§ Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [6th April], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ Question again proposed.
§ Debate resumed.
§ MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he had noticed that when he was, yesterday, making the observation that the National Church of the country was a great Institution, for the management of which that House was responsible, there came from some parts of the House indications of dissent. He now repeated his opinion that the Established Church of the country was essentially a National Institution for which Parliament was responsible; that the clergy of the Church were also national officers; and that the House was responsible for the management of the Church and for the regulations under which the clergy enjoyed their benefices. If there was any foundation for the statement that the Church was not a National Institution, then he ventured to ask why was that House continually troubled with the affairs of the Church—why were its internal affairs not managed in the same 974 way as the internal affairs of other Churches? It was rather late in the day to hold the opinion that the Church was not a National Institution When the Irish Church Act was carried through Parliament, the Representatives of the people, by a very large majority—with regard to an Institution which held at that time a position identical with that of the Established Church in this country—treated the Irish Church as a National Institution, its officers as public officers, and dealt with it accordingly. If that were so, it was clear that the affairs of the Church of England were affairs that must come under the observation of Parliament, and of which Parliament must take cognizance. He experienced some difficulty in approaching the consideration of this matter, because the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope) had stated that this was not the actual Bill which would be discussed; that, in the first place, the Bill was to be cut in two, and that, in the next, some of the clauses were to be struck out. It was impossible to say what part of the Bill was really under discussion at that moment, and what part of it was to be postponed to a future occasion; and, therefore, he thought there were objections of the strongest character against assenting to the second reading of the measure. The House should not, blindfold, give its consent to the principle which it embodied. There were several points upon which he desired information. For instance, was it the intention of the Mover of the Bill to provide compensation in view of the important pecuniary interests involved? Again, further explanation was needed with regard to the 17th clause, authorizing exchanges and resignations for pecuniary considerations.
§ MR. E. STANHOPEI stated yesterday that the clause would be withdrawn.
§ MR. ILLINGWORTHurged that, although the Bill might have been discussed in "another place," it had not received sufficient consideration in that House, and, therefore, they were not justified in assenting to the principle of a measure of which they knew very little. Notwithstanding that the Bill had been described as a small Bill dealing with a very large question, he should venture to move that, in the opinion of the House, it was inexpedient to pass any measure which gave legal sanction to the 975 sale, under any circumstances, of the right of appointing ministers to parochial or other benefices. Had a Bill embodying that principle been brought before the House, it might have been said that it had a general concurrence of opinion in its favour. But he wished to know why the House was asked, so to speak, to nibble at the question, instead of manfully grappling with it as a whole? The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire would be obliged to admit that the Bill only touched the fringe of the question, and that it was leaving untouched, and, in fact, renewing, Parliamentary sanction to the sale of advowsons. The National Church of the country was in a somewhat anomalous position. At times its adherents were disposed to assert that it was not a National Institution, and that its management should be confined to those who were its avowed adherents. At other times, and to serve other purposes, it was loudly proclaimed to be the National Church, and that all other Denominations, and all citizens were alike obliged to bow to that fact. He held, in the case of any alteration of the law affecting the Church, that it must be treated as a national question, and that Parliament must be consulted, and that the citizens of the country, whether they belonged to the Church of England, or other religions, or no religious body, were entitled to express an opinion as to what should be the direction of legislation with regard to the National Church. It could not be urged in that House that the measure had received the consideration of the country, or of the Representatives of the people, or that it would not be a departure from sound precedent if it wore admitted to a second reading, especially as hon. Members were informed that the Bill would be re-cast immediately afterwards. He regretted very much to stand between hon. Members and their beds at that hour (2.15); but he could plead that the fault