§ *THE EARL OF CARNARVON, in rising to inquire whether, looking to the extremely grave consequences likely to ensue, Her Majesty's Government were prepared to take any action in reference to the case of "Read and others v. the Bishop of Lincoln," now pending before his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, said:—My Lords, 111 the question of which I have given notice is, I am quite aware, a very unusual one to put on the paper, and the course which it may be thought that I indicate as that to be taken by Government I frankly admit is one which could not be recommended or adopted except under the most serious circumstances. But, my Lords, the circumstances of this case are unusual, perhaps I might say unprecedented, and they seem to me to raise issues of so momentous a character that it is well worth while for Her Majesty's Government to consider seriously whether they have any means at their disposal for arresting a course of things and events which may be most disastrous—whether there is not in the armoury of Constitutional law some implement which may avert a great calamity. My Lords, only a few days ago we saw in the Library of Lambeth Palace—a place consecrated by many great historical associations—a meeting of a remarkable Court. It was one in which his Grace the most rev. Primate presided, surrounded by a certain number of Assessors and aided by the Vicar General of his Province; and before that Court was cited a right rev. Prelate, who presides over the Diocese of Lincoln, to answer certain charges which were placed on record against him. I believe that lawyers are agreed that the form of those proceedings is technically criminal, and in substance it must certainly be held to be criminal; because, although this particular action might and would end with a mere spiritual monition, yet if that monition were disregarded it must, in the course of things, proceed to a suspension, and that suspension must terminate in deprivation. My Lords, for certainly 200 years there has been no precedent for such a Court. There is, I believe, but one clear precedent between this time and the Reformation. Some doubt was naturally felt in the minds of many whether that Court could exercise a valid jurisdiction. That question I will not enter into; but I understand that for all judicial purposes we may take it as settled by a more or less formal decision of the Privy Council, and I doubt not that the most rev. Primate was perfectly justified when he decided to act on that decision, and to constitute that Court. My Lords, I would be the last person to seem by any word of mine to throw a shadow of doubt 112 on the validity of that Court. I am satisfied that, whatever a Court may do, that Court, constituted as it is, will endeavour to do in the interests of justice towards all parties. My fears are directed to a different point. They are directed to the consequences which may, and which I conscientiously believe will, ensue if this matter is allowed to run its course. My Lords, let me speak quite plainly for a few minutes. I believe that whatever be the issue of this present litigation it must be disastrous. If, on the one hand, the judgment be in favour of the accused Bishop, there will be, I take it, a conflict or an apparent conflict with previous decisions, and there will undoubtedly be a long course of serious litigation. The last time this Court of Audience ever sat, in the case of Bishop Watson, to which I have referred, I believe that the case was appealed from the Court to the Court of King's Bench, and from the Court of King's Bench to the House of Lords. And so, we may depend upon it, it will be in this case. But if, on the other hand, the decision should be adverse to the right rev. Prelate, then I fear that the consequences will be very much more serious indeed. Do not let us blind ourselves to the plain, broad matter of fact. This issue is clearly not stated for the purpose of trying and legally determining certain ceremonies or particular points which are at issue. It is, and it must be regarded, as a struggle between those parties into which the Church of England is unhappily divided at this moment. I speak absolutely without prejudice on the one side or on the other. I speak in defence and for the sake of that wide and wise comprehension which has characterized the whole history of the Church for generations, and I believe that this particular action is far more serious than any action that has been tried in spiritual matters within the memory of the existing generation. It is the culmination, so to say—it is the end of a succession of cases which have been tried before the Privy Council. I should not be far wrong if I said that this is probably the greatest crisis in matters ecclesiastical within the memory of any now living. Up to this time, as your Lordships are aware, there has been a clause in the Church Discipline 113 Act which has accorded to every Bishop of every diocese the power of interposing his veto when any question of this sort is raised. It is the absence of that discretionary power which has brought about this issue. And if this action succeeds, as we are bound to suppose it may succeed, it can but be the commencement of further litigation in the same sense. Prosecutions will be veiled thinly under the name of prosecution, and they will very soon take the form of religious persecution. I am convinced that if this matter go on there is imminent risk of the Church of England being rent in twain by the conflict of these parties. There will be within the Church