THE PATRONAGE BILL.
THE Bishop of Peterborough's Patronage Bill is divisible into two very distinct parts,—the part which tries to prevent the sale of " next presentations," and the part which gives the Bishop and the parishioners a right of objecting, on certain definite grounds, to the presentee of the living proposed to them. The objects aimed at in these distinct parts of the Bill are both of them important, if they could be equally well secured. But while we feel with Dr. Temple the gravest doubts whether the demand of any declaration, however express, that the presentation is not made for money, from the patron and the presentee, will be sufficient to baffle the in- genuity of the lawyers in evading the provisions of the law, we are equally well convinced that the limitations which the Bill puts it in the power of the Bishop and the parishioners to place on a bad appointment, especially those which may be imposed by the Bishop, are likely to become more and more effective, instead of less and less so, as these appoint- ments are more and more subjected to public criticism. Of course this part of the Bill, however effective a restraint it
may become,—and we hope that it will become a very effective restraint,—on bad appointments, will not go very far towards carrying out the object which the author of the Bill has in view. That object is to secure that the patron should be influenced solely by a sincere desire for the moral and spiritual benefit of the parishioners in making his appointment. Now, to give the power of vetoing flagrantly bad appointments will certainly not secure good ones. It will only secure a certain prudence in the selection, a self-interested disinclination to present any one to the living whose fitness can be successfully challenged by the Bishop or the people. But even this is no slight step gained in the right direction. The Bishop may challenge the appointment for any of three reasons,—for unfitness as regards age,—that is, for inadequate experi- ence, if the appointee has not been three years in orders, or for decrepitude, if he be above seventy years of age ; next, for physical inadequacy to the work ; and lastly, for want of an adequate moral testimonial from three clergymen who have known him for at least three years. The Bishop need not take any of these objections, if he is otherwise assured of the fitness of the presentee, but these are to be legitimate grounds on which the Bishop may refuse to sanction the presenta- tion ; and unless the ground of objection fails to be sustained when the case is tried by the Judge ap- pointed under the Public Worship Regulation Act, these objections will be fatal to the presentee. On the other hand, the people of a parish may object to a presentee on two grounds only,—the ground of an immorality committed within the last three years, and the ground of physical infirmities incapacitat- ing for the post. Now, of course, neither Bishop nor people can afford to put in objections against presentations without pretty substantial ground, since the costs will in that case fall on the objectors, and they will not only fail in their pur- pose, but be seriously fined as well. Hence there is no serious danger of frivolous objections being made, while the tendency of the day must be to increase the sense of public responsibility on Bishops, and to compel them to refuse their sanction in all cases of obviously bad appointments within the conditions of the Act. But the best operation of these clauses will probably be, as we have said, in imposing caution on the patron, and compelling him to select an appointee to whom there is no obvious objection, moral or physical. The reasonableness of these restrictions is so plain, that we cannot but hope that this part of the Bill may be carried, even if the clauses requiring declarations by the patron and the presentee that the choice has been influenced by no corrupt motives, fail. If a Bishop's authority is worth anything, it should be within his power to prevent the appointment of clergy who clearly cannot do the work expected of them, or who cannot exercise the moral influence essential to their position. If popular right in the matter exists at all, it must be a popular right to object to either physical or moral incompetence for such a post. Doctrinal objections the Bill does not give the parishioners any power to take ; and if they cloak doctrinal under the disguise of groundless moral objec- tions, they will certainly only have to bear a heavy fine, and be defeated as well. So far as this part of the Bill goes, therefore, we cannot doubt that it will receive the approval of all parties, whether favourable or unfavourable to the Esta- blished Church. Even the most rabid Liberationists could hardly either wish to say, or, even if they could wish it, venture to say, that as scandals are likely to hasten the Establishment's downfall, they will be no parties to any measure likely to diminish or remove the scandals which lower the tihurch in public esteem.