did not lie with him. He thought that pressure had been attempted to be brought upon Members of the House in order to force on the carrying of this Bill against which he did not hesitate to protest. Again, the Bill proposed to give increased powers to the Bishops. That, of course, raised a most important question; and if it were laid before the public, he thought there would be found 976 a great majority of the people who held that, so far from giving increased powers to the Bishops, there was deep dissatisfaction with the way they used the power they had already. Take, for instance, the question of patronage. The Archbishop of Canterbury was reported to have said that he regarded Church patronage as a public trust. Nevertheless, they were told that, in exercising the patronage that had fallen to his lot, he had used it largely in favour of his own relatives and friends. The question was one of great importance, and he believed there were strong reasons for believing that the Archbishop committed frequent acts of nepotism in so exercising what he regarded as a public trust. He had received a pamphlet from a clergyman which drew public attention to what the writer considered to be a gross abuse of power on the part of the Archbishop. If these statements were well founded, he, for one, objected to further powers being conferred upon the Bishops. He did not think the Archbishop was alone in the use he made of Church patronage; on the contrary, he believed there were many Bishops who thought they did well in regarding relationship as having the greatest claim upon them for the best offices at their disposal, and that there were many just complaints from the best men in the Church that they were forgotten and thrust aside in favour of the fortunate gentlemen who happened to be relatives and friends of the Bishops and Archbishops. Further, it appeared to him that even if the sale of the right of next presentation were barred by this Bill, there would be the same traffic by evasion as now in the offices of the Church, the only difference being in the way the trust would be exercised by A or B. On these grounds, he thought the House would act rightly in insisting that if there was to be a new Bill much more limited than the one offered for their notice which they were now asked to read a second time at that untimely hour in the morning, it should go through the ordinary stages of a Bill in Parliament. In reality, this measure had made next to no progress, and the more it was known the more objectionable would it appear to people out-of-doors. What was held by the great mass of the people of this country was that the 977 English Church was gradually approaching Disestablishment. Parliament had disestablished the Irish Church, and when the English Church was dealt with in the same way, Episcopalians would have their freedom—they would have liberty to manage their own affairs; but, in the meantime, they must make up their minds to bear the many inconveniences that an Established Church brought in its train, one of which was this exercise of patronage. The whole question of the sale of advowsons was, he must say, too huge a matter for a private Member to attempt to deal with; but, if that was so, there was little advantage in entering upon the settlement of so small a portion of the subject as the sale of the right to next presentations. It would be useless to deal with this matter until public opinion expressed itself in such a way as to enable Parliament to carry through a measure to terminate an evil under which the Church was groaning. Why could not the larger question be dealt with at once? Would any Member of the House, or any person in the country, say that it was not an evil which ought to be terminated? No. Then, if there were a majority of Members in that House, and a majority of Members in the House of Lords, who deplored the continuance of this system of the purchase and sale of livings in the Church, why did not Parliament undertake the work in real earnest, and deal with the whole evil? Where was opposition to come from? He apprehended it would not come from the Dissenters, but he believed the difficulty lay in the enormous amount of the money value of the advowsons. He wished to ask this question of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope). If he was prepared to go the length of this Bill, why should not Parliament go one stop farther, and declare patronage to be altogether a matter of trust and not of property? The hon. Member would deal with next presentations, looking upon them as other than property; and he did not propose to give the slightest compensation to those deprived of the right of sale. Clearly, that was interfering with the right of property of the present owners of advowsons. He asked if the hon. Member was entitled, without lying under the imputation of interfering with the sacred rights of property, to take 25, 20, or 10 per cent from the value of 978 advowsons? Did not the principle, once admitted, strike at the root of any claim which might be made by the owners of advowsons in the country? If that was so, the whole thing was settled; because, once this difficulty out of the way, there would be absolute unanimity in the House, and in "another place," in favour of grappling with the question, instead of taking it piecemeal, as the hon. Member proposed to do. There were several great inconveniences in attempting to deal with a matter of this kind at that hour of the morning, and not the least of them was that no reports of the discussion could now appear in the newspapers; and hon. Members had a right to complain, considering the importance of the matter, that at that hour an attempt should be made to push the Bill to another stage. He begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
