, which was, or ought to be, under no other than the control of the Crown and of Parliament. These, even apart from all other causes, gave him so much distrust of Convocation, that he trusted their Lordships would see the necessity of excluding from the Preamble the words of which he moved the omission.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, he was not affected by the severe remarks of the noble Earl, inasmuch as he presided over the Northern Province of Convocation. It was, however, a strange argument to say that because a deliberative assembly had erred on one subject its opinion was worth loss in regard to another. He admitted there was no reference to Convocation in the Act of 1751, but for that there was this good reason—that there was nothing on that occasion to take the opinion of Convocation upon, the object of that Act being merely to substitute the New Style for the Old, and on a question of astronomy Convocation had no peculiar claim to be heard. For his own part he did not take a very overweening view of the claims of Convocation; but still he thanked the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for stating in the Preamble to the Bill that Convocation had approved the new Lectionary. There must be many Members of that House who had not paid very great attention to the details of this difficult and elaborate Table, and who would consequently be glad to know that it had received the sanction and approval of the only assembly which represented the Church of England. He agreed that Convocation had no right to alter a canon or the like without a licence from the Crown; but it by no means followed that, as a deliberative assembly, Convocation was not entitled to express its opinion on important subjects. He trusted he should never again hear such an argument advanced in that House. The Convocation of the Northern Province had fully pronounced its opinion on this subject. Several years ago it passed a resolution to the effect that the Lectionary

  103
  required alteration, and that resolution was sent to the Ritual Commissioners, and formed part of the materials they had to deal with. Whatever titles the Convocations might have to confidence, they were, at all events, the only legal assemblies of the Church in this country, and this was a question which touched every clergyman and layman in the Church, and therefore Convocation had not soon good to be silent. If the Convocations had incurred legal penalties for expressing their opinion on a question which affected every clergyman and layman, those penalties could, of course, be enforced; but he trusted the noble and learned Lord would retain in the Preamble the statement of a fact which in the minds of many persons would carry considerable weight, and which could be offensive to none.
  EARL NELSON, as a layman, concurred in the remarks of the most rev. Prelate, and hoped the noble and learned Lord would retain the words in the Preamble. It was a subject for congratulation with him that what was proposed to be done had been carefully considered by a Royal Commission and approved by Convocation. The insertion of these words in the recital of the Act would be strictly in accordance with precedent. All the great statutes giving the force of law to the Reformation were founded upon resolutions agreed to in Convocation, and the sanction of Convocation was quoted in those Acts. The Act renouncing the supremacy of the Pope and asserting the Queen's supremacy, the Act for giving the cup to the laity, and the Act for allowing the marriage of the clergy were all first agreed to in Convocation; and the preface to the Prayer Book distinctly stated that in the first place a Commission was appointed to compile such a book, and that their report having been considered and endorsed by Convocation, the Sovereign asked both Houses of Parliament to give to that Report the force of law. He could not understand why so much jealousy of Convocation should be felt. It did not pretend to make laws, but only to express the views of the clergy. He hoped his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack would keep the words under discussion in the Bill, for the satisfaction of those who could not accept the new Table until Convocation had approved it.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, he could not agree with the noble Earl (Earl Nelson) that the insertion of these words in the recital would be in accordance with precedent. On the contrary, he believed that no instance could be found of the recital of an Act of Parliament mentioning the approval of Convocation, unless it also mentioned the fact that the opinion of Convocation had first of all been asked by the Sovereign. It was natural, proper, and desirable that the voice of Convocation should be heard on these subjects; but the constitutional method of ascertaining that opinion was by the Crown communicating to it a desire that it should express its views. He thought, therefore, that there were grave objections to the insertion of those words in the recital. That, he contended, was a constitutional principle which should not be departed from. The Act of Uniformity recited—
  "And afterwards the Convocations of both the Provinces of Canterbury and York, being by His Majesty called and assembled and now sitting, His Majesty hath been pleased to authorize and require the Presidents of the said Convocations, and other the Bishops and clergy of the same, to review the said Book of Common Prayer, &c. … Since which time, upon full and mature deliberation, the said Presidents, Bishops, and clergy of both Provinces have accordingly reviewed the said Book, and have made some alterations they think proper to be inserted therein, and have presented and exhibited the same unto His Majesty in writing in one Book, the Book of Common Prayer, &c, and His Majesty having duly considered, hath fully approved and allowed the same, and hath recommended to this present Parliament,"
  and so on. He would be sorry to legislate on questions of this kind without having the opinion of Convocation expressed upon them; but the proper and constitutional method of obtaining that opinion was by the Crown communicating to it a desire that it should express its views upon a subject stated, and then the fact that the Act was in accordance with the opinion of Convocation might with propriety be stated in the Preamble.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, stated that the approval of Convocation was cited in the Preamble merely for the sake of peace, and to prevent uneasiness and sensitiveness in the consciences of many. The Bill was founded on the general desire for some changes in the services; and when a body of 20,000 clergymen were required by Parliament to change forms in their services to which they had become

