HC Deb 11 April 1877 vol 233 cc956-66

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. MONK,

in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he was fully aware of the difficulties with which he had to contend in introducing a Bill affecting to some extent the laws and customs of the Church of England, even though he did so, as he was prepared to prove, in the best interests of the Church itself, and with the sole view of removing one of those gross blots and anomalies which impaired the influence and usefulness of the Church in this country. He was also sensible of the serious responsibility he incurred as a private Member in asking the House to agree to the second reading of a Bill which abolished the licence granted by the Crown to the Dean and Chapter to elect a Bishop, better known as the congé d'élire. He fully admitted that such a measure would come better from the Government; but he was convinced that no Government would move in the matter until it had been thoroughly ventilated in Parliament. He accepted the responsibility the more readily as he believed that nine-tenths of the laity desired to see the mock election by congé d'élire done away with. In 1874 he brought in a Bill with that object, but he could not secure a day for the second reading. In 1875 the Government passed the St. Alban's Bishopric Act, enabling the Crown to appoint the Bishop by Letters Patent without the legal fiction of a congé d'élire and the intervention of a Dean and Chapter. By that Act and by the Truro Bishopric Act of last year the whole principle of election by congé d'élire was given up by the Government and by Parliament. In the earliest ages of Christianity the elevation to the Episcopal chair was by election, which was performed by the laity and clergy in common. Owing to tumults and disturbances arising at these popular elections, the early Christian Emperors took the appointment of Bishops into their own hands. On a vacancy occurring, the Chapter sent a ring and crozier to the Sovereign, who appointed the Bishop and invested him per annulum et baculum. In this country in Saxon times the Bishops were appointed by the King, to whom the right of patronage accrued as founder and endower of the Sees. From the reign of William the Conqueror to that of King John it was the custom to choose Bishops at a meeting of the Bishops and Barons in the presence of the King, and of a delegation of monks or canons who represented the vacant See. King John surrendered to the clergy the undisputed right of electing their Bishops. In the reign of Henry VIII. an Act was passed—25 Henry VIII. c. 20—for regulating the appointment of Bishops. It was repealed in the reign of Queen Mary, but was re-enacted in that of Elizabeth, and continued to be the law on that subject. It provides, first, for issuing the Congé d'élire with the Letters Missive containing the name of the person to be elected; then for the mode of election by the Dean and Chapter, who must elect within 12 days and signify the election to the Crown, or incur the penalties of præmunire. After the oath of fealty had been taken by the Bishop elect to the King, his Majesty signifies the same to the Archbishop, requiring him to confirm, invest, and consecrate under like penalties. In the reign of Edward VI. all Bishoprics were made donative by the King by Letters Patent; but that Act was repealed in the reign of Mary. In Ireland Bishops were also made donative by 2 Eliz. c. 4 (Ireland), and continued to be so up to the disestablishment of the Irish Church, no congé d'élire being issued, no confirmation being required, and no election taking place on the part of the Dean and Chapter. The object of his Bill was to enable the Crown to recur to the practice sanctioned by Parliament in the reign of Edward VI. by abolishing what was a mere mockery and pretence of an election. Under the present law no real election—no real confirmation—of a Bishop could take place. Both were as much legal fictions as were those mysterious personages, John Doe and Richard Roe, who were now defunct. Dr. Deane, the Vicar General of the Province of Canterbury, in his evidence before a Committee of the Lords last year, stated that he thought the jurisdiction of the Vicar General exercised at the confirmation of a Bishop ought to be done away with, as it was a sham, the objectors having no right to be heard. Thrice had scandal arisen within the last 20 years, and injury been done to the Church by reason of these legal fictions being disputed. In the well-known case of Bishop Hampden's confirmation at Bow Church the Judge refused to hear the objectors; and the Court of Queen's Bench upheld his decision, on the ground that the act of confirmation of a Bishop was a Ministerial, and not a judicial act. But great scandal was caused by the proceedings in Bow Church and in Westminster Hall. So it was in the cases of Dr. Lee, Bishop of Manchester, and of the present Bishop of Exeter, whose elections were disputed at the time of their confirmation. It seemed to him that the religious service ought not to be mixed up with a Ministerial act. It appeared to him to be little short of blasphemy to invoke the Holy Spirit to guide the Dean and Chapter in the choice of a Bishop, when they had no choice in the selection. In the interest of Deans and Chapters themselves he asked the House to relieve them from the false position in which they were placed, and from which their Irish brethren had been relieved since the reign of Elizabeth. In a debate in the House of Lords in 1848 Bishop Phillpotts and Bishop Thirlwall agreed that the congé d'élire was "unmixed tyranny," and Lord Chief Justice Denman recommended that the congé d'élire with Letters Missive should be abolished. He (Mr. Monk) was of the same opinion as those right rev. Prelates were that the absolute power of appointment should be reserved to the Crown. In framing his Bill he had followed closely the precedent of the 1 Edward VI., c. 2. He hoped he had sufficiently proved that the forms of election and confirmation were unreal and objectionable. As to the costs, he found in Collier's Church History that the Bishop's fees amounted to £331, of which £110 were for the consecration dinner at Lambeth, and for the Archbishop's servants; £48 for gloves for the consecration; and £52 for doing homage. At the present time, he believed the fees amounted to between £400 and £500. Great delay arose in the election and consecration of a Bishop, and frequently three months elapsed before the new Bishop appeared upon the scene, and the consequent postponement of ordinations and other Episcopal duties was a source of serious inconvenience. The hon. Member for West Kent had given Notice of an Amendment to the effect that reality should be given to the forms now observed in the election of Bishops. He should listen with interest to the development of his scheme by the hon. Gentleman; but, for his own part, he (Mr. Monk) believed that the absolute appointment of Bishops by the Crown had worked well in this country, and he should deprecate any return to popular election or to the more restricted election by the clergy. What he aimed at by this Bill was to do away with the mock election and the scandal denounced by Bishop Phillpotts and Lord Denman in the House of Lords. He believed that a vast majority of Members would agree with him that the Congé d'élire was indefensible, and he appealed with some confidence to the House to give a second reading to his Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Monk.)