§
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, it is inexpedient to pass any measure which gives legal sanction to the sale under any circumstances of the right of appointing ministers to parochial or other benefices,"—(Mr. Illingworth,)
§ —instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTI entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) has said in respect to the National Church, that every person in the country, and, above all, every Representative of the people, whether he is a member of that Church or not, has a right to express his opinion and to give effect to his views. That is the view the hon. Member for Huddersfield has long entertained on this subject, and, year after year, he has brought forward, with the strong approbation of the Nonconformists, a proposal to remove the scandal in the Church of the sale of next presentations. Churchmen have admitted that the scandal exists, and ought to be redressed. The hon. Member for Bradford says the matter is not dealt with in this Bill, and, technically speaking, that is true; but we had what is equivalent to a second reading discussion on the Bill the other night on the Motion of the hon. Mem- 979 ber for Huddersfield. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, in the Resolution he brought forward, practically propounded the second reading of this Bill, in principle——
§ MR. ILLINGWORTHMight I be allowed to explain? The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham), I believe, dealt with the whole question of the sale of patronage, and did not limit his Motion to the sale of next presentations.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTCertainly, the Resolution the hon. Member for Huddersfield brought forward was mainly, if not entirely, directed to the sale of next presentations. ["No, no!"] I beg pardon; but I think I am right. Now, I have read what, I dare say, a great number of Members have not read—that is, the Report of the Committee—and I am, therefore, entitled to say that I know that the scandals are connected with the sale of next presentations; and, to the best of my recollection, the instances given by the hon. Member for Huddersfield were exclusively of that character. I, therefore, think I am right in saying that, practically, we had the discussion of the second reading of this Bill on the hon. Member's Motion. I will not, at this late hour, argue the question of the difference between the sale of next presentations and advowsons; but, in my opinion, there is a great difference between the two; but, at all events, here is a Bill which promises to do the very thing which, year after year, the hon. Member for Huddersfield has demanded shall be done. The hon. Member for Huddersfield had put on the Paper a Notice of opposition to this Bill; but, since the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire drew his attention to the changes which it is intended to make in the measure, he has removed his Notice. As, then, it is admitted that the Bill is to remove a grievance, and as the hon. Member for Huddersfield has, practically, assented to it, it is only fair and reasonable to ask hon. Members on this side of the House to pass it. The hon. Member for Bradford says there are certain clauses in the Bill giving larger powers to the Bishops; and he, very fairly and properly, from his point of view, objected to those clauses; but, I understand from the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, that he does not in- 980 tend to include those clauses into this part of the Bill—[Mr. ILLINGWORTH: This part?]—I mean into the Bill we are now discussing. I understand that all the clauses in question are to go out of the Bill—we have nothing to do with the question whether or no they are to be introduced into another Bill. As I understand it, the present measure is simply one for the sale of next presentations and the abolition of donatives, and one or two strictly collateral and subsidiary matters. That was what my hon. Friend said he was prepared to support; and he gave a pledge—and, if he were here he would say better than I do—that this Bill has plain and simple objects, and contains provisions that have been demanded by the hon. Member for Huddersfield on behalf of the Nonconformists of this country, and that will amend matters connected with the Church that Churchmen have admitted ought to be amended. Under the circumstances, I do hope—for though I entirely appreciate the point of view of the hon. Member for Bradford, I do not think the Bill can be considered as raising any of the great questions which I know he has taken a deep interest in—the House will understand the hon. Member is willing to confine the Bill to the objects stated, and will allow it to be read a second time.
