Lords Sitting of 14 March 1871

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Incorporation of Trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Ireland (41); Primitive Wesleyan Methodist Society of Ireland Regulation (42).
Committee — Prayer Book (Tables of Lessons) (29); Benefices Resignation (7–43).

PRIMITIVE WESLEYAN METHODIST SOCIETY OF IRELAND BILL. (PRIVATE BILLS.)
Order of the Day for the Second Reading of these Bills, read.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that these Bills had been brought in as Private Bills; but it seemed to him that they more properly belonged to Public Bills.
LORD CAIRNSsaid, he concurred in the objection of the noble Duke; and the noble Viscount (Viscount Eversley), who at present presided over the Committee of that House, had intimated his opinion that there would be great difficulty in proceeding with these measures as Private Bills. He had been communicated with by the promoters, who were anxious to withdraw them as Private Bills. He believed the objects which it was sought to attain were such as would commend themselves to their Lordships; and he therefore proposed that the Bills should be withdrawn and should be re-introduced as Public Bills—with the omission from the second of a scheme of incorporation which appeared objectionable, whether in a public or private measure.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR, whose attention had been called at an early date by the noble Viscount who at present

1969
acted as Chairman of Committees to the peculiar character of the Bills, concurred in this course. The objects of the measures, with the exception of the scheme of incorporation referred to by his noble and learned Friend, appeared legitimate.
VISCOUNT EVERSLEYsaid, he was glad the Bills were to be withdrawn in their present shape. Lord Redesdale had had an opportunity of reading them, and was of opinion that they should be Public Bills. His own somewhat lengthened experience in the House of Commons led him to the same conclusion, and he should have felt bound to oppose the measures as Private Bills.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading discharged. Then—
A Bill for the incorporation of the Irish Presbyterian Church Trustees—Was presented by The Lord CAIRNS; read 1a. (No. 41.)
A Bill to alter and regulate the proceedings and powers of the Primitive Wesleyan Methodist Society of Ireland, and for other purposes—Was presented by The Lord CAIRNS; read 1a. (No. 42.)

PRAYER BOOK (TABLES OF LESSONS) BILL.—(No. 29.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
PRAYER BOOK (TABLES OF LESSONS) BILL.—(No. 29.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  LORD CAIRNSmoved to omit from the Preamble the words—
  "And such revised Tables have been considered and approved of by the Convocation of the province of Canterbury, and by a committee of the Convocation of York."
  EARL NELSONsaid, that last year he could not have supported the Bill had it not been considered by Convocation; but, as it had been so considered, and as the recital was to be omitted, solely on the ground that Convocation had not received the special licence from the Crown necessary to enable them to do so legally, he should not oppose the Amendment. Admitting the impossibility of legislating on the other recommendations of the Ritual Commission, on account of the difference of opinion which prevailed among them on important points, he would suggest that Government might follow the constitutional course by giving Her Majesty's licence to Convocation to consider the Reports of the Commission. There
  1970
  would thus be a chance of divergencies being reconciled, and of some agreement being arrived at as a basis for legislation. It was most desirable that the Government should do what it could to secure unity of feeling. He would remind their Lordships that when, in William III.'s reign, the Government proposed legislation on the Report of a similar Commission, a Resolution was carried in this House affirming that a licence should first be given to Convocation to express its opinion on the subject.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the recital was inserted in conformity with the precedent of 1662; for though in the Act of Uniformity the approval of Convocation was not recited, it was distinctly stated in the Preface to the Prayer Book which that Act stamped with its authority. He did not think a licence from the Crown was necessary in this case, as Convocation passed no Act nor anything that required to be carried into effect, but simply expressed approbation of the Lectionary. To avoid, however, any difference of opinion on the point, he was willing to omit the recital.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, he would not say whether or not Convocation was justified in expressing an opinion; but, if Parliament thought proper to take notice of anything it had done, care should be taken that such action had been preceded by the usual licence or request from the Crown. In the absence of such a licence or request the recital ought to be omitted.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYthought Convocation had been rather hardly used. There was much force in his noble and learned Friend's (Lord Cairns') objection; and, as want of time was assigned last Session as the reason for the non-issue of the licence, it would have been only decent this year to issue the licence and obtain the opinion of Convocation in the proper form. The insertion of the recital and then its unceremonious omission would appear an undeserved slight on the clergy, such as would not conduce to the peace of the Church. He hoped that in the event of more important legislation care would be taken to obtain the properly authorized opinion of Convocation.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONalso feared that the Amendment would lead to some misunderstanding out-of-doors on the part of persons who looked up

  1971
  to Convocation as the representative of the Church. There was, however, a good deal of force in the objection to the recital in the present case.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONregretted that the opinion of Convocation had not been obtained in the proper way; but hoped it would be distinctly understood that the recital was omitted purely on formal grounds.
  Motion agreed to:—Amendment made.
  The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next.

