HC Deb 23 July 1861 vol 164 cc1387-97

Order for Committee (Supply) read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

MR. DANBY SEYMOUR

said, he rose to move— That, in the opinion of this House, the state of the Ecclesiastical Law in England and Ireland, and of the Courts in which it is administered, and especially the Act commonly called the Clergy Discipline Act, require to be amended and reformed, and that it is incumbent on the Government to direct a measure to he prepared for that purpose. He had to express his regret that the Secretary of State for the Home Department had refused him certain Returns on the ground that they would entail too much trouble upon the officers of the Diocesan Courts. He had asked for Returns respecting the Ecclesiastial Courts, and respecting the fees paid; and he should have thought that there would be no objection to give the Returns, but he was surprised to find them refused. He had, therefore, obtained such information as he found accessible, and it appeared from the Report of a former Committee of that House that in two instances the office of registrar was filled by ladies; that in other cases the duties of Judges were performed by deputies; that as many as seventeen minors had been appointed registrars; that one of the joint registrars of the Principal Consistorial Court at Norwich was appointed at the age of ten years, had performed the duties of the office by deputy, and received an income of £1,427 a year derived from fees; that this gentleman refused to give any details; that in the Consistory Court of London the registrar was appointed by the Bishop of London in 1796, at the age of eight years, and received an income from fees of £904 per annum; that in the Consistory Court of Winchester the registrar, Brownlow North, was appointed by Bishop Brownlow North at the age of seven years, in reversion, and at the age of fifteen years he came into possession, with an income of £860 per annum; that the registrar of the Consistory Court at Norwich was appointed at six years of age, with an income of £85 per year; that the registrar at Llandaff was only five years old; and that the registrar at Sudbury was but three years old when appointed, the duties in both cases being performed by deputies. This was the state of things with regard to the officers, whom the Home Secretary would not compel to return the duties of their appointments and the fees they received at the present time. These fees, it should be recollected, were derived from the poor of the land. Every couple who were married paid £1 or £2 in the shape of fees, which gave a revenue of £30,000 a year, which were given to these gentlemen for the purpose of enabling them to take their pleasure while somebody else performed their duties. He maintained that it was the duty of the Home Secretary not to be so weak as to be deluded by these officers into a quiet acquiescence in their refusal to give the required returns; and if the right hon. Gentleman suffered from such a want of energy that he could not insist upon that being done he had better give up the office he held altogether. With regard to the Ecclesiastical Courts, they had been condemned by the highest authorities in this country. The ecclesiastical law constituted a system by which a body of 25,000 of the most influential persons in this country were specially governed, all cases of bad conduct in clergymen. such as drunkenness, and so forth, being brought within its operation. But the delay occasioned in the administration of that law was terrible. In criminal matters a case was usually disposed of in two months; in civil cases probably four months might be taken as the average duration; but in the Ecclesiastical Courts a case would not unusually occupy two years, as. for instance, did the case of Mr. Bon well. Then the enormous expense occasioned to the Bishop of the diocese was ruinous, and the result was that sometimes a clergyman who was a scandal to the parish in which he officiated remained unpunished because of the difficulty of getting him removed. The late Bishop of London spent £1,500 on one occasion in trying to unfrock an unworthy clergyman. A very short time ago, when it was desired to use the name of an Archbishop in a suit against a clergyman, the Archbishop obtained a bond for £10,000 to indemnify him for costs before he allowed the use of his name. That was a very irregular proceeding, and only to be justified by the scandalous state of the law. In every well-ordered State the Judges should be bound to perform their duties themselves, and not by deputy; infants should not be promoted to responsible offices intended for persons of more advanced age and competent judgment, and sinecures should be abolished. When the Minister of the Crown knew of the existence of these things, and went on tolerating them, be could not be said to be pursuing a course creditable to the great party which supported him. The present Lord Chancellor, Lord Cranworth, the Irish Prelates in a memorandum to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and, lastly, the Bishop of London, had all expressed opinions favourable to the Resolution which he had the honour to propose to the House, and it now only remained for him to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department to reintroduce a scheme which had been elaborated by the genius of the present Lord Chancellor, and which it had been deemed expedient to submit to the consideration of Parliament during the pressure of the war in 1856. The Home Office had now for a long time been in a state of classic repose, and the right hon. Gentleman could, therefore, well afford to turn his attention to the subject, and fulfil his professions as a Liberal Minister.