About the clauses which attempt to secure a moral guarantee against a bargain and sale of presentations we feel more doubt, because, if the object fails, the mere fact of requiring these kinds of engagements is sure to make the matter worse ; yet we cannot help thinking that the object is very likely to fail. We quite allow that the principle of these clauses is perfectly consist- ent with admitting the principle of the sale of the advowson itself, which the Bill very frankly does. There is no more paradox, in principle, in allowing the purchase of the privilege, moral trust though it be, of appointing a clergyman, than the purchase of the privilege, also a moral trust in its way, of rebuilding a part of London, or selecting the physician of a great hospital Wealth does and must in- volve various moral responsibilities which poverty cannot wield, and the only question for the State is, whether private responsibility, on the whole, discharges this kind of duty more or less successfully than it would be discharged by public functionaries in the Church or State. But it is, quite legitimate to secure, if you can, that the private proprietor shall not exercise ids trust from a bad motive, and if the proposed declarations would be effective in excluding even the grosser kinds of conscious self-interest in the matter, we should be very glad to see them adopted. But we confess great doubts as to their efficiency, and if they are inefficient, they will do harm.
On one point we cannot quite agree with a temperate and able article in the Guardian on the Bishop of Peterborough's Bill. The Bishop of Peterborough, though he does all in his power to prevent the sale of next presentations, short of abso- lutely rendering that sale unlawful,—which, by the way, we think his Bill ought to do,—admits quite frankly the principle of a money payment for the exchange of livings, where that is agreed upon between any two incumbents and sanctioned by their Bishops and patrons. Our contemporary says that the open recognition of money transactions in Exchanges reminds it of the charge made by its opponents against Regimental Exchanges, " as seeming to bring back under a new name those evils of Purchase which have been previously de- nounced." But the vital difference in this case lies here. In the Army we have recognised the principle that the function of distributing military duties and offices belongs to the Military Executive, and that we cannot safely relieve it of that re- ' sponsibility. We have not recognised any principle of the kind in relation to the Church, and are not likely to do so. We have only given the Bishop and parishioners a right of veto under special circumstances, and as the consent of the Bishops and patrons and the right of parishioners to object, in the case of Exchanges, is reserved, no single security for good appointments as against bad appointments is lost by allowing such exchanges ; and it clearly is out of the question that an incumbent with a large in- come could exchange with an incumbent whose living is small, however much both parties, and the parishioners of both parties, might benefit by the exchange, without receiving a balance in money. The objection of the Guardian we understand to be not to the payment, which is probably inevit- able, but to the open recognition of the payment. But that seems to us the most important of all securities against abuses. If you are to leave the need for secrecy and to encourage the half-consciousness that the parties are doing what is not recog- nised and cannot be enforced by the law, you leave room for far greater abuses than any which can happen if the transaction is public and has a legal sanction. The transaction is either really wrong or really right. If it is wrong, then, we never could approve Burke's great dictum about vice losing "half its evil by losing all its grossness," we would much rather that the wrong were sanctioned by law and subjected to the full criticism of public opinion, if it is not to be openly forbidden by law, than allowed to go on under the cloak of disguise or subterfuge. But the thing cannot be wrong, while we allow the principle of private discretion to regulate the choice of incumbents at all. It is wrong to let slip any one guarantee for good and efficient clergymen. But this clause does not part with any one such guarantee. If either of the parties is too old or infirm for the work he is preparing to undertake, but not too old for the work he is preparing to give up, the Bishop or the parishioners may object. If either of them is morally unfit for the post he proposes to take, the Bishop or the parishioners may object. But as a rule, both clergymen will have given already the guarantees of fitness required by the law, and it is reasonable to suppose that the motive for their exchange will be that they are each of them better fitted for their new duties than for their old. It seems to us perfectly clear that if it is to be quite lawful for a clergy- man with £300 a year to exchange with a clergyman who has £300 a year, it should be equally lawful for a, clergyman with £300 a year to exchange with one who has £600 a year,— which it is unreasonable to expect that he could do, unless a money balance were paid. To put any kind of slur on such a transac- tion is to prevent exchanges which might be dictated purely and solely by a regard to the good of both parishes, and which yet would be impossible without such a payment. We feel no sympathy at all with any sort of squeamishness as to the dubious appearance of transactions substantially righteous and useful, and believe that the clerical sympathy with such squeamishness is a source of weakness, and not of strength. Of course, if ever private patronage should be considered in itself an evil, this limited right of exchange, with all other consequences of private patronage, must disappear. But till it does, we should like to see all transactions which are in themselves legal and right also publicly acknowledged and conducted above-board. On the
whole, we believe that the Bishop of Peterborough's Patronage Bill will be productive of much benefit, though we cannot but doubt the efficiency, and if so the wisdom, of those declarations intended to prevent the purchase and sale of next presentations on which he relies for checking interested appointments.
Previous page