BENEFICES RESIGNATION BILL—(No. 7.)
(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
BENEFICES RESIGNATION BILL—(No. 7.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  LORD ROMILLY, in the absence of the right rev. Prelate who had introduced the Bill (the Bishop of Winchester), moved that the Committee be postponed till Thursday.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee.
  An Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("on Thursday next.")
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 60; Not-Contents 23: Majority 37.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Definitions).
  LORD WESTBURYproposed the omission of the words of the sub-section—
  "And if in any case it shall, in the opinion of the Bishop, be doubtful what person or persons or corporation ought to act under the provisions of the Act, it shall be lawful for the Governors of the Bounty of Queen Anne to certify in writing under their Seal, the person, persons, or corporation, who ought so to act, and in such case the person, persons, or corporation so certified shall be deemed the patron for all the purposes of this Act; and the said Governors shall in their certificate specify and direct by whom the costs and expenses of and incident to their so certifying shall be paid, and the amount of such costs and expenses shall be recoverable by or for the said Governors as a debt at law or in equity."
  Under this sub-section any noble Lord might be waited upon by a deputy of the Governors and presented with a bill of costs of £120. On asking for an explanation he would be told—"The
  1972
  Bishop received an application for resignation from the incumbent of such and such a parish, and it became his duty to ascertain who was the patron? He looked into the will of your Lordship's father, and thought it doubtful whether the advowson was devised to you or not. He accordingly referred the matter to the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty; they considered it with great solemnity, and referred it to their solicitor. The solicitor began, more suo, to labour in his vocation — it is no sin for a man to labour in his vocation—and sent the will, with additional notes, to counsel; and the counsel, in his turn, said the point was doubtful. The Governors were eventually pleased to arrive at the conclusion that you were the patron, and out of mere gratitude to them you will, of course, pay this bill of £120." This might pass sub silentio if the decision was correct; but supposing the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty decided that the wrong man was the patron?—this wrong man paid the bill, and being made owner of the advowson for all the purposes of the Act, he would present the new incumbent. He would have a Parliamentary title to the advowson, to which he had no more right than the man in the moon.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONremarked that uncertainty as to the patron for the time being would only arise in exceptional cases, such as joint or alternate patronage, and the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty were accustomed to deal with such cases.
  Amendment agreed to; words struck out.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Limitation of Act).
  LORD CAIRNSmoved an Amendment excluding benefices of under £300 net yearly value from the operation of the Bill. A line ought to be drawn somewhere, for if a retiring pension of a third was charged on a living of £100 a-year, a fit man could not be induced to accept a living thus mulcted. Moreover, in cases where endowments of £200 or £280 had been raised by subscription, the object of the donors would be defeated by the available income being thus diminished. He would not propose a higher limit, as the operation of the Bill might be thereby so restricted as to be useless.
  Moved, at end of clause to add ("and shall not apply to any benefice under the net yearly value of £300.")—(The Lord Cairns).
  EARL NELSONsaid, the noble and learned Lord's Amendment, if adopted, would seriously affect the benefits of the Bill. There were three instances within his own knowledge of benefices of which the incomes were below £300 per annum; and in each case it would be greatly to the advantage, not only of the clergyman, but also of the parishioners, that they should come under the operation of the Bill. There was great difficulty in getting a curate in those cases of non-residence such as patrons would like to have in charge of a parish. In one case the clergyman now pays a curate £100 out of an income of less than £300. He would be glad to get away altogether, and it would be for the benefit of the parish that he should do so; but without the security of the permanent payment under this Bill. He was obliged to stay on, though he could do no duty. In the second case, he was able to obtain the services of the son where the clergyman was past duty altogether by being able to promise the son the next appointment. The third case was that of a parish suffering from the non-residence of the clergyman from ill-health. All the vicar got from the living, which contained a population of 1,400 souls, was £60 a-year; and for that he was obliged to keep a curate, and give him the use of the house, and to pay him a salary of £120 per annum. All these cases could be dealt with under the clause as it stood in the Bill. A curate in charge who had no prospect of succeeding to the incumbency was less likely to be zealous in his duties than a new clergyman, who would be the possessor of the benefice, and who would have the full income at the death of the retiring clergyman. Moreover, incapacitated clergymen would frequently be better off if they retired on a pension, than if they remained in the parish and had to keep a curate.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONpointed out that the Bill would not be applied to any living without full inquiry into the circumstances of the case. It would not, therefore, apply to small livings indiscriminately; nor would the pension necessarily amount to a third of the income.
  1974
  He thought, therefore, that no limit need be imposed.
  LORD DYNEVORalso opposed the Amendment, as the Bill was not compulsory, but left it optional with the clergyman who felt it difficult, from age or infirmity, to discharge the duties of his benefice, to apply to retire; and it provided for a full inquiry in every case. He knew an instance in which a clergyman would gladly retire on a small pension, as he possessed a small property which would supplement his income, but could not afford to resign without a pension.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, the danger was that small livings might be impoverished by being charged with pensions.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYthought the standard proposed by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns) was somewhat too high. To take one-third away from a living of £120 might preclude the parishioners from getting a new incumbent. The term "net yearly value" was likely to raise difficulties, and he would suggest that the gross value should be taken.
  EARL GREYremarked that a clergyman would gladly take a living at a small remuneration for a time, if he had the certainty of succeeding to the full income on the death of his predecessor, who might be a very old man. The Bishop would use his discretion in every case.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, he would have been glad if the pension could be charged on some external fund; but as it would be charged on the living, it was due to the parishioners that a small living should not be unduly impoverished, so as not to be worth any competent person's acceptance.
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid, he could not give way upon this point, as it involved the whole principle of the Bill. If the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord were adopted, the very class of persons for whose benefit the Bill was designed would be excluded from its operation. The object of the measure was to allow incumbents of small benefices who could not afford to employ curates to withdraw, upon the understanding of a certain provision being allowed them during their lives. He trusted that their Lordships would not agree to the Amendment. He

