The Sun.
London, England, 1854-03-23 00:00:00

IMPERIA

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.)
SIMONY LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
Mr. PHILLIMORE moved the second reading of
this bill, which the
he said, with some slight additions,
was precisely the Liam measure that he laic on
table last session. The present state of the law of
simony was highly obje,'
te .I°:lable, and the amendment
which he proposed to make :nit
tl nd. The first statute
i had received the assent
of the assembled judges of the 3
which related to the subject of sitiat'llY was passed in the
v reign of Elizabeth, and it inflicted a v,'.r• severe punish-
of simony.
meat upon parties convicted of the offen,
Subsequently various acts were passed down to the r t
en
i
of Anne ; and now, according to the existing law, _ .4was
competent for a layman or a clergyman to purchase a.
vowsons, or the right of next presentation to a living.
The consequence was that the law as it now stood gave
rise to great abuses ; the living could only be sold
while the present incumbent was living —so long as
he had a particle of breath in his nostrils, the
right of presentation could be legally sold and purchased
and the object of this hill was to prevent even such a
sale as that—a course which, he repeated, had been re-
commended by the assembled judges of the land. The
sale of civil offices in patronage was prohibited alike by
law and morals, and the reason for that was obvious.
Patronage, or the right of presenting to an office either
clerical or civil, could only be treated in the former as a
spiritual, and the latter as a moral trust. It certainly
was not property, and therefore it was idle to tell him
that a bill like this was an undue or improper interfer-
ence with the vested rights of individuals or corporations.
Trafficking in matters connected with the cure of souls
become quite a common practice in modern times ; livings
were daily hawked about and advertised in the public prints
for sale, while the cure of souls was knocked down to
the highest bidder at auctions, the price in such cases
depending, of course, upon the annual returns of the in-
cumbency. For the purpose of preventing such abuses
in future he had introduced this bill, and he hoped the
house would allow it to go to a second reading.
Mr. G. BUTT moved as an amendment that the bill
be read a second time this day six months. The hon.
gentleman who had just addressed them had not quite
correctly stated the law on this subject. An advowson
was an alienable estate in fee, but the right to make the
next presentation was only a chattle, Both, however,
were saleable, and liable to be made the subject of settle-
ment or mortgage ; in fact, they were properties which the
law of England allowed to be bought and sold, and all
the restrictions which the law imposed upon the owners
was contained in the qualification which the person pre-
sented-to the living was bound to possess. In all times
both the advowson and the right of presentation had
been treated and dealt with as properties ; and thi"
measure, therefore, was a direct violation of the
rights of property. (Hear, hear.) But the bill, if
passed, would prove inoperative, because it did not in-
terfere with the advowson ; all that it did, in fact, was
to prevent the sale of the next presentation ; but did
not the house perceive if that were prohibited, recourse
would be had to the sale of the advowson. How, then,
would the bill get rid of the evil complained, if evil it was?
It would do nothing of the sort, and inasmuch as it
would not only interfere with the rights of property, but
would have a tendency to prevent lay patronage, he
trusted the house would reject the second reading
of the bill. Two-thirds of the livings of England
are private patronage, and it would be most
unjust to adopt the Romish principle of transferring it
to the bishops or heads of the Church, which would be
the ultimate effect of this bill.
Mr. SPOONER seconded the amendment.
Sir W. HEATIICOTE thought it was unwise to rest
the opposition to this bill upon grounds of property, be-
cause such a ground could not be maintained. There
was a wide difference between the advowson and the
right to the next presentation ; the one might be a legi-
timate object of sale and purchase, but the other cer-
tainly was not. The next presentation was by far too
near to make it safe to legalise its sale without opening
the door to corruption and abuse ; and on that account
he supported this bill, believing that the right of presen-
tation was a spiritual trust which it was quite right to
entrust to laymen, but decidedly wrong to make a mat-
ter of traffic.
Sir G. GREY could see no sufficient ground which
should induce the house to pass the second reading of
this bill, though he quite agreed that it ought not to be
treated as a question of pounds, shillings, and pence.
At the same time he did not think any legislative enact-
ment necessary to arrest the abuses of the present sys-
tem, as the bishops and heads of the church had suffi-
cient powers in their hands to prevent the open and
scandalous trafficing in livings which the bill was in-
tended to, but would not, prohibit, so long as it did not
touch the sale of advowsons. For his part, he could see
no objection to the legitimate sale of the next presen-
tation or the advowsons, and he thought no suffi-
cient reason had been shown why such sales should be
directly prohibited by the law.
Lord GODERICH remarked that the operation in
the present system was highly calculated to bring scan-
dal and discredit upon the Church of England., It was
just as safe, and just as proper, to sell the right to a
judgship as to sell the right of presenting to the cure
of souls. In point of morals both were equally impro-
per, because such a power gave rise to manifest and mani-
fold abuses, which were greatly detrimental to the inte-
rest and well-being of the State. Surely it was unwise
to permit a state of things which allowed the open traf-
ficing in clergymen's livings, and permitted parties to
make presentations without any reference whatever to the
wishes or wants of the parishioners. He therefore
begged the house to pass this bill.
