HC Deb 15 August 1887 vol 319 cc650-3

Order for Second Reading read.

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

MR. M. J. KENNY (Tyrone, Mid)

This is an important Bill, and deserves more explanation by way of introduction than the few inarticulate words of the hon. and learned Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson). It contains an extremely important proposal to alter the law as it has existed for 300 or 400 years, carrying us back to a period for which the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston) will have great respect. I observe the Bill is backed by a considerable number of names of hon. Gentlemen who sit on the other side, and I take it the Bill is of a partizan, if not of a Party, character. It is not a measure to be decided upon at this hour, and I request the hon. and learned Member not to attempt to proceed with it; if he does we must force the matter to Division.

MR. BROADHURST (Nottingham, W.)

This is far too objectionable a proposal to be assented to at 3 o'clock in the morning. It is a Bill very controversial in character. [Cries of "No, no!"] It is in my view. I find on the back of it a long list of names, all from one particular Party, thereby seeming to indicate that it is entirely a Party or sectional movement. So far as I can read the Bill, it proposes to establish, or enable to establish, a new Bishopric in any Parliamentary division of the country. [Cries of "No, no!"] At any rate, it is altogether an objectionable proceeding to read a Bill of this kind at such a time, and I trust the House will not assent to it.

MR. GEDGE (Stockport)

The remarks we have just heard show how desirable it is before an hon. Member finds fault with a Bill to make himself acquainted with what that Bill proposes to do. An old Act of Henry VIII. gives power to certain Bishops to appoint Suffragans and give the names of certain towns to such Suffragan Bishops. For instance, the Bishop of London might nominate a Suffragan Bishop of Bedford; but as that place is no longer in the Diocese of London this leads to misconception. The Bill proposes to give the power of naming the Suffragan after any Parliamentary borough or Division within the diocese. How that is objectionable, and how it leads to a wholesale creation of Bishops, passes my wit to comprehend. The Bill does nothing more than amend the old Act, in this particular of names; it is not blocked; and I hope it may be read a second time, and passed into law.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

I really think the hon. Member opposite has no right to complain of the description given to the Bill. The hon. Member was plausible, as he always is; but the simple description of it in the Bill itself bears out to the letter what the hon. Member for West Nottingham says. I have the strongest objection to the Bill, and shall offer it every opposition in my power. I object to a Bishop being stuffed into the constituency I represent, not a full-blown Bishop either, but a Bishop-Suffragan. The people of Cornwall do not want such; they have enough of Bishops already, and I venture to think other parts of the country have the same view. I propose the adjournment of the debate.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."— (Mr. Conybeare.)

MR. BIGGAR (Cavan, W.)

On the question for adjourning, I think good cause is made out for it. The principle of the Bill is bogus or bosh Bishops, and it really is too absurd for this Parliament to seriously think of taking it into consideration at this hour. Under the circumstances, I think it most desirable that the debate should be adjourned.

MR. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.)

I hope, Sir, that the House will not agree to the Motion for Adjournment. I hope, too, that the country will notice the fact that hon. Members connected with the Roman Catholic Church are leading the opposition to a Bill regulating the internal affairs of the Church of England.

MR. CONYBEARE

May I be allowed to say that I am not connected with the Catholic Church?

Question put,

The House divided: — Ayes 16; Noes 59: Majority 43.—(Div. List, No. 381.) [3.5 A.M.]

Original Question again proposed.

MR. P. MCDONALD (sligo, N.)

I beg to move the adjournment of the House.

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)

I hope the hon. Member will not press that. He must know that this mea sure——

MR. P. MCDONALD

I move it, Mr. Speaker.

Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn,"— (Mr. P. McDonald,)—put, and negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.