  105
  accustomed, it was not unreasonable that they should be fortified in their disposition to cheerful obedience by the knowledge that the change enacted had been agreed on by a Royal Commission and approved by Convocation. The time when the Church was supposed to consist of the clergy alone had long passed; but, on the other hand, the clergy, unlike the Nonconformist ministers, were debarred from sitting in the other House of Parliament, and therefore had no voice in either House—because it could scarcely be assumed that the right rev. Prelates in their Lordships' House represented on all occasions the opinions of the entire body of the clergy. Under these circumstances it was fortunate that, to a certain extent, they could make their opinions heard through the Houses of Convocation, which was in a great degree their representative chamber, and it was therefore natural that they should regard with satisfaction the recognition by Parliament of the opinions of that body. The change which it was now proposed to make in the Lectionary had fortunately received the sanction of one House of Convocation and of the Committee of the other. The words had been introduced into the Preamble for the sake of peace, and he hoped that the measure would be received generally with satisfaction.
  EARL GREY, while agreeing that this was a matter which ought to be settled in a manner satisfactory to the Church, was not prepared for the retention of the words proposed to be left out. He gladly recognized the right and importance of Convocation expressing its opinion on these subjects, but not that Parliament should be hampered and restricted in its action by words in the recital such as those now proposed. What would be the consequences of the precedent now proposed to be set? On some future and not distant occasion a reform in the Church might be proposed by Parliament to which Convocation objected, and the Legislature would then find itself arrested in its design and limited in its powers of dealing with the national Church by reason of Convocation, which, after all, was not the representative of the whole Church, or even of the whole clerical element of the Church. It was absolutely necessary for the safety of the Church that Parliament should have full power to deal with
  106
  Church matters as they thought right. Men must, indeed, he blind to the signs of the times who did not perceive that great reforms in the Church were necessary, and that if these reforms were not adopted by the Church from time to time, in order to keep herself in harmony with the wishes of the great bulk of the people, so as to retain their affection and confidence, the national Church could not be preserved. Let Convocation by all means make her voice heard on questions affecting the Church, and let all due regard be paid to that opinion; but he could not consent that she should have the right that would seem to be conferred upon her by the retention of these words in the recital of the Act. For these reasons, though far from regretting that Convocation had expressed an opinion, he felt bound to vote for the Amendment of the noble Earl to omit the reference to Convocation from the Preamble.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he could not help feeling that the consequences predicted by the noble Earl (Earl Grey), as about to follow from the retention of these words, came within the category of what Sydney Smith termed "hobgoblin arguments." The noble Earl had talked about Parliament giving up its legislative freedom. The danger of such an abnegation might, indeed, be serious; but, surety, the power of exaggeration could hardly be carried farther than when such results were gravely anticipated from the insertion of those few words in the Preamble of this Bill; if so, it might be possible to go further, and say that because it was recited in the Preamble that "the Commissioners" had recommended the revised Table of Lessons, in the same manner as Convocation was recited to have approved of it, Parliament had resigned its future power of dealing with questions of this description, except on the recommendation of Commissioners. Such a line of argument could only spring from the undue importance attached to these words, which really were very harmless, though he regretted that the words of the Act of Uniformity had not been more exactly followed. The object of the Government was to effect the great change proposed by the Bill as quietly as possible. They did not want to drag their coats before such of the clergy as might be inclined to pick a

  107
  quarrel with Parliament over the Lectionary. The noble and learned Lord having stated that the insertion of these words would secure the peaceful acceptance of the measure by the great body of the clergy, he should vote for their retention.
  On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Preamble? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 60; Not-Contents 24: Majority 36.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Preamble agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 202.)

BENEFICES RESIGNATION BILL.
(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
BENEFICES RESIGNATION BILL.

