§ 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 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.