§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
§ Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Lord Houghton.)
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved that their Lordships go into Committee on that day three months. The Bill was of no slight importance, inasmuch as its effect would be to alter the status of every clergyman in the Church. Up to the present time, a gentleman taking Holy Orders knew he was incurring the most serious obligations, and pledged himself to devote his whole life to the ministrations of his sacred office. Although the Bill of 1862 relaxed some of the restrictions attached to clergymen, it never proposed to go to this extent. The Inns of Court subsequently allowed clergymen to be called to the bar provided they complied with the requirements they laid down. The 1065 effect of this Bill would be to induce young men to enter the Church without that serious condition of mind or consideration which was so essential to the proper performance of their sacred functions. The 7th and 8th clauses were especially objectionable, inasmuch as they would enable such gentlemen as had abandoned their profession as clergymen to return to their sacred calling. In 1860 a Petition was presented to the House of Commons signed by 15 clergymen, praying the House to pass some such measure as the present; but within a year or two subsequently one of those gentlemen had found out his error and became one of the most zealous of his Order in the discharge of his duties; and another, who had gone over to the Church of Rome, returned to the Church of England, and had ever since administered his sacred functions in a most admirable manner.
§ Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day three months.")—(The Earl Beauchamp.)
THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL, in supporting the Amendment, said, it appeared to him that this Bill had not received the serious attention in the other House that its importance demanded. The Preamble recited that "it was expedient that relief be given in respect of civil disabilities and in certain other respects" to persons in Holy Orders. Well, they all knew that these disabilities were two—namely, that no clergyman of the Church of England could have the honour of sitting in the House of Commons; and secondly, that no clergyman was eligible to municipal office. It seemed to him that these disabilities could be removed in a far easier way than by a measure of this kind which most seriously affected the whole status and character of the English clergy. Was it wise or proper to hold out to young men such a possibility as the Bill offered? If young men entered the Church with the knowledge that they could at any time divest themselves of their sacred functions, and subsequently resume them, the hands of the Bishops would be weakened. If, on the other hand, after once renouncing the ministry, they were debarred from ever returning to it, the Bill would allow them, by a kind of "happy despatch," to put an end to their ministerial life. 1066 He characterized the Bill as one that was intended more or less to ease the consciences of two or three very eminent men who had taken Holy Orders. He should feel it his duty to give it every opposition.
LORD HOUGHTONsaid, it was rather unusual on going into Committee to try to throw out a Bill which had passed the House almost sub silentio on the second reading. He remembered that the noble Earl opposite (Earl Beauchamp) had once served him just the same trick in the House of Commons when they were both Members of that Assembly, and was successful there; but he trusted to the good sense and justice of their Lordships to defeat his intention with respect to the present measure. The Bill was one of great importance, both to many excellent and respectable persons and to the Church. It provided that no man should be compelled to perform the functions of the Church who did not think himself fit for that solemn office, and who was not ready to accept all the duties and responsibilities which devolved upon him. When men who entered the Church found that these functions were not compatible with their feelings, the Bill relieved them from that painful position by a solemn act of revocation. It was to the interest of the Church itself that no one should be compelled to perform the functions of a minister whose heart did not thoroughly correspond with his duties. It would be time enough to discuss the 7th and 8th clauses when they were in Committee.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, the Bill was one which completely altered the status of the clergy, and the House ought to think twice before proceeding with such a measure at this period of the Session, when it could not possibly receive the consideration it deserved. Consideration by a Select Committee would be the best it could receive, and that was now out of the question. He should support the Amendment of his noble Friend unless some suggestions were made which would remove his objections to the measure.
THE BISHOP OF LLANDAFFtrusted that their Lordships would proceed with the Bill. When a young man entered the order of the diaconate he made a solemn profession, that he trusted he was moved by the Holy Ghost to take this office, declaring his belief in the Old 1067 and New Testaments, and stating that he held no doctrine contrary to those of the Church. If, unfortunately, anyone after having been admitted on these most solemn conditions felt that he no longer held the same opinions, and could not honestly and sincerely renew these declarations, it was surely much better for the person himself and for the Church at large that he should not be compelled to remain in a false position, and should not be burdened with the avowal of doctrines in which he no longer believed.
THE BISHOP OF ELYthought their Lordships should pause before they passed this Bill. It was desirable that before young men took Orders they should thoroughly consider the consequences, and determine beforehand whether they could give up their whole lives to this sacred office. From personal experience he could say that a good deal of difficulty was now felt by young men in making up their minds on this point; but if they saw that they might take Orders, throw them up, and return to them again, he was afraid that persons, who now thought seriously whether they could devote their lives to the Church, would be induced to think much less seriously about it, and would rush into an office for which they were imperfectly fitted. Another objection to the Bill was that as it enjoined the Bishop to accept the resignation and record it in the register of the diocese, it would make resignation of Holy Orders a distinct ecclesiastical act, and thus by a side wind tend to decide the question of the delibility or indelibility of Holy Orders. He hoped, therefore, their Lordships would pause before giving their assent to the measure.