§ MR. WILLISwas sorry to address the House at that hour of the morning upon a matter of such great moment to the Church, of which he happened, by virtue of a seat in that House, to be a member of the Governing Body; but he opposed the Bill, not upon the ground that it proposed to abolish the sale of presentations to livings, but because it proposed to substitute a method of appointment in lieu of it, which would prevent that complete reform that was absolutely essential to the due development of spiritual life in the Establishment. He objected to this Bill principally with respect to two matters—first, the formation of the corporate body, which was to have the power of acquiring advowsons and many gifts of various kinds, for the purpose of putting into the hands of a body constituted of the Bishop of the diocese and three or four other persons, whose characters were not strictly defined, the power of appointing to livings to the Church of England—and most of the 981 scandals in the Church of England resulted from the way in which men were appointed to livings; and, secondly, because, without regard to the feelings and opinions of those who worshipped in the Established Church, men could be appointed to discharge spiritual duties who were in no way in sympathy with the people to whom they administered, and who, if a vote of the congregation could be taken, would not for a moment be allowed to discharge those duties. He was not arguing for Disestablishment, and he thought he was as familiar with the grievances of members of the Church of England as any person who happened not to be a communicant, and did not attend its Services. The complaint was not of the sale of livings—many men had bought a living, and had shown themselves useful members of the Church—but the point was, that, entirely in disregard of the principles of the Church of Christ, in the Establishment a man was appointed to discharge offices the duties of which he neither desired nor possessed the required qualification to discharge; and if there was any person whom he would resist to the last having power to appoint a minister of the Church of England, it would be the Bishop of the Establishment, in respect of whose appointment the worldly features of the Establishment were more conspicuous than in any other of its arrangements. In a town with which he was acquainted, there was a Church of England clergyman, a very good man, who was beloved and esteemed by all his congregation. He was an elderly man; and if they were to ask time congregation the thing they most desired, they would say that it was that he might survive his Bishop, who, the moment he retired, by death or otherwise, would appoint a person in his place who might introduce doctrines, teachings, and practices which the congregation abhorred and disliked. It was a monstrous thing to give to one man such power as this, and he (Mr. Willis) would not be a party to the passing of a measure which would gather up in the hands of the Bishop the whole right of presenting to livings in the Church of England. It was disgraceful to call the traffic in livings merely "Simony." It was giving it too good a name. There was nothing so bad in the conduct of Simon; for when Simon saw the gifts which resulted 982 from the possession of the Holy Ghost, he desired to possess it, and when he found he had made a mistake as to the method of acquiring it, he said—"Pray for me that none of these things happen to me." He should be glad to hear that the clergymen in the Church of England prayed at all. ["Oh, oh!"] He would repeat it, for he was perfectly in earnest; and it was immaterial to him whether he pleased those who were listening to him or not. He was speaking, he hoped, under a sense of responsibility, having resolved, as soon as he got into the House, not to argue for Disestablishment merely, but to secure, if possible, for those who loved the doctrines and teachings of the Church of England, and who were its living members, a voice in the management of its affairs, and in the selection of its ministers. Let them sanction this Bill, and it was a further obstacle in the way of reform. Once they got a body, like the Bishop and two or three others, to control the livings of the diocese, there was a new obstacle in the way of true reform in the Church of England. There was an hon. Member who sat on the Bench opposite who practised in the Profession he (Mr. Willis) belonged to—the hon. Member for Mid Lincolshire (Mr. E. Stanhope)—and he had known that hon. Member to be a man desirous of promoting the best interest of the Church of England; but to think that that Bill would ever satisfy this hon. Member's notions of what the Church of Christ ought to receive, was the regret he (Mr. Willis) felt. Let them think for a moment what the Bill proposed to do. It proposed to determine the methods by which persons should be appointed; and the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire thought the interest of the Church of England would be met if they could appoint a man to discharge the duties of pastor against whom they could not charge any one of the three offences that could preclude him from holding a living, and who was not incapable of reading the Lesson; and the hon. Member proposed that before this person could be appointed, two or three people should sit to inquire whether he was physically fit. He urged that members of the Church of England should have the liberty which the Church to which he belonged enjoyed, of selecting their own pastors, and that this most improper 983 practice of allowing a man to buy an advowson and present some other man to it, should be abolished, and the life of the Church be thereby increased. He was astonished that the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, who was a true Churchman, should even have thought of legalizing such transactions. Nothing, he believed, could so effectually prevent Disestablishment as the giving of self-government to the members of the Church. The present state of the Church was creating many sects within it, and unless this system of creating divisions was done away with, nothing could save it from being freed from the control of the State. In order that men who were interested in the question, and who were resolved to discuss it upon purely Christian grounds, and to show the injustice that had been done to spiritual life in England from the creation of the Establishment till now, might have an opportunity of discussing it in the House, he begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Willis.)
§ MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Member would withdraw the Motion, believing that he could set at rest the difficulties in his hon. and learned Friend's mind. The hon. and learned Member, perhaps, had not quite followed what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had said as to the procedure to be adopted in regard to this Bill. What was intended was this. He accepted, a few days ago, a proposal made by the Government that the House should, pro formâ, go into Committee, and then cut the Bill into two parts, the first to contain the proposals mentioned by the Home Secretary, and all the rest to be put into the second. Every single proposal to which the hon. and learned Member had referred was contained in the second part, and was distinct from the first part, upon which the Prime Minister had said he would look with special favour. Therefore, he thought the hon and learned Member might rest assured that the points to which he had alluded would not come under discussion in the first part of the Bill, and he hoped the hon. and learned Member would not be disposed to continue his opposition. 984 The last thing intended was to limit discussion on this Bill; all that was intended was that after the discussion the other day on the Resolution of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham), when a general feeling was expressed as to the desirability of pushing forward this Session certain clauses of the Bill dealing with the urgent portions of this matter, the House should have the earliest possible debate on the amended Bill, and should lose no chance of effecting a reform which every man in the House really desired to have carried out.
§ MR. THOROLD ROGERSstated that he should vote with the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire either on the second reading or on the adjournment. He did not say that there had not been in the history of the Church of England instances in which Bishops had appointed bad men; but he could not look with approval on the alternative of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Willis)—namely, popular election. In his own borough there was a popular election going on at the present time; there were committee meetings—he believed in publichouses—there was all the usual machinery——
§ MR. WILLIS,interrupting, said, that was farthest from his thoughts. He only proposed that those who elected should be such as had joined themselves to the Church and become communicants.
§ MR. THOROLD ROGERSthought that if the suggestion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope), which he thought an extremely judicious one, was got rid of, then we might get the popular machinery such as was referred to; but he was not persuaded that that was a better alternative. In his opinion, if the clergy were nominated by the Bishops, and the Bishops had some such power in regard to the benefices as the Benchers had over the lawyers, we should have better ministers, and get rid of a great deal of rubbish. If the Bishops had greater power in regard to discipline, he believed an ancient sore would be removed, and a better result would be arrived at than was now obtained by the machinery of the law.
§ MR. MONKobserved, that the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire said the Bill might be cut into two parts, and that he did not wish to avoid discussion; 985 but as the House did not know which part of the Bill was to be pressed forward, he would recommend the hon. Member to withdraw the Bill. It would be easy enough then to bring in a new Bill, which, he presumed, would contain only two or three clauses. He might bring in two Bills; but if this was not to form two Bills, but one Bill—[Mr. E. STANHOPE: This Bill cut into two parts.] He understood that by the Forms of the House the hon. Member had no power to cut the Bill into two parts after the second reading had been carried. At all events, he himself wished to have an opportunity of expressing his opinion of it before that operation was performed. He agreed with very much of what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Willis), and he did not wish to give his vote in favour of the second reading without having an opportunity of discussing so important a measure.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSI hope the hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Mr. Willis) will withdraw his opposition and allow us to divide on the Main Question. This matter is not now brought forward for the first time; it is 10 years since the House first passed a Bill upon the subject. If the hon. and learned Member for Colchester opposes this he must take the responsibility, and I must throw the responsibility upon him of rejecting this measure, which, in former years, we supported. I entirely approve of the course my right hon. Friend has taken. It is quite in the power of the Committee, if the House gives it the power, to divide the Bill into two parts, one of which, I hope, will be passed in the course of the present Session.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 62: Majority 39.—(Div. List, No. 183.)
§ Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. EVANS WILLIAMSbegged to move that the House do now adjourn. He had never taken part in any obstructive Motion; but he did not think it was right that a Bill of this kind should be considered and discussed at that hour of the morning (3 o'clock). Many hon. Members who were now 986 forcing on the present measure had strongly insisted upon the adjournment of the debate on the Bill which was last before the House, because it was felt that at such an hour it could not receive adequate discussion. They had now been for more than an hour considering the present measure, amid the impatience of hon. Members opposite; and because the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) expressed his surprise at the course which was being taken, he was at once classed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) with the opponents of the Bill. It was impossible to discuss the measure fairly at that hour of the morning; and he would, therefore, move the adjournment of the House.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Evans Williams.)