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'in the opinion of this House, the state of the Ecclesiastical Law in England and Ireland, and of the Courts in which it is administered, and especially the Act commonly called the Clergy Discipline Act, require to be amended and reformed, and that it is incumbent on the Government to direct a measure to be prepared for that purpose,' —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, he regretted he had not come into the House until the hon. Gentleman had completed the introductory part of his speech, in which he had been informed the hon. Gentlemen had complained of his having misled him with respect to some returns which he hail moved for last Session. The House would, under the circumstances, perhaps, allow him to enter into a brief explanation on the subject. The hon. Gentleman had on Friday last given notice that he would ask him why the ecclesiastical returns which had been ordered by the House last July had not been laid on the Table, and he had accordingly instituted inquiry into the matter at the office to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, believing that the question of which notice had been given referred to certain papers moved for from that office. He had, however, since the occasion to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, ascertained that he had also moved an Address for some very voluminous returns relating to the Ecclesiastical Courts, but he did not understand him in the general description which he had given on a former occasion to point to those returns. Now, the address in question was not an order on the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and it was accordingly forwarded to the Home Office, from which a circular letter was in the usual manner written to Bishops and others who could be called upon to make returns in reply. Remonstrances had shortly afterwards been received from different quarters, stating that the returns were of so voluminous a nature that it could not be expected they would be made without payment, and requesting that intimation should be given by his department as to whether remuneration, in the event of the returns being made, would be given. Having taken the matter into his consideration, he came to the conclusion that he had no funds at his disposal which he could apply to such a purpose, and he had, therefore, caused a letter to he written to the effect that a compliance with the address could not be enforced. He took upon himself the entire responsibility of having adopted that course, and if the hon. Gentleman should deem it right to move for a renewal of the address he should be prepared to state the reasons why he did not think his demand for the information which he wanted was one to which it would be reasonable to accede. Having said thus much for the charge which the hon. Gentleman had brought against him, he had simply to observe, in reference to the general question, that he was by no means disposed to maintain that the present state of the Ecclesiastical Courts, so far as they retained any jurisdiction, was one which was not at all satisfactory. He had, he might add, no doubt that, if the time of the House were not otherwise occupied, it would be very properly employed in dealing with that question. Of course the Government, which had a great many measures to bring forward, must exercise some discretion as to the selection of the subjects on which it asked the House to legislate, and it was, he thought, quite clear that if they had in the present Session introduced a Bill for the reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts there would not be time for its due consideration, and it must eventually then for the present year be abandoned. The hon. Gentleman had correctly stated that a measure had been prepared on the subject which had been discussed in the other House of Parliament, although it had never been debated in the House of Commons. Now it was, no doubt, quite open to the Government, if they thought the question could be revised with advantage, to lay a Bill dealing with it it on the table of the House next Session. To the hon. Gentleman himself, or any other hon. Member who might wish to do so, it was equally competent to adopt that course, but it was impossible for him on the part of the Government to enter into any formal arrangement with the House as to the time when they might deem it prudent to submit a measure of that description to the notice of Parliament.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said: Sir, I wish to tender my thanks to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Poole for the great research he has exhibited upon this subject, and for having placed in the hands of the Members of this House the speech he made last year, than which, with its Appendix and the speech he has just delivered, there can scarcely be a more valuable compendium of information on the subject before the House. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to very great credit for the perseverance he has displayed upon this question. The evils arising from the present state of the Ecclesiastical Courts have been admitted by the leading Members of the late and of the present Administration; and the Government must he aware that it is extremely painful to the great body of the members of the Church of England when they see such cases as that miserable case of Mr. Bonwell pending for years, to their disgrace, before the public. It happens that I myself have had reason to feel the utter impossibility of obtaining justice through these Ecclesiastical Courts, and I have felt that the disgrace which attaches to the Church of England is attributable to the negligence that has been exhibited by Parliament, in not enabling the Church to purify herself from the stigma that must attach to her when such cases—happily of rare occurrence—as the one to which I have referred, are kept for years before the eyes of the public. I think that the House will agree with me, that we may trace many cases of disturbance to the lax state of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction. I know well, and I have admitted it in this House, that the agitation against church rates itself originated in the reasonable feeling of the people