  1975
  begged to apologize to the House for not being in his place when the Order of the Day for going into Committee upon the Bill was read; but his absence had been occasioned by unforeseen circumstances connected with his duties.
  Amendment negatived; Clause agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Exemption from penalties by 31 Eliz., c. 6, 12 Anne, st. 2, c. 12, &c).
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, that as the clause stood, it did prevent the persons to these arrangements coming under the Acts against simony.
  Amendment moved, to leave out Clause 4, and insert
  ("The sum assigned as a pension to a retiring incumbent under this Act shall not be deemed a pension, sum of money, or benefit within the meaning of the 31st Elizabeth, chap. 6, or the 12th Anne, stat. 2, chap. 12, or any other Act.")—(The Lord Cairns.)
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid, he had no objection to offer to the Amendment.
  Clause struck out; new clause inserted.
  Clause 5 (How the provisions of the Act are to be put into exercise).
  LORD CAIRNSmoved two Amendments, one requiring that the rector or vicar availing himself of the provisions of the Bill should have held his living not less than 10 years before he was entitled to a pension, and the second providing that age should not be regarded as a sufficient ground for the grant of such pension unless the vicar or rector were 70 years of age. He also thought that it should be mentioned on the face of the Bill that the only grounds on which such a pension could be allowed were those of age, sickness, or other infirmity, whereby the vicar or rector was prevented from discharging with efficiency the duties of his office.
  Amendments moved, after ("benefice") insert ("of which he has been the incumbent for not less than ten years"); and in same line leave out ("for the reasons therein stated") and insert
  ("On the ground that he is above the age of seventy, or, being under that age, that he is incapacitated hy permanent mental or bodily infirmity from the performance of his duties.")
  line 36, after ("him") insert ("upon the truth of the ground alleged and")—(The Lord Cairns.)
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONopposed both of the Amendments as interfering
  1976
  with the good working and with the objects of the Bill. With regard to the proposed limit of age, apart from incapacity of any kind, he was rather disposed to strike out age altogether from the Schedule.
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERtrusted that the first of the noble and learned Lord's Amendments would not be pressed. It was really at variance with the whole principle of the measure. With regard to the second Amendment, he had a great objection to introducing a hard-and-fast line of 70, or any other number of years. The adoption of any limit of age at all exposed them to the charge of giving a retiring allowance to a man who was still capable of performing his duty. It was difficult to fix upon any age at which it could be declared universally that a man was incapable. He wished the provisions of the Bill to apply to clergymen who were really unable, from age, continued sickness, or permanent infirmity, to discharge the duties of their benefices, and not to those who might be just above or below 70, but subject to no incapacity.
  LORD WESTBURYdrew attention to another defect in the clause. It contained no condition with regard to the private means of the retiring incumbent. A clergyman who was incapacitated by age, sickness, or infirmity might possess, through his wife, or otherwise, a private fortune which would render it altogether unnecessary that he should receive a retiring allowance; and therefore it would be well to give the pensions only in cases where the retiring incumbents had no other adequate means of support. He thought, too, that it would not do to fix upon the age of 70, and to say that when a man had reached that age he was disqualified from further discharge of duty. He thought that to fix the limit of age, and to fix it at 70, would bear against some of his noble and learned Friends who attended to the appellate jurisdiction of their Lordships' House. Moreover, the machinery for carrying out the objects of the Bill was unsuited for its purpose; and he would suggest that a statutory declaration as to his incapacity from the incumbent proposing to retire, supported by the testimony of a certain number of the resident parishioners, should be the preliminary required in these cases, instead of the cumbrous and expensive formalities