§ On Question, "That now stand part of the Motion?"—Their Lordships divided:—Contents 52; Not-Contents 29: Majority 23.
§ Resolved in the Affirmative.
§ House in Committee accordingly.
§ Clauses 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Clause 7 (Deed of revocation and recalling by Archbishop and consequences thereof).
THE BISHOP OF LONDONmoved the omission of the clause. The clause provided that, on executing a deed of revocation, the Archbishopmight, if he 1068 thought fit, cause the deed to be recorded in the registry of the Province; and thereon the person executing it should be restored, to all intents and purposes—except that he would be incapable of holding preferment for two years—to the same status as before he executed the deed of relinquishment. This clause was not in the original Bill.
THE BISHOP OF LLANDAFFhoped the clause would be retained. It would obviate in some measure the objection which had been taken to the Bill, that it would operate in deciding the question of the delibility of Holy Orders, inasmuch as the clause provided that the Archbishop might restore a clergyman who had resigned without re-ordaining him; therefore, the person, under this Bill would still remain a clergyman. He could conceive the case of a young clergyman entering on his profession with the highest religious aspirations to promote the glory of God and the welfare of the Church; but he was sure it must be in the experience of every Bishop that he was obliged in a great many cases to ordain candidates for Holy Orders who had but a very scanty amount of theological learning; and when a young clergyman came in contact with the various opinions which were afloat in the present day, and began to doubt, on grounds which, perhaps, he had never satisfactorily examined, the soundness of the principles he had imbibed with his mother's milk, it was not at all improbable that he would experience a severe mental conflict. In his opinion, if a man would only do the will of God, and earnestly seek God's grace, he would eventually be led to a right conclusion; but, meanwhile, he might have to undergo a severe mental struggle. He might be, or imagine that he was, sceptical on the subject of his religion; but it would be a sad thing, supposing him to be confirmed in his original belief after the lapse of a few years, that he should be wholly debarred from resuming his ministry. There were two safeguards provided by the Bill. In the first place, the Archbishop, before re-admitting such a young man to the ministry, had the opportunity of inquiring into the circumstances under which he was led astray, into his present opinions and his moral conduct. It was further provided that the applicant should not be capable of holding any preferment 1069 until after the expiration of two years. In addition to this, when at length he obtained preferment, he must, like any other person similarly situated, present to the Bishop of the diocese a testimonial to the effect that for three years he has neither held nor taught anything contrary to the doctrine or discipline of the Church of England. Surely these safeguards were amply sufficient, and their Lordships might with perfect security for the interests of the Church and of religion allow a locus penitentiœ for these young men. For his own part, he should esteem and value the more a conscientious young man who had gone through a process of mental doubt at a certain period of his life, and eventually been confirmed in the true faith.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYthought the State ought to act towards the Church in this matter as it did towards the other professions of which it held itself to be the guardian. If a barrister retired from the Bar he gave up all claim to be a barrister. So, again, if an officer in the Army or Navy gave up his commission he could not resume it. It appeared to him that there was no reason why a clergyman should be treated differently in this respect from the members of other professions. The right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Llandaff) dwelt entirely on the case of conscientious men, who might be interesting psychological subjects; but they seemed, after all, in the position of weak brethren, and furnished an excuse for all kinds of irregular legislation. Their case was not, however, one of common occurrence. They had to deal with a much harder and a much less admirable material, and his opinion was that, in the event of the clause being passed, many a clergyman who did not get on very well in his profession would take a secular employment, and at the same time keep a second string to his bow; for, if the clerical profession improved, or if he had a propect of obtaining a good living, he might return to the Church. This, he believed, would by no means tend to the advantage of the Church or the edification of congregations.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, he did not think such cases as were anticipated by the noble Marquess would occur, because absolute discretion was vested in the Archbishop, who would certainly not allow anyone to return to the clerical 1070 profession who was found to be actuated by an unworthy motive. In his judgment the parallel drawn by the noble Marquess with the other professions did not really apply to a calling so sacred as that of a clergyman. He trusted the right rev. Prelate would not persist in his opposition to the clause.
§ LORD LYVEDENsaid, the clause would allow a person to play fast and loose, and as playing fast and loose would be highly discreditable to the clerical profession, he trusted their Lordships would reject the clause.
LORD HOUGHTONsaid, that his sentiments accorded with those of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Llandaff) rather than with the extremely secular and almost light opinion of the noble Marquess, which, indeed, was hardly respectful to the Church.
§ On Question?—Their Lordships divided:—Contents 13; Not-Contents 71: Majority 58.
§ Clause struck out.
§ Remaining clauses agreed to, with Amendments.
§ The Report of the Amendments to be received on Monday next, and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 254).