MR. J. G. TALBOT

said, that while sympathizing with the motives which had induced the hon. Member for Gloucester to bring forward this Motion, he could not follow him to the conclusion at which he had arrived with regard to abolishing the congé d'élire. He should prefer seeing the pre sent practice amended rather than swept away altogether. He did not at all approve the despotic power being in the Crown which this Bill would place in its hands; but he wished to give an opportunity to Deans and Chapters, when called upon to elect the person nominated by the Crown, to show cause why they should not do so. That being his view, he had placed on the Paper an Amendment— That, instead of assenting to the principle of this Bill, it is desirable to ascertain how far reality can be given to the forms now observed in the Election and Confirmation of Archbishops and Bishops in the Church of England. He admitted that there were grievances under the present system in respect of the confirmation of Bishops, and he quoted a passage from the writings of the Bishop of Carlisle—then Dean of Ely—in which that eminent Prelate exposed strongly the mockery of summoning persons to object to the confirmation of Bishops, and then refusing to hear them; and he thought Her Majesty's Government would do well to take the subject in consideration. He was quite sure his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester would be the last person to inflict a grievance on the Church, and trusted he would direct his attention to framing some practical proposal for the removal of any scandal which might at present exist. He trusted his hon. Friend would not press this crude measure, in which he actually sought to reenact the penalties of præmunire, embodied in a statute of Richard II.; but would see the desirability of endeavouring rather to remove the evils complained of by more reasonable means. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Amendment.

MR. GREGORY

said, he also opposed the Bill, at the same time giving only a qualified support to the Amendment which had just been moved. He would here observe that the object of the Act of Edward VI. was to guard against the encroachments of the Pope rather than to limit the powers of the Deans and Chapters. Standing up entirely for the Prerogative of the Crown in regard to its connection with the Church in this matter, he proposed, with that view, to insert in the Amendment of his hon. Friend, after the word "reality," the words "without derogation to the Prerogative and privileges of the Crown."

