SECOND READING. (Hansard, 9 May 1882)

THE BISHOP OF EXETER

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, 334 explained that it professed to be an amendment of the present existing Acts upon the subject. Certain changes had become requisite with regard to three or four points to which the amending Act referred; but the most important point was the last, which dealt with the stipend of the curate whom the Bishop was empowered to appoint in case any clergyman was judged unfitted to perform his ecclesiastical duties. The Act of 1838 had fixed the stipend of the curate so low that it was sometimes impossible, as he knew from his own experience at Exeter, to procure a clergyman who would accept the post. These defects the Bill proposed to deal with in the following way. It proposed to define ecclesiastical duties, as not only the regular and due performance of Divine Service on Sundays and other days, but all other duties which had been promised by a clergyman of the Church of England at the time of his ordination, and which might be required of every spiritual person having the cure of souls, and all ecclesiastical duties required by law. Further, instead of the Bishop appointing the Commissioners, the composition of the Commission was fixed by the Bill in such a way as to make it independent of the Bishop altogether. Its members were to consist of clergymen engaged in parochial work; and, on their reporting that the duties were inadequately performed, the interference of the Bishop was to be permitted. It was not proposed to interfere with the appeal to the Archbishop. Provision was made for the compulsory attendance of witnesses, and for their examination on oath. If a Bishop were compelled to appoint a curate, he might assign him an addition not exceeding £70 to the stipend originally required by the Pluralities Act. It was not proposed to interfere with the stipend the incumbent might give; but it was felt that where the Bishop was compelled to make an appointment, he should have the means of paying a stipend which would secure adequate service. The Bishop might require the appointment of two or more curates where the incumbent was nonresident, the population exceeded 2,000, and there were two or more churches not less than a mile apart. A nonresident incumbent would not be at liberty to interfere with a curate during the time of his licence. In dealing with 335 vacant benefices, power was given to make more adequate provision for the discharge of clerical duties during the continuance of the vacancy. As there were many cases in which the prescribed distance of two miles between one church and another prevented adequate provision being made, that limitation was struck out; and in order to facilitate the placing of adjacent parishes under one clergyman, it was proposed to increase the allowable distance between the churches from three to five miles. The Bill was based on the recommendations of a Joint Committee of both Houses of the Convocation of Canterbury; and he would not have introduced it if he were not assured that it had the support of the representatives of the parochial clergy, who were quite as desirous as the Bishop could be that the parishioners should have the full benefit of the services of the Church, as far as the incomes of the benefices would make it possible.

§ VISCOUNT CRANBROOK

approved the general principle of the Bill, but thought some of its details would require amendment. There were provisions in the Bill which were so very vaguely expressed that he must ask the right rev. Prelate to reconsider his definitions, or he feared his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack would have some difficulty, should they come before him, in construing them. For instance, the Bill spoke of duties undertaken by a clergyman at the time of his ordination, while there were no special duties referred to by the Ordination Service. What was required was to enforce the duties that were known to the law, and it was desirable that the enactments of the Bill should be precise and free from vagueness. It would be well that these points should be considered before the Bill went through Committee.