The refusal of the House of Commons to adjourn for
the Derby allowed the Benefices Bill to be considered on Wednes- day afternoon. It was, however, bitterly opposed by a small group of Tories, who, rather than see the sacred rights of pro- perty infringed in the slightest degree, would maintain any amount of scandals in Church patronage, and of Noncon- formist Radicals, who cannot endure that so wicked an insti- tution as the Church should be improved. These, indeed, are like people who object to a person who they consider deserves hanging being cured of a bad habit. Who can tell where a reformation of that kind will stop ? It might end by cheating the gallows altogether. "It was quite true," said Mr. H. S. Foster (the Tory Member for Lowestoft), "that the right of selling advowson property was not taken away by the Bill, but it imposed a number of restrictions upon the exercise of private patronage in future, the admitted effect of which would be to largely reduce the market value of the property." That is a curious way of debating an important measure concerning the spiritual interests of the Church. Surely Mr. Foster would have been more in his element bad he gone to the Derby. Mr. Carvell-Williams, in a somewhat unctuous speech, opposed the Bill :—" It was certain to have a disintegrating influence on the Church ; it would produce bitterness of feeling and distrust of the Bishops, and it would hinder the future progress of the Church." Ultimately the debate stood adjourned.
Previous page
