§ House in Committee (according to Order).
§ Title and Preamble read, and postponed.
§ Clause 1 (Bishop may license clergymen of the Church of England to certain private chapels).
§ Amendments moved, in page 1, line 8, leave out ("other"); and, in line 9, leave out from ("which") to ("service") in line 12, and insert ("whether consecrated or unconsecrated.")—(The Lori Lyttelton.)
§ Amendments agreed to.
143§ Amendment moved,, in page 1, line 8, after ("public") insert ("or charitable.")—(The Lori Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOLmoved an Amendment in line 12, after ("divine service") to insert, ("for the inmates of such institution,") in order to make it plain that the services in these chapels were mainly, if not exclusively, for the benefit of the inmates.
THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERobjected to the Amendment, which would prevent relatives of inmates who were at the institution on Sunday from attending chapel.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONpointed out that there was another objection to the Amendment — namely, that frequently—in the diocese of London, for instance—the chapels connected with institutions such as the Foundling Hospital were the only places of worship for a large population in the neighbourhood; and the proposal of the right rev. Prelate would exclude them from attending the service.
§ Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 2 and 3 amended, and agreed to.
§ Clause 4 (Provisions as to private chapels).
§ LORD CAIRNSmoved, in line 4, to leave out ("the provisions of this Act shall apply to any private chapel.") The noble and learned Lord said that this Bill placed existing private chapels under restrictions, to which they were not at present subject.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, he intended to propose to omit the whole clause on the ground that it would effect an entire change in the parochial system of the Church of England—which had existed from long before the Reformation—and that such a change ought not to be proposed without the most ample notice to everyone concerned. It was quite possible that some change might be proposed of which he would approve; but if this Bill, instead of being entitled "Private Chapels Bill," had been called a "Bill for establishing additional Churches in every Parish in England," 144 an enormous majority of the parochial clergy would have strenuously opposed it. A private chapel had always been understood to be one attached to the residence of a nobleman or gentleman; but under this clause it would be possible for the Bishop of the diocese, without an opportunity being given for a satisfactory appeal on the part of the clergyman, to establish a new church in any parish. He therefore objected to the clause altogether.
THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid, he did not believe that much weight was to be attached, in a practical point of view, to the objection that the Bill would apply to any private chapels whatever like those of the private chapels of noblemen; and as to proprietary chapels they would not be affected by the Bill, being licensed under an altogether different Act. As to the objection of his most reverend Friend that the Bill was a very serious interference with the parochial system, he (the Bishop of Winchester) would at once acknowledge it was. But he would add that such an interference was rendered necessary by the altered state of things around us, which seemed to suggest that the overstraining of the parochial system was the danger against which, in the interests of the Church of England, they had to guard. The altered circumstances of the times demanded a relaxation of the ancient system. To allow an incumbent a veto on the opening of an additional place of worship was putting a bonus on Dissent, for provided the clergyman of the Church of England did not officiate, there was nothing to hinder the opening of a chapel, or the use of the Church Service. This moderate relaxation of the parochial system, subject as it was to the permission of the Bishop, and to an appeal to the Archbishop, was rendered expedient by circumstances. The Bishop's permission would not be given without strong grounds, and if he made a mistake the Archbishop would overrule it. The Bill would prevent the opening of many Dissenting chapels, and would avoid great heartburning, for it was useless to disguise the fact that in many parishes there were persons who desired the service conducted in a different way, and who were now driven to Dissent. On these grounds, and on reasons drawn from what he had seen during a long 145 experience in the administration of a diocese, he would support the Bill.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, he was startled at the right rev. Prelate's proposal to turn the parochial system of the Church into a congregational one. Such a change should certainly not be made perfunctorily and without public attention. The existing system might bear hardly in some instances, but hard oases were apt to make bad law. Was it because there might be in a few parishes a slothful and unreasonable clergyman that they were to alter a system that had worked admirably for a thousand years?
THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid, his argument was that the vis inertiœ of Bishops and Archbishops would prevent the Bill from operating disadvantageously on the parochial system.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, it was hardly in the nature of things that an Archbishop should overrule the decision of his suffragans, upon whom he so much depended, except in the strongest possible case.
THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid, it was by no means uncommon for a suffragan to be overruled. He remembered a right rev. Friend who was overruled 27 times.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the most rev. Prelate objected to the clause because no sufficient notice had been given to the clergy and others interested; but the Bill had been pending some time in the other House where it had been frequently discussed, but generally at so late an hour that the debates were not reported. He thought that the objections taken to the clause might be met by the insertion of some such words as that "the provisions of this Bill shall not apply to any chapel except at the will of the proprietor." He should be sorry to support the Bill if he thought it would in any way prejudice the parochial system; but he thought the contrary would be the case. It was in large towns where the Bill was most needed, for it was in the large centres of population that the greatest differences would exist, and it was impossible to prevent a large number of persons from having peculiar views, and from preferring a popular preacher or a church where the service was conducted in a way more agreeable to their minds than the usual sober habit of our Church. 146 Not only the parochial system, but something far larger, would be rendered safe by enabling persons to attend services of their favourite description without breaking the Church's unity. He himself could tolerate any kind of preaching as long as the service of the Church of England was preserved; but additional accommodation was in many cases greatly needed, and persons in large towns, who might not like the way in which the service was conducted in the parish church, should have an opportunity of going to a place of worship where the ritual and sermon might be more in accordance with their own views. The parish church, moreover, would thus be preserved from practices which often tended to drive away the congregation.
§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that the Bill would not be so objectionable were it limited to large towns—say to populations of 20,000; but it would otherwise introduce confusion, discord, and controversy all over the country.
§ LORD CAIRNSsaid, it was undoubted that the clergy had not had sufficient notice of the Bill, for that he himself, with more opportunities than they had, though aware that the Bill was before Parliament, was quite unaware of its nature. Nor was it possible to learn this from the Preamble, which lead the reader to believe that the measure dealt with asylums and colleges and kindred institutions, without giving the slightest hint that it would alter the whole parochial system of the country. And the fact that the discussion on the Bill in the other House had not been reported showed that the public had very little information from that source. The clause before their Lordships would afford facilities for sowing broadcast opposition churches throughout the country. He did not say that it might not be advisable in town parishes to afford means for opening another church where those who were unable to join in the worship in the parish church with benefit to themselves might join in a ritual more in accordance with their predilections. But this Bill would not guarantee anything of the kind, for the people of the parish would be left by it to the arbitrium of the Bishop of the diocese. Was it a violent supposition that there might be a parish, in a diocese presided over by a Bishop of High Church or Ritualistic 147 tendencies, who might be satisfied that the incumbent holding the same views was acting in strict conformity to the doctrine and discipline of the Church; while he was, in fact, driving away many of his parishioners from the parish church. The Bishop in such case might join the incumbent in refusing to licence a clergyman to a private chapel. In such case the parishioners would be without a remedy, for the Bill provided no appeal from them to the Archbishop against the decision of the Bishop.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that the Bill was introduced into the House of Commons in February, and was brought up to this House in May. He thought the provisions of this clause were very desirable, for at present if in any parish the clergyman held Ritualistic views, and a considerable portion of the inhabitants regarded them with abhorrence, or vice versâ, no additional church, could be opened, the incumbent being arbiter in his own cause; and the consequence was that people were driven to Dissent. He admitted that the Bishop might possibly support the incumbent; but Bishops as a rule were men of temperate and moderate views—whatever their private bias they would fairly consider the state of a parish, and would endeavour to meet the wishes of the parishioners consistently with the peace of the parish and the good order of the Church. He therefore supported the Bill.
THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOLsaid, the clergy generally had had no knowledge of the Bill. In the course of the debate much had been said about the altered circumstances of the times requiring "a relaxation of the parochial system"—warnings against "overstraining the parochial system"—and guarding against changes "in the interests of the Church"—he was not sure whether even the plain word "disruption" had not been used. He feared that this clause was far more likely to accelerate than prevent disruption, for it would set class against class, and import a large amount of acrimony into controversies. Under this clause a certain number of religious and well-meaning people in a parish, dissatisfied with some of the services or sermons of the parish church, might go to the Bishop of the diocese asking him to consider their case; and he might issue a licence on 148 their application simply out of compassion. Then an appeal might go to the Archbishop of the Province, who might say, not unreasonably—"As the Bishop of the diocese has granted his licence, and as the objection made to it by the incumbent of the parish is only made upon general grounds, and as the Bishop of the diocese must know the local circumstances much better than I do, I will confirm the licence." In that way the whole responsibility came back upon the Bishop of the diocese, whose earnest desire to do what was best for the souls of the people might lead him to do what was really very undesirable for the general welfare of the Church of England. Then it should be borne in mind that the minister to be appointed would have no cure of souls, and in case there was a change of Bishops in the diocese the new Bishop might disapprove of the working of the licence, and at once withdraw the licence, which might lead to a very undesirable state of things in the parish. He thought that the whole clause ought to be omitted from the Bill.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYfelt that there was much weight in the arguments on both sides. Two objections were made to the Bill—one that such a measure ought not to be pressed forward at the present time, when no sufficient notice had been given to the clergy—the other that such a measure ought not to be passed at all. As to the question of opportuneness, it was always a great advantage for an ecclesiastical measure to have passed through the House of Commons, and as it had been discussed there, and had been before their Lordships' House since May last, it could not be said that anybody had been taken by surprise. The proposal was undoubtedly an innovation on the rights of the parochial clergy. But the very reason which had led to the introduction, of the measure was that from the circumstances in which the parochial clergy were placed, there were some views which they took of their rights which it was almost impossible to get them to surrender; and one of these views was that the particular system of worship which they taught, however far it might be carried to an extreme, was the system to which all their parishioners ought to submit. If Parliament waited until it had the full concurrence 149 of the clergy on this matter it would have to wait a very long time indeed, for the whole object of the Bill was to introduce a change in regard to the parochial clergy. The measure was experimental; but, after considering the difficulties on both sides, he was inclined to anticipate more good than harm from the measure. He had been lately reminded of the origin of Lady Huntingdon's Connection. Holding strong Evangelical opinions, which were now very common in the Church, but were not so at that time, Lady Huntingdon was anxious to build chapels for the promotion of those opinions in connection with the Church of England; but she was prevented from so doing, and consequently formed a body which, though not differing in doctrine, and scarcely perceptibly in worship, had been ever since separate from the Church of England, and therefore more or less hostile towards it. Had this measure then been law, her efforts, as had been pointed out to him, instead of being a source of weakness to the Church of England, would have been a source of strength to it. It had been urged that the measure would chiefly apply to towns. But in towns, if a man did not like the form of service in his own parish church, he could generally go to another where the ministrations were more to his liking. In a country parish, however, where a man was under the pastoral care of an extreme person—and he feared there were such men in the Church—the parishioner was helpless unless he was prepared to become a Dissenter—for he was handed over to the tender mercies of men who showed that they had no consideration save for their own opinions. The Bill would impose a salutary check upon such incumbents, and would have a tendency to make the Church of England more completely national. He doubted whether the Bill would be resorted to very largely, for the very fact that there was such a power would probably put a stop to a good many of the cases which called for it. Such a measure would tend to make the Church of England more completely national than it now was, and on these grounds, though after much hesitation, he should support the Bill as an experiment.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYagreed with the most rev. Primate that the time for bringing forward the mea- 150 sure was not inopportune, if the measure itself was opportune, and the proper steps had been taken for making it known to those who were interested. The most rev. Primate had described the Bill as "experimental," but he (the Marquess of Salisbury) thought, with interests like those of the Church of England at stake, such an "experiment" as this was somewhat dangerous—especially as it would be impossible to go back when once you had gone forward. The most rev. Primate explained that the Bill was intended as a relief to the laity against unreasonable persons holding benefices in the Church of England. Now, the clergy might be unreasonable and the Bishops might be all that was the reverse; but it was not fair for the clergy to pass without notice a measure hostile to them, which would put such a weapon into the hands of the Bishops against them. If the clergy were so certain to be in the wrong, and the Bishops so sure to be in the right, a Bill of this kind might be passed after due notice and consideration; but the clergy should first be heard on the subject. It was quite alien to all our habits of legislation to pass so penal a Bill in regard to a particular body, without allowing the members of that body to be heard in their defence. This Bill gave enormous power to the Bishops, and imposed enormous liability upon the clergy. The Bishops were here to speak for themselves, but the clergy were not, and in common fairness to them, another year should be suffered to elapse before this proposal was pressed. There would be another advantage in delay, because during the recess some of their Lordships might very likely cross the border into a sister country where a system existed which encouraged the erection of opposition churches in the same parish—an Established Church with a Free Kirk close by—so that a parishioner might go from one to another as the clergyman of of either happened to offend him. Under this Bill, if a rich man were offended by the clergyman, and got the Bishops' ear, his weapon was ready; he had only to build an opposition church over the way, and he would make the clergyman's life a burden to him. It seemed to be thought that the Bill would operate as a remedy for Ritualistic practices. This was a great mistake. The Bill was more likely to operate entirely in the opposite direction. A large amount of 151 money was available on the Ritualistic side, and there would probably be a more frequent use of it under the powers of the Bill than some of their Lordships contemplated.
§ THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, this clause was not proposed by reason of any deficiency in church accommodation, but in order to enable people to get up a rival church in any parish. That was certain to introduce confusion of the most dangerous kind. It might be that an incumbent was perverse and unreasonable; but he thought better means could be devised for giving the Bishop a power of controlling and checking objectionable practices by clergymen in his diocese. From the Bill as it stood a mischievous confusion would inevitably result, for the Bishop would have nothing to guide him in the exercise of his discretion.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONrecommended his noble Friend (Lord Lyttelton) to withdraw this part of the Bill, not because he felt very strongly the objections urged to it, but on the simple ground that the clergy had not had a sufficient opportunity of considering it. For his part he thought there was a growing necessity for some such measure; but he did not think it would be fair to legislate upon so important a subject, affecting the feelings as well as the interests of the clergy, without giving them adequate notice. He could not, however, agree that no such measure was necessary. Of late years the whole tenour of legislation with regard to the Church had been to diminish the rights of the laity and make the incumbent more absolute in his parish. Thus, with the abolition of church rates the laity had lost the power of the purse strings; and the Bishop's influence, legal or illegal, was much more powerful before the passing of the Plurality and Clergy Discipline Acts than it now was. This Bill would give the parishioners some sort of remedy where extreme views, or form of worship to which they objected, were thrust upon them by the incumbent; and he felt strongly that, if the Church of England is to be kept together in unity, some means must be found by which the rights of the parishioners might be more effectually secured to them than was done under the present state of the law.
§ THE EARL OF POWISsaid, the clause under discussion had nothing to do with other parts of the Bill, and he thought 152 it would be by far the most prudent course to strike out a clause upon which the two Metropolitans were wholly at issue.
§ LORD LYTTELTONsaid, he could not understand the argument of surprise. The Bill had been a considerable time before Parliament. The title called attention to it; the clause was introduced after debate in the other House; it had been before their Lordships more than two months, and the usual time had been allowed between its various stages. The clergy had had the same opportunity of considering it as other people had enjoyed; and while he had received letters from clergymen expressing hearty approval of it, he had seen no signs of opposition to it on the part of the clergy. As to the argument derived by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) from Scotland, the Established and the Free Church there were distinct organizations; but here what the noble Marquess called the opposition Churches would form a part of the same system, and be under the same ecclesiastical law. Then it was said that the Bishops had nothing to guide them in determining the cases brought before them. But surely, through their Archdeacons and Rural Deans, the Bishops had excellent opportunities of ascertaining what occurred within their dioceses. To assume that they would move under the Bill without obtaining full information upon the cases brought before them was to say little for the tact and discretion of the Bishops, as well as for their knowledge of the state of affairs within their jurisdiction.
§ On Question, That the words proposed be left out stand part of the Clause? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 28; Not-Contents 35: Majority 7.
§ Resolved in the Negative.
§ Clause disagreed to.
§ Remaining clauses agreed to.
§ Preamble and Title again read, and agreed to.
§ The Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 275.)
§ House adjourned at Seven o'clock, 'till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.