  (NO. 178.) THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the Motion for the Third Reading, read; Debate resumed accordingly.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he desired to say one or two words on the subject of this Bill. Though he was not prepared to say it might not be advisable to provide means by which disabled clergymen might, in certain cases, resign their benefices, he must express his opinion that some of the provisions of this Bill would materially interfere with the rights of patrons of benefices, and, through them, with the interests of the Church. The Bill provided that if a clergyman, incapacitated by age or infirmity, resigned his benefice, the Commissioners were to name the allowance to be assigned to the incumbent so resigning, which was in no case to exceed the amount of one-third of the income. Now, in the case of a living of, say, £150, if a reduction to the amount of one-third were made, the income of the benefice would be reduced to £100 a year. Now, though the patron might have been able to secure for the living a clergyman in whom he would have confidence if the stipend had remained at £150 a year, he would probably be estopped from getting as good a man for £100 a year. Clause 5, which provided for cases in which the clergyman holding a benefice became permanently disabled from mental
  108
  incapacity, appeared to him to be very imperfect. The Bishop was to move the archdeacon, and the archdeacon was to move the Lord Chancellor; but there was no statement in the clause as to who was to move the Bishop. Again, if the incumbent afflicted with lunacy should recover, the disposition made of his benefice during his illness would be illegal. There was no minimum of age stated, nor was there any definite limitation as to the amount of pension, so that a lunatic clergyman might carry off the whole income of the living. By the 15th clause an incumbent might undertake clerical duties elsewhere than in the benefice from which he retired, and if he did so, then his pension was to be diminished in a certain proportion. What would become of the part of the income so diminished? It must go somewhere. Was it to go to the living from which it was taken when the incumbent retired? If so, the new incumbent of the living from which the former incumbent was pensioned would never know what his income would be, because if the former incumbent gave up the clerical duties he had undertaken elsewhere, he would revert to his full original pension. Moreover, there was nothing in the Bill to prevent a clergyman from receiving a pension on retirement from a living, and afterwards obtaining a foreign chaplaincy, and receiving the emoluments of that office in addition to his undiminished pension. Again, in addition to the pension to be taken out of the stipend of the new incumbent, one-half of the expenses of the inquiry whether the retiring incumbent should be pensioned or not, was to be made a charge on the living. In conclusion, believing the Bill to be exceedingly badly drawn, he must ask their Lordships not to read it the third time.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, he did not apprehend that any of the details so ably criticized by the noble Duke were such that they might not have been amended, if necessary, in Committee, had proper attention been bestowed on the measure at that stage. Setting aside for the moment the interest of the patron, let him recall to their Lordships' recollection what the Bill was intended to do. There were many clergymen so broken down by age or protracted labour that they were no longer able to minister in the congregation;

  109
  and it was for their benefit, and for that of the parishes where they were placed, that this Bill had been introduced. He thought that a most important object; the Bill dealt with a matter of the utmost importance, both as regarded the interests of the parishioners and the interests of the Church. The cases in which the measure would be applied without the common consent of all the parties concerned were extremely few and rare. If, however, it had been necessary further to guard the rights of the patron than was done in the Bill, it was desirable that some suggestion with that object should have been made in Committee. With regard to clergymen afflicted with mental incapacity, when first introduced the Bill was defective; but a clause dealing with that point had been brought up by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack—who would be allowed by the noble Duke to be a high legal authority—which he thought would work beneficially. There were cases of permanent mental incapacity, and cases where a cure of the malady might be hoped for; and the Lord Chancellor would be made the judge of the cases where the incapacity was permanent. There were instances in his own diocese of mental incapacity, in which all parties wished for the retirement of the clergymen, even without a pension, and yet in the present state of the law the thing was impossible. It was really not the patron they had to deal with so much as the parishioners—the people who had to go on year after year under a clergyman who himself knew, as the whole parish knew, that he was no longer fit to discharge the duties attached to his position; and it was to be hoped that their Lordships would not rashly reject a measure adapted to remedy that state of things.
  LORD CAIRNScheerfully admitted that this Bill had been introduced from the best possible motives, to effect what was thought to be a desirable object, and that, at first sight, it looked an extremely plausible measure. There, however, all that he could say in favour of the Bill ended; and he would endeavour to show that there were grave doubts not whether the details of the Bill should be altered, but as to the propriety of their Lordships passing it at all. It had been assumed that there was an analogy between the present Bill and the Bill to
  110
  which their Lordships assented last year, dealing with Bishops who were anxious to retire from their sees; but there was no real analogy between them. In the case of a Bishop who was incapacitated from transacting the proper business of his diocese, things practically came to a dead-lock, and they had to choose between leaving the diocese without the proper care and attention of a Bishop at all, and authorizing him to retire on certain arrangements being made. On the other hand, when an incumbent was superannuated, from ill-health or infirmity, he had a remedy which the Bishop had not, for he could employ additional curates under his own superintendence, who could relieve him to any extent of his duty, and he would still remain the head of the parish. But, according to this Bill, there were no reasons assigned or grounds on which an incumbent might apply for his resignation. If any clergyman applied for a commission, a commission might be issued, and he would then state the reasons why he was desirous of resigning, which might be that he was too old or too young; or that he was ill or expected to be ill; or that he was unpopular in the parish, or that the parishioners were unpopular with him—or any other reason that he might allege. If the Bill passed, he believed it would be acted upon in a great number of cases: and would their Lordships sanction a measure which would have the effect in the course of a year or two of carrying off from many of the parishes of England one-third of the emoluments provided for the spiritual necessities of the parishioners—one-third of the fund which—as they were reminded when the Sequestration of Benefices Bill was before them — was the fund intended to be expended in relieving the spiritual wants of the parish? Was it desirable in the interests of the parishes themselves, that so large a sum should be carried off from the benefice? Supposing one of their Lordships to have the advowson of a living of £1,200 a year. The incumbent might be old and infirm, and the patron might already have selected an active and able clergyman whom he meant to present to the living as soon as it became vacant. But the present incumbent suddenly resigned under this Bill, carrying off one-third of the income, which would thus drop from £1,200 to £800. The clergyman who