that they were paying for accommodation which they did not receive in many of the populous districts. But the inhabitants of many parishes have felt that their refusal to pay church rates was their only means of protest against conduct on the part of their pastors which grated heavily upon their consciences. Let the House remember, too, that we have twice had religious worship Bills introduced on behalf of the influential laymen, who have been so annoyed by the manner in which the services were conducted in certain parish churches, that they came here and asked permission of the Legislature to erect for themselves chapels, wherein they and their families might meet and worship according to the rites of the Church of England, under the ministration of clergymen over whom they could have a more direct control. I rejoice that the House on each occasion rejected those Bills, for I hope never to see in the hands of the lay members of the Church of England such arbitrary control over the clergy as is exercised by some of the Dissenting denominations. I value as much as any man the independence of the clergy, and I value it because I believe it conduces, in the vast majority of cases, to the faithful discharge of their peculiar duties. Still this manifestation on the part of influential laymen is not one which we, the members of the Church of England, can with safety disregard. If it is disregarded too long, we shall see a schism in the Church of England like the schism which took place in the Church of Scotland; but in the case of the seceders attended with all the lamentable consequences that attach to the condition of the Episcopal Church in that country. Sir, that would be an evil so great that the noble Lord at the head of the Government will, I am confident, think me justified in urging the probability of this danger upon him, as a grave reason for the interference of the Legislature in the matter. Let the House look also at the other cases which have arisen. I have stated that I regard the agitation against church rates as often used as a means of expressing annoyance on the part of many parishes. Take the case of St. George's-in-the-East. There the abuses of which the parishioners complained were put down by nothing short of mob law, restrained only by the police from actual personal violence. Then take the case of the rebellion at St. Barnabas, and the conduct of the incumbent, who, after thousands of pounds and many months had been spent in the suit, repudiated the authority of his Bishop, and succumbed only to the power of the Judicial Committee of Privy Council, of which that Bishop was a member, and, therefore, the exponent. There was no respect whatever for Episcopal authority in that conduct. It is with shame and regret that I see the record of that conduct standing in condemnation of the present state of the Church of England. Then, Sir, remember the appeal which was made to a civil court in the Lavington case—I mean the application to the Court of Queen's Bench—for the issue of a mandamus. And for what purpose? Merely to enable the parishioners to obtain a hearing which the Bishop had refused, for under the Church Discipline Act the Bishop has it clearly in his power to refuse a hearing to any complaint, and he is justified in the refusal because the condition of these Courts is such, their charges are so exhorbitant, and the delay in their administration is such, that it would be actual ruin to most of our Bishops were they always to perform their duty when required by members of the Church of England within their dioceses. Well, all this is a manifest disgrace to the Church. Let the House glance next for a moment at the case of the Essays and Reviews. Why, Sir, the entire Episcopal bench have declared their condemnation of that work, and, in doing so, what did they manifest? They manifested the disgrace of the Church and their own impotence; because, although armed ostensibly, as they ought really to be, with judicial powers, they expressed their opinions upon that grave subject extrajudicially; and I can only think of that protestation, as I have already said, as a manifestation of disgrace to the Church, and a confession of impotence on the part of the Episcopate. The Bishops have, indeed, before told us that judicially they are impotent. As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Poole has stated, they are helpless. Their incomes have been so reduced that it is totally impossible for them to bear the expense of performing their disciplinary and judicial duties at the enormous expense entailed by proceeding in their own Courts. Far be it from me to wish that any arbitrary or uncontrolled power exercised without the checks and safeguards incident to a fair trial in the presence of a competent bar, and with all the due process of open justice, should be placed in the hands of the Bishops of the Church of England, however much I may respect them. For, Sir, it is the peculiar characteristic of the Church of England, that she is united with the State by a bond which secures the emoluments and temporalities of the clergy. The position of the Church is that she is not subordinated, but is co-ordinate with the State in her obedience to the supreme power of this realm. And I hope that in any measure which is introduced upon this subject the characteristics of the Church of England as a branch of the Catholic Church, and at the same time as a national Church, will be borne in mind, and that we shall see no proposal made for vesting in the Bishops an arbitrary power such as that which has been generated by and has increased the abuses which have crept into the Church of Rome, but that we shall see a measure introduced by which, whenever any grave and well-founded complaint is made, shall secure that that complaint may be investigated in open Court, with all the attendant ceremonies and safeguards of the law, securing to every incumbent his right of irremovability, and the enjoyment of his preferment undisturbed, unless it can be