  1977
  provided by the Bill. If their Lordships approved a more expeditious and economical process for giving effect to the measure, he would prepare a set of provisions with that view, and move them on the Report.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPbegged their Lordships to confine their attention to one Amendment at a time, and not attempt to discuss miscellaneous suggestions quite irrelevant to the immediate question before them.
  EARL STANHOPEhoped that the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) would not be pressed.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, that as to his first Amendment, his object had been rather to elicit the opinion of their Lordships than to go to a Division on a proposal which might not meet with acceptance. With reference to his second Amendment, he proposed to omit all reference to age and make the grounds of resignation dependent on incapacity from mental or bodily infirmity—because if the incumbent were not infirm age would not be a ground of incapacity.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in answer to a suggestion of a noble Lord, that the case of a lunatic clergyman should be included, said, that great difficulty had been experienced in defining what a lunatic was.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn; Then another Amendment proposed and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Who are to be Commissioners).
  LORD CAIRNSstated that as the clause was drawn the Bishop might in some cases nominate all the five Commissioners. He therefore proposed that one of them—the magistrate—should be nominated by the Chairman of Quarter Sessions, and that the clergyman of the same diocese who should act as Commissioner, instead of being nominated by the Bishop at discretion, should be designated in the Bill by these words—
  "The incumbent of the adjacent parish, the parish church of which is nearest in a straight line to the church of the benefice the incumbent of which desires to retire."
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERaccepted the first part of the proposal, but could not agree to the latter portion.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, the object of the Amendment seemed to be
  1978
  to assign a geographical qualification for the Commissioners. But the object of the clause was to obtain the assistance of sensible and well-judging men: it was not always the nearest neighbour who was the best qualified, or would like to undertake the duties imposed by this Bill.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  LORD CAIRNSmoved another Amendment, that the magistrate of the county who should nominate one of the Commissioners, should himself be nominated "by the Chairman of Quarter Sessions for the county or division of the county."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Commissioners may examine on oath. Limitation of Pension).
  LORD DYNEVORsaid, this clause would be likely to defeat the object of the Bill, because a man would not retire on a small pittance. He hoped their Lordships would deal liberally with the smaller incumbents.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 8 (How vacancy in Commission to be filled) agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Who to consent to deed of resignation).
  LORD CAIRNSmoved to omit the word "gross" and insert "net" in reference to the annual value of the benefice, and said that if the word were retained it would be very inconvenient to a new incumbent.
  On Question, to omit ("gross")? agreed to; word struck out.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, it would be necessary to add at the end words to this effect—"Provided that no benefice shall at anytime be subject to the payment of more than one pension;" otherwise, if the value of the benefice were from any cause reduced, the new incumbent would have to bear the entire loss out of the residue in his hands beyond the amount of the pension.
  Amendment agreed to; Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 10 & 11 agreed to, with verbal Amendments.
  Clause 12 (Pensioned incumbent amenable to ecclesiastical discipline).
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERmoved the insertion of a proviso to the effect that proceedings might be taken against

  1979
  every offending pensioned clerk in the same manner as if he had remained incumbent of the benefice.
  Motion agreed to; Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 13 (Parsonage house to belong to new incumbent) agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Acceptance of other preferment by pensioned incumbent to alter the pension).
  Proviso added, giving power to the incumbent of the benefice to give notice to the Bishop that the retired clerk of the said benefice has undertaken clerical duties elsewhere, and has received remuneration for so doing: Whereupon the Bishop, after inquiry, may determine whether the pension to the said retired clerk shall cease, or be diminished, and in what proportion.
  Clause amended, and agreed to.
  Clause 15 struck out.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Tuesday next; and Bill to be printed as amended (No. 43).
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.