SLACK CLERGY.

Hokitika Guardian, 12 April 1924, Page 4

SLACK CLERGY.

LONDON, Feb. 12,

• Ought the Church of England to have greater powers than at ' present to deal with clergymen who “slack”? This question-was raised yesterday at the spring session of the National Church Assembly at Church House, Westminster, with the Archbishop of Canterbury presiding. Tlie Bishop of St. Albans moved that a committee be appointed to inquire into the law relating to incumbents who are guilty of negligence in their duties and to prepare an amending measure if desirable. The bishop said the' existing law in some cases' was almost impossible to carry out. It was possible for proceedings to ho taken against an incumbent who was supposed to be negligent of his statutory duties, and, if proved, the bishop had the power to inhibit him for life. He could not, however, deprive him of his living.

In his own diocese he had a ease where a man had been inhibited, and under the existing law lie (the bishop) could only take LI7O i>ut of the £550 that the living carried to pay for a curate to’carry oil the work.

The 'inhibited,clergyman had iir/iliir

to do except draw a pension for life of £3BO a year. Under the Benefices Act of 1878 he was exempt from the liability to reside in the house on inhibition, aiul could, if he so desired, lot it.

If the incumbent had gone and done his work faithfully for many years, he would only have been able to draw a pension" at the end of his period of service some £2OO a year loss than he was getting at present for having scandalously neglected his duty.

Sir Lewis Dibdin said that if i could he proved that ail ineuinbeii was negligent, that was ail eeelesias tical offence, and he could lie deal with accordingly, but negligence wa hot easy to' prove.

Lorn Hugh Cecil said that another difficulty Iras to prove whether what a "man did was negligence or liieTely due fo incapacity.

With an amendment to include cases of incompetence, the resolution was carried unanimously.