MR. SPEAKER

said, he understood the hon. Member who had just spoken to rise to second the Amendment. He could not in so doing move another Amendment.

Amendment proposed,

To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "instead of assenting to the principle of this Bill, it is desirable to ascertain how far reality can be given to the forms now observed in the Election and Confirmation of Archbishops and Bishops in the Church of England,"—(Mr. John Talbot,) —instead thereof.

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

MR. FORSYTH

supported the Bill because he believed it would have the effect of removing what he thought was a scandal which seriously affected the Church. He put it to the House, whether it was right to continue a law which compelled the Deans and Chapters of the Church of England, in the election of Bishops, to go through the form of a solemn farce? He thought the present system ought to be abolished, and that the Crown ought to have the same right of direct appointment with regard to Bishoprics in this country as it had with regard to Irish and Colonial Bishoprics. In the case of Dr. Hampden, which came before a Court of Law, the existing form of procedure had been denounced in the strongest language by the late Mr. Justice Coleridge, than whom there never was a warmer friend of the Church of England.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

opposed the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Kent (Mr. J. G. Talbot). What did that Amendment mean, and why was it pressed at the present moment? It was perfectly well-known that there was a party in the Church who maintained that the Church was represented and ought to be directed and governed by the Clergy and the Clergy alone; and that was the explanation of the Amendment. The hon. Member for West Kent asked that the congé d'élire, which was now a form, should be made a reality. What did that mean. Why, it meant that a veto should be given to the Clergy upon the nomination of the Bishops by the Crown. And what was that but to attack one of the fundamental principles of the Reformation in England? One of the first fundamental principles of the Reformation was that the Clergy should not have a potential voice in the nomination of the Bishops of this country; and if ever the Clergy should have such a potential voice in the election of the Bishops, the Church of England as an establishment would cease to exist. He believed that one of the things which had reconciled the people of this country with the Established Church was, that the nomination of the Bishops was lodged in the Crown. Now, however, it was proposed that instead of having the Crown as the great trustee in this matter, for the laity of this country to set up against the existing principles of the Church the Ultramontane doctrines which were but thinly veiled in the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Kent. He believed that the principle embodied in the Amendment was the same principle as was asserted in the memorial put forth within the last fortnight by a considerable number of dignitaries and eminent members of the Church of England, who urged that the Church should have some voice in the nomination of Bishops. The Church had some voice in that matter. The Crown represented the Church, but it represented mainly the lay element, and not the clerical element of the Church. The clergy were not the Church of England—they were the ministers of the Church of England. If their claim were allowed their Church would cease to be the National Church. If it deserved that name it was because it represented the national and lay element and not merely the clerical element. He would very willingly see the removal of the congé d'élire; but from the moment it was made a reality it would be mischievous and odious.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

explained that he had said nothing about the clerical element. His object was to enable Deans and Chapters when called on to elect a Bishop to say why they did not wish to do so if they objected to the person nominated.