§ MR. E. STANHOPEwished to point out that the other day there was a very long discussion upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. E. Leatham), and a very substantial decision was arrived at upon the main portions of the question involved in the present Bill. It must be perfectly understood by hon. Members opposite that it was these main portions only that it was intended to proceed with. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member for Radnor (Mr. Evans Williams) would not persevere with his Motion for the adjournment of the House, but that he would allow a division to be taken upon the Main Question.
§ MR. ILLINGWORTHrose to correct a misapprehension on the part of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope). The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. E. Leatham), in his Motion the other day, assailed the whole question of the sale of patronage, including that of advowsons; and it was altogether a mistake to assume for a moment that by assenting to a more limited Amendment he was insuring for himself the support of a large body of the Members of that House and of the country. It was felt that this limited Amendment only dealt with the fringe of the question, and that by manifesting a proper amount of courage it would be perfectly feasible to deal with the whole subject. It was altogether a misapprehension to 987 suppose that the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire had received any sanction from hon. Members on that side of the House who were indisposed to the traffic in livings, for the limited proposal which he now made. His (Mr. Illingworth's) own opinion was that the hon. Member would make more progress by withdrawing the present Bill and introducing another, informing the House first what the nature of the provisions was which he proposed to insert in the other Bill. What the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire now asked the House to do was to assent to the second reading of a Bill of 17 clauses; whereas, in reality, the Bill to be presented to them subsequently, and which they would be asked to accept, was a Bill of three or four clauses only. If that were the case, he contended that it was an unusual and an unreasonable proceeding to call upon the House at that hour of the morning to accept a Bill presented to them under such circumstances. He certainly hoped that all the powers of obstruction hon. Members on that side were able to exercise would be exhausted before they would consent to adopt the course suggested by the hon. Member, and he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary not to lend his assistance to a proceeding so extremely distasteful to Members on that side of the House, and which had so little to recommend it. It was felt by himself and his hon. Friends that if they yielded the point now, instead of reading the Bill which the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire had introduced, they would in reality be consenting to read one which was altogether different, and in regard to the provisions of which they knew nothing. There was one point more to which he wished to advert. When his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Willis) spoke, as he had done, in proper terms against what he termed the principle of popular election, he (Mr. Illingworth) did not think any hon. Member would suppose that that principle was offered as an alternative. What would happen if the Bill was read a second time? They would be precisely where they were at this moment. He should be sorry to see the Church of England go through the degradation of having to resort to popular election; but it would, in reality, only be applying further the principle governing the 988 Established Church at the present moment—namely, that the people should not be debarred from a share in the management of its affairs. What was the Church of England contrasted with a sect? The Church consisted of those who were willing and those who were unwilling members. The willing and the unwilling were bound together by Acts of Parliament, and so long as those Acts remained they must permit the interference of all. Only the other day a clergyman, pleading on behalf of the funds of the Church Pastoral Aid Society, stated that in a district in the East of London there was a population of 60,000 inhabitants, and that 57,000 out of the 60,000 did not attend any place of worship at all. Yet, according to law, the whole of these 57,000 were members of the Church of England, and could not be deprived of the right of interfering in her affairs. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Willis) had erroneously spoken of them as the "Governors" of the Church of England; but, undoubtedly, they had the right of interfering in her affairs and in sending Members to legislate for the Church in the House of Commons. He was compelled to acknowledge that this was a most undesirable condition of things for any Christian Church to be placed in; but he believed there was only one remedy for it. When the Church invited or accepted the position of an Establishment, it placed itself under the power of those who, if not absolutely hostile to its communion, were, at any rate, indifferent. He further urged that no Christian Church could be in a position to discharge its duties to the people which had bartered away its freedom. That was the present position of the Church of England. [Mr. R. N. FOWLER: Oh!] He did not at all wonder at the impatience of the hon. Member for the City of London. It was rather an illustration of the way in which any discussion of this kind was received. The hon. Member must, however, allow him to say that he was stating the objections which he entertained to the present Bill, and those objections went to the very root of any Church Establishment. What he urged was, that for better or for worse, the inconveniences of the Church must be borne so long as it remained a National Establishment. When its adherents took 989 the management of the affairs of the Church into their own hands, they would be in the position of the Disestablished Church in Ireland, which now managed its own affairs without any interference or aid from the State. Upon these grounds, he thought they were not called upon to read the Bill a second time—neither upon the ground of the form in which it was proposed to take the Bill, nor in regard to the details which the measure involved.
§ MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he could not forget that the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth), who had just sat down, was, in former years, conspicuous for his envenomed hatred of the Church of England.
MR. ILLING WORTHrose to Order. He wished to ask if the hon. Member was entitled to use any such expression towards another hon. Member, that he had displayed envenomed hatred towards the Church of England? He entirely disclaimed any such intention or desire, and by way of explanation he would say that, personally, he should not care if every individual in England was an Episcopalian.
§ MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he would substitute the words hostility towards the Church of England.
§ MR. ILLINGWORTHTo the Church Establishment; that is all.
§ MR. R. N. FOWLER,said, the manifest object of the action of the hon. Member was to prevent any reform of the Church of England at all; while it was the object of the Bill to introduce reforms that were much needed.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 56: Majority 33.—(Div. List, No. 184.)
§ Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ MR. BRIGGSsaid, he did not think it unkind to hon. Members to interfere between them and any debate which might follow; and he had, therefore, risen for the purpose of moving that the debate be now adjourned. Hon. Members opposite must have seen that the Nonconformist Members of that House took a great interest in this question. But many of them had gone away under the impression that the question would not be brought on. This was unfortunate, because, as hon. Members were aware, 990 when questions that concerned the Nonconformists did come on in that House, they usually took very good care to be present. He might say, further, that hon. Members on that side did not mind stopping up until any hour of the morning when the cause was a good one; but they thought it was too much for the Front Bench to keep them there for a considerable time unnecessarily, when they might be enjoying that repose to which they were legitimately entitled. He trusted that after another division or two, they might be able to bring the debate to a conclusion. [An hon. MEMBER: Obstruction.] He quite accepted the word. He gathered from the other side of the House that there had been some obstruction; but if the debate had been allowed to terminate a short time ago, they would never have had to listen to that cry. He hoped the debate would now be allowed to terminate.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Briggs.)
§ MR. E. STANHOPEremarked, that after the kind of opposition with which the Bill had been met, it was perfectly useless for him to persevere in the attempt to get the Bill read a second time that night. It was right, however, that the House and the country should know the position in which he was placed. A member of the Church of England, supported by the whole of the Church of England Members, and by many Nonconformists, had brought in a Bill for the purpose of reforming certain grave abuses in connection with Church patronage, and his endeavour to carry it to a successful issue had been met with every obstacle by a certain small section of the Nonconformist Members, and by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk). Never again would they be entitled, in any subsequent debates upon Church Patronage, to allege that an honest effort had not been made to deal with its abuses.
§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDdenied that he had opposed the Bill. He had voted for the adjournment of the debate and the adjournment of the House, in view of the Motion of the hon. Member for Bradford being proceeded with at that late hour.
§ MR. MONKsaid, the speech just delivered by the hon. Member for Mid 991 Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) was one of the most monstrous he had ever heard. The hon. Member had charged him, in concert with Dissenters in that House, with opposing the Bill. He had done nothing of the sort. He had not said one word against the Bill, but had merely stated his desire to know what part was to be preserved and what part was to be rejected. There was a good deal in the Bill which he entirely approved, and he should not have voted against the Bill had it gone to a division. He wished to know whether the parts of the Bill to which he took strong objection were to be preserved or not?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTthought it better that the debate should not be continued. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire had agreed to the Motion for adjournment, and, on the whole, he thought it would be best to accept that position.
§ MR. R. N. FOWLERreminded the House, in reply to the remarks of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), that the hon. Member had a Notice down calling attention to the crowded state of the Order Book, and indicating certain Motions which he intended to move in consequence. Among other things, he proposed to give certain facilities to private Members for bringing their Bills before the House. The House would probably remember, when his Motion came on, the kind of opposition he had given to this very important Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Debate adjourned till To-morrow, at Two of the clock.