  111
  might have been willing to take the living at £1,200 a year was unwilling or could not afford to take the responsibilities at £800 a year. The other £400 a year might make all the difference to him. The patron, therefore, could not get the best man, and was obliged to appoint a man at £800 a year, whose services might not be so profitable to the parish as those of the other might be; and thus they saddled the parish with an inferior man for the rest of his life, because they would not wait for a vacancy likely, perhaps, to occur before long from a natural cause. First, they did a wrong to the patron, and then to the parish whose interests they desired to serve. Then, under this Bill, nothing could be easier than for a clergyman who preferred to live abroad, or in a more agreeable climate, to carry off one-third of the emoluments, and superadd to them the emoluments of an English chaplaincy at a foreign station.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, there was a provision that if the incumbent took other duties, his pension would cease; or would be diminished by the amount of his emoluments.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, that as he read the Bill, it meant that in the event of the clergyman undertaking clerical duties elsewhere, his pension was to diminish in such proportion and for such period as the Bishop of the diocese to which he formerly belonged, and the Bishop into whose diocese he went might determine. But did that apply to the case of a foreign chaplaincy. He thought not. Then there was another extremely serious matter. Had the right rev. Prelates who had introduced this Bill considered what effect it would have on the law of assignments? If this Bill became law, they would not only require a measure dealing with the next presentations, but a much stronger measure dealing with advowsons. He could not conceive anything more likely to provoke danger to the best interests of the Church than the transactions which would spring up in advowsons and next presentations the moment they passed this Bill. He took the same objection to the Next Presentations Bill as to this. The error in both cases, was that the Bills went to make the livings void, instead of providing a remedy to meet the evil which might have arisen. Let the Bishop be enabled, if the holder of the benefice
  112
  did not exercise all the power which he ought to possess, to require that provision should be made out of the income of the living for the proper performance of the duties of the parish, and that would be sufficient to meet the difficulty. But let them not make the living void, because, if they did, they would bring about a multitude of resignations and produce a state of scandal in the Church which could not be too much deplored. At this late period of the Session, it was not possible to proceed further with a measure so defective in many of its provisions; and the same objections applied to another measure of a similar description which was now before their Lordships. He thought the better course would be to defer the consideration of the whole question, the importance of which he fully admitted, to another Session.
  THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOLsaid, that notwithstanding the ingenious and extremely plausible arguments of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns), he believed that the Bill would provide a remedy for a very great evil which now existed in the Church. The noble and learned Lord had stated that there was no analogy between the Bill passed last Session with respect to the retirement of the Bishops and the measure before their Lordships. According to the noble and learned Lord, the Bishop could not supply his own place in case of infirmity as the incumbent could, because the latter had only to employ curates. But where was the money to come from? And which was the best position for a parish—to be ministered over by a man who had no connection with it, or, when the incumbent retired, by a well-chosen, healthy, and active man who had taken his place? It was just as bad for a parish, quâ a parish, to be left to the superintendence of a weak incumbent as for a diocese to be left without the superintendence of a Bishop. It had been said very ingenuously that an incumbent would only have to fill up the schedule and say that he was not very well; or, perhaps, would not be very well tomorrow, and he would be allowed to resign. But what would the Commissioners be doing all that time? The Commissioners, at all events, would be honourable men, and might be supposed to have some interest in the parish. One