a large body of Clergy, of learning, of piety, of zeal, who are the very salt of the Church, it may be said, who possess in every great town thousands of enthusiastic and devoted adherents, who will not hesitate at any cost to make common cause with the defeated party; and there will be a still larger body who will resent what they consider to be the unmerited persecution of a blameless individual. There will be vast congregations who will not hesitate to throw in their lot with the right rev. Prelate, and, my Lords, the floodgates of passion and strife will be thrown open, and there is no man living who can predict what will be the end of it. Her Majesty's Government, I have no doubt, appreciate the enormous gravity of the situation. They are face to face with a very great difficulty. I do not disguise how hard it is for them to take any action in such a matter. They may say that a case which is sub judice and pending in a Court of Law cannot and ought not to be interrupted. On the one hand they have all the forms, all the regular practice, the technicalities in the reasonable sense of the word, which counsel them to absolute inaction. On the other hand they have a crisis in which the vital and essential interests of the Church, and possibly of the State, are bound up. It is for them to decide whether they will persevere in these formal paths, for which they can plead the excuse of precedent and practice, whether they will stand by with folded arms, or whether they will embrace some effort to prevent the consummation of a great catastrophe. Let me explain, my Lords 114 that the object I have in my mind is twofold. Something may perhaps be done to arrest the course of this present dangerous suit. I think if my noble Friend at the head of the Government chooses to inquire into the matter, he will find that, though few, there are precedents that may warrant him in taking such a course. But there is a second object, which is even more important, and it is this—the taking of such measures as may prevent in the future the recurrence of such dangerous suits. There are precedents for both contingencies, and there is a great warning—a warning which lifts this matter above the mere technical law into the highest realms of policy. There is a warning which, like a beacon, flames out on your path, and bids you at all events think well before you allow the present time to go by—I am speaking of that disastrous schism in the Church of Scotland. Remember how that arose and what it was. It arose on a question of patronage. The Government of the day hoped for the best, and allowed events to take their course; the schism came; and years afterwards an Act of Parliament was passed, but it was then much too late to cure the evil. So it may be in the present case. I will not attempt to point out to Her Majesty's Government the course which they should pursue; it is one which may well exercise the clearest heads and the soundest judgments. This only I will say—I believe there is more than one course which is open, and there are probably hundreds and thousands in the country who will look with anxiety for the answer which Her Majesty's Government will give to my question.
§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)My Lords, I have listened with great pleasure to my noble Friend's most interesting speech, and, in common with your Lordships, I have recognized the feelings of deep sincerity which underlie the remarks of my noble Friend. I am very anxious that in what I say there should not appear to be the slightest shadow of discourtesy to my noble Friend; and if I do not attempt to follow him through every argument he has advanced, I hope he will not think it is either because I underrate the gravity of the subject, or 115 because I doubt his authority to speak on a matter so momentous, or because I at all disbelieve in the depth of his feelings on the subject. But it is because in such a matter I speak under a responsibility which forbids me to go far into the subject. The question has been discussed before in this House, and more than once there has been legislation upon it; at least, Bills have been passed here which have not passed through the other House of Parliament, and, therefore, did not become law. The only mode that would be possible for putting a stop to the litigation that is now going on would be for Parliament to interpose its supreme authority, and to arrest that litigation. I do not dwell on the secondary consideration that in the present position of Parliament, and with the present division of feeling, especially in the other House, such a measure, even if it passed here, would not have the slightest chance of becoming law. But that is a secondary consideration, and I do not base my answer upon that—I base it upon this ground, that to interfere with litigation actually progressing, when the Court is opened and the matter is sub judice, is a step so grave, so almost revolutionary, that it would require considerations of the very deepest importance to justify any Government in doing it by legislation. I think I may ask your Lordships to allow me to be satisfied with this indications of my reasons. I cannot forget that the distinguished Judge of that Court is a Member of this Assembly. I cannot forget that the matters which are in issue before him may be taken before others who are also Members of this Assembly, and, therefore, it behoves us all, in speaking upon such a question, that no word that we utter shall in any way prejudge questions which it is for lawful authority to decide.