proved that he has rendered himself amenable to those common maxims of just law which ought always to prevail in the government of the clergy as well as in that of the laity. It is a most extraordinary fact that this House has done more justice to the Roman Catholics resident within this country than it has done to the great body of the members of the Church of England. Last Session, thanks to the Government, and especially to the perseverance of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, a measure was passed which has given to the Roman Catholics the opportunity of a hearing and a fair trial under the laws of their native country in everything that concerns their property devoted to religious and charitable uses; but to this hour the great body of the Church of England remain practically debarred from many of the benefits which last Session you conferred upon that small minority who profess the Roman Catholic faith. That measure was, in fact, the answer to an appeal which which was made as long ago as the year 1851 by the Roman Catholic priests of the district of Hexham; and let me for a moment, in illustration of the nature of the improvement or reformation of our ecclesiastical law which I hope to see, remind the House of what these gentlemen prayed for. They addressed themselves to Cardinal Wiseman, and they asked— First, that their ecclesiastical constitution be compounded of these four ingredients—that is, the civil law of England, the Canon law (in spirituals) of the Catholic Church, the common law, and the just and equitable statute laws of their beloved country; for they are convinced that these would constitute, if properly compounded, a safe, salutary, and uniform system of ecclesiastical legislation for the Catholics of England. Now, what I would ask for the members of the Church of England is that by the renovation of our system of ecclesiastical procedure, you should revive those benefits for us. But I hope that in no measure which may be introduced we shall meet with such an answer as was given by the committee of St. Thomas of Canterbury, though by anticipation, to this prayer of the Roman Catholic priests. That Committee, of which Cardinal Wiseman is a member, said— In the Catholic Church, the Bishop, as your Committee learn, is not merely an administrator; he is a judge, acting sometimes with the ordinary formalities of courts, at other times summarily, and without any formalities whatever …. It is not every case of supposed criminality in which a priest is entitled to a trial before suspension. On the contrary, it is the gravest offences of all which, for avoiding scandal, give the Bishop the right of suspension without trial, &c, &c. So true is it that a Bishop can, by virtue of the aforesaid decree (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV., 1; De Syond. Diocese), for reasons best known to himself, interdict a priest from the exercise of his sacred functions, that he is not even bound to make known the cause of suspension or the crime to the very criminal himself, but only to the Apostolic See, if the suspended priest shall have recourse to that tribunal. Now, Sir, last Session we did all we could to guard the Roman Catholic priests and Roman Catholic laity of this country against this arbitrary control, and I trust that no measure which is introduced for the Church of England will give any such arbitrary jurisdiction to the Bishops of our Church, however much they are entitled to our respect. Let us not oppose the clergy; but in seeking justice for the laity, 1 would seek justice for the clergy also. I claim that the character and the position of the Church of England, as united with the State by a union which until this jurisdiction lapsed was without confusion, shall be borne in mind by those who are to provide for the due administration of her laws. I say this, Sir, because I wish to clear my urgency upon this subject from all imputation of a desire to place the parochial or inferior clergy under a jurisdiction which I feel would be unbecoming the freemen of this country. We seek, Sir, a national reform. We seek a reform in the spirit and according to the constitution of the Church of England; and 1 will conclude by assuring the Government that, so far as my humble vote will go, should their measure be, as I believe it will be, a measure well adapted to meet the exigencies of the case, I shall feel it equally an honour and a duty to tender them my support.

MR. HADFIELD

said, he would strongly urge the members of the Church of England to release themselves from the trammels of the State. There was not a more independent body of men in the world than Dissenting ministers, although they were dependent upon the voluntary system. But what was the state of the Church of England? Why, according to the testimony of the Bishop of Ripon, there were 10,000 of its ministers who at that moment were not in the receipt of —100 per annum. Dissenters certainly did not treat their ministers in this way, and he argued that the only remedy for that unhappy state of things would be the adoption of a system which would enable those clergymen to avail themselves of the voluntary kindness of their flocks, and which would free the Church from the benumbing influence of its connection with the State. He would, however, undertake to utter a prophecy in that House, which was that the noble Lord at the head of the Government would never attempt any reform of the discipline of the Church of England. He was too experienced a politician to try his hand at anything of the kind, for he would bring all the ecclesiastical bodies in the kingdom about his ears.

MR. DANBY SEYMOUR

said, he was satisfied with the opinions elicited from both sides of the House, and also with the perfectly unsatisfactory answer of the right lion. Gentleman, and, in withdrawing his Motion, he would state that he should take the earliest opportunity of again bringing the subject under consideration.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.