The Sun.
London, England, 1870-05-12 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PA RLIA Al EN F.

ROUSE OF COMMONS.—WEDNESDAY.
!'he Speaker took the chair at twenty-hve minutes past
twelve o'clock.

BENEFICES BILL,

Mr. CROSS, in moving the second reading of this bill
said he had not heard that any opposition was to be offered
to the Bill that day, and therefore it was not his intention
to make such a lengthy statement, as he otherwise should.
He did not intend to interfere with Church
patronage as vested in the hands of laymen. He
believed that the fact of church patronage not being in
one particular hand, tended to give a greater variety and
tone of thought among the clergy of the country, and that
those who resided in a particular locality were best capable
of making an appointment which should be satisfactory
to that district. He went on to establish the proposition
that anciently there was no right to the sale of the pre-
sentation of a living, and at the present moment there
was a very great distinction between the sale of the right
to present, and the sale of the exercise of that right. He
would do nothing to endanger the rights of private pro-
perty, but he believed that it was a property held as
trust, and that everyone who valued lay patronage woul
do all they could to pass the measure to take away th
abuse connected with the property, and by taking away
the abuse perpetuate the use. The bill provided that the
actual sale of the next presentation should not be allowed.
He concluded by moving that the bill be read
a second time, remarking that the measure would
put an end to a great scandal to the Church, and an
insult to the parishioners themselves.
Mr. BERESPORD-HOPE hoped the hon. member would
not press his motion, but if he did he would not vote
against him. He believed that the system of private
Church patronage in the Church of England had gone
far to produce that class of clergymen—at once men of
the world and men of God—which characterised that Church
more than any other religious body. If the legal
sale of advowsons were prohibited, he was afraid there
would be clandestine sales. If his hon. friend's bill had
been framed for the purpose of doing away with bonds of
resignation, he should have supported it, because that
was a practice which he thoroughly reprobated. The
best remedy, however, for such a case was the growth
of public morality. The moral responsibility on patrons
was increasing every day, and the same might be said of
those who were presented.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that so far as his expe-
rience went, he was unable to confirm the statement of
the member for the University of Cambridge, that the
sale of ecclesiastical benefices was diminishing, or that the
morality he had spoken of was increasing. Cases came
before him which, had he seen in a book of fiction, he
should readily have believed them to have been invented.
He did not approve of the lessening of the patronage in lay
hands. He could not see why that which was a
modal should not be amended by the legislation
proposed. He recommended the House to assent
tothe second reading on the ground that the bill dealt in a
practical and effectual way with a great public and pri-
vate scandal.

Dr. BALL had heard with pleasure the announcement of
the Solicitor-General that he intended to support the bill.
The ingenuity of lawyers had been employed for the pur-
pose of evading the laws for restricting the abuse of the
system. Knowing as he did the abuse and the way in
which the restrictive acts were evaded, he should cordially
support the second reading.
Mr. STAPLETON said the bill appeared to open the
door to very great abuse. When the livings were sold at
all it was not by those who were wealthy. It would, if
the sale of the next presentation were prohibited, be a
great temptation for a person to force his son into the
Church, and thus do serious injury to it.
Mr. HINDS PALMER supported the second reading of
the bill, and spoke of the advantage of church patronage
being in the hands of the laity. He referred to the good
results which had followed the generous conduct of the
Duke of St. Albans, who had left the parishioners to
choose their own pastor.
Mr, J. G. TALBOT cordially supported the bill. He
was of opinion that neither the seller nor the buyer of the
next presentation had the approval of his own conscience
in the transaction.

Mr. HENLEY could not understand why a man might
not sell the presentation whilst he could sell the advowson,
which carried the presentation with it. He said it was
impossible not to see that the bill would strike altogether
at the root of private patronage. He believed that sales
would take place clandestinely, despite any Act of Par-
liament.

Mr. MONK thought the bill did not go far enough.
Nevertheless, whilst admitting with the member for
Oxfordshire that if persons were so determined bargains of
the kind would be made, he believed it would have a good
effect.
After some remarks from Mr. DICKINSON,

Mr. G. HARDY said they must remember that the
Church of England did not consist either of the patrons
or the clergy, but of the flock, and he believed that in the
bill the House was giving a recognition to the position of
the flock.
The bill was then read a second time.
COUNTY CORONER'S (IRELAND) TITLL.

Mr. VANCE moved the second reading of this bill and
said there were 38 county coroners in Ireland, and it was
proposed on deaths or resignations to decrease that num-
ber by 18. The bill gave power to the Lord Lieutenant
to direct special sessions to be held to redistribute the
districts where the reductions were made. On placing
the salary for the coroners at £lOO, he took the
amount named in the bill which was passed
some sessions ago, regulating the office of coroner
in which the maximum salary was laid down at
ZOO. In placing the salary at £lOO there was no
farther burden imposed upon the country than exists at
present. He thought a limited superannuation allowance
should be made, and that the age at which the coroners
should be entitled to the allowance should be
70. He hoped that paying coroners by salary
instead of by fees, and granting them a suitable allowance
when incapable of performing their duties further, would
raise the status and dignity of that order.
Mr. SYNAN objected to a provision in the bill allowing
coroners to appoint deputies. He referred to the proposi-
tion to equalise the duties of coroners, and remarked that
it was impossible unless they could equalise the deaths.
Mr. STACTOOLIC having addressed the House.

Mr. CHAFILICT said he thought the coroners had made
out a case for payment by salary instead of fees. He
spoke in favour of the appointment of deputies, and also
agreed with the proposal to grant a superannuation
allowance. _ . _

Colonel FRENCH and Viscount CRICHTON having made
some remarks on the Bill,
Mr. 0, FORTEEKTUE said that so far as the clause to
enable coroner's to appoint deputies was concerned, he
Lad not heard sufficient reasons for such a proposal, nor
did he think they ought to give the coroner power
to commit peTsons charged with murder when
the local magistracy or the -stipendiary magistrate could
deal with the case. -He could not agree with the clause
for throwing the superanuation allowance upon either
the Consolidated Fund or a local fund, On the
part of the Government, he must oppose the second read-
ing, although he did not think the subject ought to be
allowed to remain altogether as it was. The Grand Jury
Bill would have been introduced had he had an op portw
pity, but when that measure was brought before the
House it would include the affairs of the Irish counties,
and would deal with the question of coroners.
Dr. BALL observed that, as a general principle, what
was connected with the administration of justice ought
to be introduced by the Government. He had observed
that bills brought in by private members when they were
of sufficient importance to demand the attention of the
executive had a wholesome effect upon the legislature, in_
as much as it stimulated them to activity on that subject
He shoe eurc the zeLoncl reading of the bill.
Mr. DOWNING strongly supported the measure.
Mr. Marmon; advocated the payment by salary in-
stead of fees, and the proposal- to grant a superannuation
allowance.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for IRELAND said Government
intended to deal with the question, but not during the
present session. The present bill was as bad in point of
detail as a bill could possibly be.
Colonel STUART KNox said the importance of the sub-
ject had been admitted on all hands, and he hoped the
bon. gentleman who introduced the measure would divide
the House.
THE O'Comron DON approved of the course Govern.
went had adopted., inasmuch as he thought the subject ci
coroners should be dealt with when the grand jury system
of Ireland was considered.
After some further discussion the House divided, when
there appeared
For the second reading
Against it

172

Majority against the bill 74