Mr. NAPIER was unwilling to argue this bill as a
question of property, but still it could not be denied
that property was not altogether connected with this
subject. He doubted, however, whether this bill would
receive a better administration of the trust which lay-
men held than that which now prevailed, not that he
denied for a single moment that abuses did not exist
under the present system, but the bishop had ample
powers in his own hand to prevent the presentation of
improper persons, or persons who were averse to the
wishes or unacquainted with the wants of the pa-
rishioners. The fact was the bill would not accomplish
the object it had in view, since the proper excess of the
trust could only be enforced by the moral influence of
the bishop, while, if the bill passed, there was nothing
in it which could in any way prevent secret bargains
for the next presentation. For these reasons, then, he
should support the amendment in preference to the bill.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL fully appreciated the
motives which induced the hon. and learned member for
Tavistock to bring forward this bill ; but, on the other
hand, he felt bound to oppose the measure. (Hear,
hear.) It was quite true that the law of simony
stood in an anomalous and doubtful condition ;
but, before the house attempted to change the law
it must be clearly shown that there was an absolute
necessity for it, or that the change would correct a great
and glaring evil. Now, would the bill correct the evil
complained of in this case ? Certainly not, for although
they had heard a good deal of the abuses and scandal at-
tending the sale of next presentations, the provisions of
this bill were not such as could get rid of the evil. Ali
these scandals, if the bill passed, would still attend the
sale of the advowson, and since the bill interfered with
the rights of property, lie thought that reason alone was
sufficient to induce the house to reject the bill. It would
have the effect of throwing all the patronage of the
Church into the hands of landed proprietors, to the de-
triment of the men of trade and commerce, who had
just as much right Co get their sons into the
Church, if they so thought fit, as the aristocracy. But
it was said the wishes and interests of the parishioners
would be better attended to if the right of presentation
were entirely vested in the bishops. Why, the other
day an instance occurred where a bishop presented a
clergyman to a living in direct opposition to the wishes
and feelings of the parishioners, and therefore, so far as
that argument went, it was really good for nothing.
The trust would not be better administered by the clergy
themselves than by the laymen.
Mr. LIDDELL insisted that the bill would inflict
great injustice upon those who already purchased the
right to make the next presentation to livings, and on
that account he opposed it.
After a few words from Mr. WHITESIDE,
Mr. HILDYARD opposed the bill as an attached
member of the Church of England, believing that it
would certainly fa!l if ever it acquired the exclusive
character which this measure would give it.
After a few words from Mr. AGLIONBY, who did not
think theie was any necessity for the bill, Mr. Emma-
smeE replied.
The hou le then divided when there appeared—
For the second reading 52
Against it
The bill was accordingly thrown out.
VESTRIES BILL.
bill
Mr. EVELYN moved the second reading of this
, which was a
declaratory measure to explain the
olafw relating to parish matters and the powers
parish authorities. It would enable select
vestries to deal with
all questions of local interest to
the parishioners and the public generally, such as
the repair of highway,, building of bridges, lighting and
watching
ptlielertrieb, and the removal of nuisances,
and would per
districtsral towns and parishes to divide
themselves into for the purpose of raising the
rates and taxes
necessary for carrying out local im-
provements.
Mr. FITZROY did not think
larthat an case had been
made out for conferring such
parish vestries. pse bodies like irresponsible
powers u
lie, therefore,
moved as an amendment, that the bill b d
e read a second
time this day six months.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS opposed the bill.
Mr. EVELYN, seeing that he Would be over-
poweredhad no altern •
by numbers, alternative but to with-
draw the bill.
The amendment was accordingly agreed
to without a
division, and the bill was thrown out.
PAYMENT OF WAGES (HOSIERY) BILL.
Sir H. HALFORD moves the second reasline
g of this
bill, which he believed was advocated by all the frame.
work-knitters of Nottingham and Leicestershire. These
operatives worked at their own homes, with a hand-
loom which could be purchased for a sum of money that
would be supposed to place it within the reach of the
workman himself, but it rarely happened that the ma.
chine belonged to him. (Hear.) It was invariably
r
hired from the employer, and the rent charged for
It was so excessive as to make it a virtual
sys-
tem of truck in the hosiery districts. (Hear, hear.)
The men in fact were charged 201. a-year for the use of_
machines that were not worth more than that sum, and
their weekly wages were greatly reduced by this rent.
The system acted alike prejudicially upon the interest
of .t
es
of the workman and the honest employer who paid ull
wages in money, and some time ago an attempt was
made to abolish the system by getting a decision of a
court of law that it was prohibited by the Truck Act,
but the action broke down upon a technical objection.