UNION OF BENEFICES ACT, 1860, AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.] (Hansard, 25 June 1900)

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY
My Lords, the object of this Bill is to extend the operation of the Union of Benefices Act, 1860, outside London. The evils which that. Act was intended to remedy are not confined to the metropolitan area, but are to be found in a great many other parts of England. I myself tried repeatedly to get the same thing done in the city of Exeter, when I was. bishop there, as is done by this Act for metropolitan parishes. There are twenty-one parishes in the city of Exeter, several of them very small. The incomes are also very small, and it would certainly be a great gain for the working of those; parishes if several could be united and the incomes amalgamated. The same thing, applies to the city of Norwich, where there are thirty benefices or more. All of them are very small, with very small incomes, and the application of this Act. to such a city would, I have no doubt, be of great benefit to the working of the church in that city. I remember Bishop Pelham of Norwich once telling me that he wished very much indeed that this Act could be extended so as to include places like his own city. There are a great number of similar cases scattered about England, and the need for dealing with them having become stronger and stronger, a Bill has accordingly been drafted to extend the operation of the Act of 1860 to the whole of England and Wales, subject, of course, to the same limitations as are to be found in the principal Act. The Bill simply extends the principal Act, and its clauses consist 881 solely of modifications of that Act so as to adapt it to the needs of other places than the metropolis. For instance, in the first sub-section it is provided that the references in the principal Act to the Bishop of the Diocese of London or of Winchester, which covered the metropolitan area at that time, shall be construed as references to the bishop of the Diocese in which the benefices are situate, which are to be united outside the metropolis. In the working out of the principal Act, certain Commissioners were appointed, one by the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's, two by the Bishop, and two by the Corporation, or, in the event of the Corporation not acting, by the vestries of the parishes concerned. The Bill proposes that instead of these Commissioners—it is clear that they would not be suitable all over England—there should be a Commission of seven, two to be appointed by the Bishop, one by the patron of each of the benefices, one by the vestry of each of the parishes to be united, and a magistrate nominated by the person who has presided as chairman of the last preceding Quarter Sessions for the county or division of the county, or if there be no such person then by the Lord Lieutenant of the county. This Commission is of the same character as the Commission in the principal Act, and I have no doubt your Lordships will see that it consists of persons to whom such work can be properly entrusted. Where the Bishop causes proposals for a scheme of union to be prepared, it is here enacted that he should send them in the first instance to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. As there will be on the Commission representatives of the vestries, it is not proposed to send the proposals to those bodies, but to forward them straight to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for them to prepare a scheme. That is the principal adaptation. There are also two or three minor adaptations. At the end of Section 11 of the principal Act it is provided that the calculation of the income, where there is any surplus, is to be based on the income for the seven years immediately following the Act itself. It is now proposed that the seven years should be fixed by a date in the scheme formed as I have described. In other respects, the provisions of the Bill are simply adaptation which it is not necessary to go into in detail. There is one sub-section, however, which lies a little outside the 882 purview of the others—Sub-section 8. A power is given in that sub-section to take down a consecrated chapel of ease which it is found is no longer of any use. Of course, when you have a chapel of ease which is no longer needed it is better to remove it, because otherwise there is a duty imposed on the clergyman of the parish which is onerous to him and of no advantage, as the case stands, to anybody else. This is a very simple measure, as your Lordships can see. It is nothing more than an adaptation of an old Act, but I can assure your Lordships that something of the sort is very necessary.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
My Lords, it is not very easy to understand exactly what the effect of this Bill will be, and I should be very glad if the most rev. Prelate could tell us whether it makes any alteration in the essential provisions of the present law. It is only where parishes adjoin, and the churches are within a certain distance of each other, that a union can take place at present, and I should like to know whether that limitation will be interfered with by this Bill if it becomes law, and whether it will be in the power of anyone other than the bishop to initiate proposals. In some cases it would be a hardship, and a very serious one, to unite two livings without the consent of the patron; and it may be sometimes extremely objectionable that there should be taken away from a patron the right to appoint to a particular parish. I am sorry to say that the divisions in the Church at present are of so serious a nature that it may easily happen that a parish where the patron hitherto has been able to secure those who are faithful to the principles of the Church of England may be united with a larger parish, with the result that the state of affairs in the parish where hitherto the patron has been able to prevent the appointment of clergymen who are distasteful to the inhabitants may be altogether changed.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY
I can assure the noble Earl that the Bill makes no change in the law with regard to patronage as settled by the Act of 1860, nor with, regard to 883 the limitations that only parishes that are contiguous can be united. I do not think there is any reason to fear that the rights of patrons will not be safeguarded under this Bill just as they are now under the Act of 1860.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
I thank the most rev. Prelate for his explanation, but I wish to say, in order that I may not be misunderstood, that I am strongly in favour of the general principle of uniting these small livings.