THIRD READING. BILL WITHDRAWN. (Hansard, 4 July 1872)

THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE
, in moving that the Bill be now read the third time, said, the Bill had been rather unfortunate in its passage through the House, because, having been read a second time, and having gone into Committee without opposition, and after an explanation by him of its various provisions—so that every possible opportunity for objection had been afforded—opposition to it arose on the Motion for the reception of the Report, and now Notice had been given of an Amendment to the Motion for the third reading. He was prepared to meet the objection that was raised on the last occasion as to the trustees; but the noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby) who intended to move the rejection of the Bill did so upon different grounds. A suspicion had arisen in the minds of some that the Bishops would under this Bill get an unwarrantable amount of patronage by putting themselves into these trusts. He had no desire to make the Bishop or the incumbent a corporation sole in a trust for a benefice or a church. What he wished to lay stress upon was this—There were certain persons prepared to give money for founding benefices or churches, or for forming ecclesiastical districts, and they desired a certain form of patronage. Now, he contended that they ought not 624 to be prevented from having it, except there was something very objectionable in the form of patronage. "A Quondam Conveyancer," in a letter to The Times of this morning, pointed out what he said was a way of getting through the difficulty. He did not know whether the writer of that letter was right or not; but what he did know was that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners felt their hands were tied when they were asked to recognize such trusts as it was the object of the Bill to make lawful.

§ LORD CAIRNS
said, that from the remarks made by the right rev. Prelate on a former occasion, he appeared to think it was a mistake in the drawing up of an existing Act of Parliament which prevented persons desirous of founding a trust from mixing up individuals with corporations sole. The adjournment that had taken place in reference to the Bill had given him an opportunity of further considering its provisions, and he could assure the right rev. Prelate this was the result of no mistake, but a consequence of the principle that you could not mix up in a joint tenantship corporations which never die and individuals who do die. But he thought there would be no difficulty under the existing law in meeting the case put by the right rev. Prelate. There was complete power, in the persons founding the trust, to make any stipulations they pleased as to the mode of appointing trustees. All that was required if they wished to appoint a Bishop or the archdeacon, or the incumbent of the parish one of the patrons was to appoint him as one of the first trustees; and to provide that upon the death of the Bishop, or as the case might be, and before the vacancy was filled up, it should be offered to his successor; and so on from time to time as vacancies arose. Without entering into the policy of the Bill itself, he would suggest to the right rev. Prelate the propriety of having those legal objections first settled.

§ THE EARL OF HARROWBY
rose to move that the Bill be read a third time that day three months; but——

THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE
interposed, saying it was clear, after what had fallen from the noble and learned 625 Lord, that the Bill in its present state could not be proceeded with. He should, therefore, with their Lordships' leave withdraw it.

THE BISHOP OF LONDON
was understood to express his great regret at the withdrawal of a measure intended not merely to authorize certain trusts in future—which it might or might not be expedient to do—but to correct serious inconveniences that were admitted to exist. He knew himself of three benefices in one parish, the patronage of which was vested in trusts now understood to be illegal. In his opinion, it was most desirable to legislate as soon as possible upon the subject.