  113
  of them would be the rural dean or archdeacon, the incumbent would nominate another, and the Bishop another; and was it to be supposed that the Bishop would appoint a person that would be likely to allow any such abuse as had been suggested? Then objection had been taken to the words "a magistrate for the district." He submitted that these words meant a magistrate for the district in which the benefice was situated. Was not the Bishop to be supposed to take some interest in the parish—and if the incumbent should put forth some false reason for resigning, was the Bishop likely to be so much among the stars as not to be able to come down and test the matter? If the Commission were to be appointed in the manner provided by the Bill, he ventured to think that at least five-sixths of the objections urged on the other side would disappear. The noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) took a living at £150 a year, and said if they deducted £50 from this small income it would be almost impossible to fill the place; but if they could get a really good man for £150, he did not know that it would make so much difference to take away £50. Any person who had experience in filling up these small benefices must be aware that it was just as difficult to find a good man for an income of £150 as of £100. But the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) took a very different case—namely, a living of £1,200 a year, and, deducting £400, said—"You can get only an inferior man for £800." But he (the Bishop of Gloucester) would be happy to undertake to supply any number of really good, first-class men for livings of £800 a year. He was sorry to say the clerical profession, like other professions, was crowded, and a living of £800 a year was considered a very good prize. It had been said that English parishes might, under this Bill, be made to supply foreign chaplaincies; but there was a restraining power, and he thought their Lordships might fairly leave the matter to be adjusted between the Bishop of London and the Bishops of the other dioceses, as all of them would be concerned in preventing any parish from suffering wrong. Believing that the measure was fraught with great good to the Church at large, he confidently recommended it to their Lordships' favourable consideration.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that at this time of the Session it was extremely difficult to attend to all the business that came before their Lordships; but when attention was called to this measure, which affected the working of a large number of parishes, it was obvious that there were in it such defects as should prevent its being sent down in its present shape to the other House. After the arguments that had been advanced, he could not conscientiously vote for the Bill passing this stage in its present condition. He suggested that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.
  LORD DYNEVORsaid, that although he was very much interested in the success of this measure, he could not but see that it contained many defects, and thought it would not be satisfactory to the House of Commons. He therefore hoped their Lordships would refer the Bill to a Select Committee.
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid, he could not acquiesce in the suggestion of his noble Friend, because he entirely denied that there was in the Bill such a crowd of defects as had been suggested. The first defect that had been pointed out was that the 5th clause—that relating to lunatic clergymen — bore no mark of a legal mind, and one noble Lord had suggested that it was prepared by the clergy in Convocation, who were not lawyers. The clause, however, was one which the clergy had never seen before the Bill was printed; it was drawn by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and corrected by one of the most eminent members of the legal profession in the other House. He admitted, however, that the clause needed an alteration, which could be effected by inserting, with respect to the stipend, the simple words "not exceeding one-third of the value of the benefice," and if the Bill were read a third time he should propose such an Amendment before the Bill was passed. The use of the word "district" was an error, and could be amended by substituting the phrase "petty sessional division." He thought any difficulty which might arise in respect to a foreign chaplaincy would be obviated by giving jurisdiction in the matter either to the Bishop of London or the Bishop in whose diocese the living in question was situated. The real objection to the Bill was rather that

  115
  his noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond) thought that the rights of patrons were not sufficiently regarded; but nothing injurious to those rights had been shown in the course of the debate. He did not believe that there was in the Bill anything which would injure such rights; but that, on the contrary, patrons would gain more than any other persons, because, instead of having a living occupied for many years by an utterly unfit man, a patron would be able to secure his patronage, and to present a man of strong health and fully capable of fulfilling the duties of his living. Believing that all the errors which had been pointed out might be very easily amended, he asked their Lordships to give a third reading to the Bill.
  On Question, That the Bill be now read 3a?—Their Lordships divided:—Contents 29: Not-Contents 18: Majority 11.
  Bill read 3a accordingly.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that it would be necessary to introduce several verbal Amendments in the Bill, and one clause had been inserted in the wrong place, although it had no inherent defect.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he was now confirmed in his belief that the Bill was not the production of a legal mind. He thought the Amendments ought to be printed, in order that it might be seen how far they would affect the Bill. He had no wish to impede its progress; but he understood the right rev. Prelate intended to amend almost all the clauses.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONwished to know what was the opinion of the Government on the subject.
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERpointed out that the printing of the Amendments would delay the passage of the Bill.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the points appeared to him to be minor ones.
  After a few words from Lord CHURSTON,
  Amendments made.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.