MR. RAIKES

said, the "allocution" with which the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) had just favoured the House was addressed to a very wide and abstract principle rather than to the particular question at the present moment under their consideration. The question raised by the Amendment was not whether a dominant voice should be given to the clergy in the election of Bishops, but its object was to enable the House to consider the whole subject and to give the Government and the House an opportunity of considering whether the present mode of appointing Bishops was so good that it ought to be continued, He thought the mode in which the Bill of the hon. Member for Gloucester proposed to deal with this subject would put us in a worse position than we were in at present.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Marylebone (Mr. Forsyth) must have been in the dreams of his youth when he appealed so earnestly to us to put the appointment of Bishops on what he told us is the footing in the Colonies and in Ireland. Need I remind him that at the Cape—not a little owing to a notorious case referring to these very Letters Patent—in Canada, in Australia and New Zealand, and throughout the Colonies, the appointment of Bishops has become, or is becoming, a matter of popular election. Now, I do not look upon that as a desirable state of things for England, and so I am jealous of my hon. and learned Friend's appeal to the Colonies. But ho does not stop there. He actually appeals to Royal nominations in Ireland as an existing fact; and I must ask him—"Are the Bishops in Ireland now appointed by the Crown or are they not?" And I will put to him another question—"Would the Established Church in Ireland have fallen so easily as it has done, if it had stood upon the broad basis of authority combined with popular acceptance upon which the Church of England stands?" I believe not. I believe that this absence or neglect of ancient forms in Ireland, the absence of the general interest arising out of lay patronage, and other differences of the same character, had a great deal to do with Irish disestabblishment. Then came my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the city of Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) with that touching appeal. I put on one side all that he has said about a dominant clergy, all his references to a certain Memorial, and all those hankerings after præmunire which animated his oration. My hon. and learned Friend said that the "fundamental principle" of the Reformation was that the clergy should not have a potential voice in the appointment of their own chief ministers. I know that whenever a Member desires to make an ecclesiastical speech, and happens to be at a loss for argument, he is apt to fall back upon the "fundamental principle of the Reformation." Now, I believe that there are—not one, but a great many fundamental principles of the Reformation, and one of these, I was always educated to believe, is the right of private judgment. But it seems that my hon. and learned Friend has discovered that "the" fundamental principle of the Reformation is, that the clergy of the Church of the Reformation are alone to be deprived of this right of private judgment. Then my hon. and learned Friend said that the clergy are not exclusively the Church, and I agree with him there. The laity are a part of the Church also. But then he went on to say, not only that the clergy are not the Church, but that they are only the ministers of the Church. So they are, in one sense; but, admiring as he does the Reformation Settlement, and admiring it, as I also do, let me call his attention to this fact—that in the great Act of Henry VIII., which established the Church of England upon the present system of national independence, the clergy are not called ministers, but the "Spiritualty," and that it is there declared that the Spiritualty, as such, have their assigned position in the constitution of the Church. That position is not a dominant one. It is one of recognized and Constitutional—in short, of potential right, and my hon. and learned Friend, in pressing the views which he holds, has no more right to refuse that to them than he would have to claim for the Spiritualty the domination which we have no desire as he that they should possess. No one avers that they, and not the Crown, are the trustees of the Realm in the matter of appointments. The Crown, I agree, is the trustee of both clergy and laity; and it follows that the Crown should have the potential voice in the first selection of a Bishop. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Marylebone then quoted the language of Mr. Justice Coleridge, in the Judgment on the Hampden Case, and as repeated by him, the words fell with an impressive ring upon the House. They were still more impressive from the learned Judge's own lips, in the Court of Queen's Bench, whore I had the privilege of hearing them uttered on that memorable occasion. My hon. and learned Friend had the courage to quote this defence of the reality of Confirmation in support of a Bill, the object of which is to declare that, for all time to come, this ceremony of confirming the selection of the Crown, and, in theory at least, securing its exercise with wisdom and judgment, for the benefit of the Church and the nation, should be swept away! I should have understood him, if his contention had been to put life into the dry bones. Whence, I ask, is this new-born zeal in favour of simple nomination and of appointment direct from the Crown? Elsewhere the principle of competitive examination and selection by merit has secured an even intolerant adhesion. In the Church alone we are told to fall back on naked patronage. In fact, it is to be made the all-in-all, and the contingent power which now accrues to the Chapter, and then to the Archbishop, of reviewing the selection made by the Crown, is to be taken from them. I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees, that the confirmation of the choice made by the Crown should be a reality, and that the Chapter, if they have any well-founded objection to the person nominated, should have the power of electing under protest. This one change, formally affecting the later stage of confirmation far more than the earlier one of the election, would be sufficient to redeem the congé d'élire from the charge of being a mockery. That protest would become the subject-matter of contention at the confirmation, and the election so far would be made a reality.

And it being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.