HC Deb 22 November 1852 vol 123 cc295-8
SIR B. HALL

I wish to put three questions to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, of which I have given him notice. The first relates to the Ecclesiastical Courts, the second to Ecclesiastical Discipline, and the third to Episcopal Incomes. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that in 1850 a Committee was appointed by this House to inquire into the Courts of Law and Equity. That Committee presented a very elaborate report, in which they set forth the facts that arbitrary fees are taken by Judges and registrars, who it appears hold sinecure offices, "and the Committee desire that the attention of Parliament should be directed without delay to the application of the necessary remedies." The first question is, whether he can inform the House whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce any measure or to take any steps for the purpose of carrying out the recommendation of that Committee? With regard to the second question—that referring to Ecclesiastical Discipline—the right hon. Gentleman perhaps has had his attention drawn to a paper presented to the House in 1851, being No. 205. which was an Address to Her Majesty from lay members of the Church of England, and very numerously signed by Peers of Parliament and Members of this House, complaining of certain innovations in the form of worship of the Established Church, and praying that Her Majesty might be graciously pleased to take such steps as might prevent a continuance of those practices. Her Majesty commanded the Secretary of State to communicate with the Archbishop of Canterbury; and the Secretary of State, then Sir George Grey, says (writing to the Archbishop):— Her Majesty places full confidence in your Grace's desire to use such means as are within your power to maintain the purity of the doctrines taught by the clergy of the Established Church, and to discourage and prevent innovations in the mode of conducting the services of the Church, not sanctioned by law or general usage, and calculated to create dissatisfaction and alarm among a numerous body of its members. A short time since a letter appeared in the public papers, signed by the clergy and laity of the diocese of Exeter, and addressed to the Archbishop of Canterbury, praying that his Grace would interfere to carry out those recommendations of Her Majesty. His Grace replied— The memorial alludes to the introduction of doctrines and practices into the Church during the last few years which cannot be reconciled with the principles of the Reformation. This is a subject upon which, unhappily, I have been so often obliged to declare my opinion, that I need not repeat it now. The memorial, however, proceeds to complain of a practice originating in these erroneous doctrines, which can scarcely be distinguished from the auricular confession of the Church of Rome. I agree with the memorialists in believing this practice to be equally unscriptural in principle, and mischievous in effect. But I trust that public opinion will prevent the continuance of the system. I ask, now, whether it is the intention of the Government, or whether they can inform the House and the laity of the Church of England whether it is the intention of the Bishops of our Church to take any steps in pursuance of the commands of Her Majesty for the purpose of preventing those proceedings which the Archbishop himself declares "are contrary to the principles of the Reformation?" The other question, as regards episcopal incomes, is perhaps one which the right hon. Gentleman may answer more easily. The Act of 1836 was intended to limit the amount of Episcopal incomes; but by a return laid on the table of this House, it appears that the spirit and intention of that Act are evaded; and I wish to know whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce any measures which may carry into effect the spirit and intention of that Act, so that the bishops may not have larger incomes than those which were assigned to their respective sees?

MR. WALPOLE

Sir, the hon. Gentleman has asked me three very important questions, and the most important of them, perhaps, is the first, namely, what are the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts? Perhaps I might say that the Report to which the hon. Gentleman has referred is a Report of a Committee with reference to fees taken in the Courts of Law, and is not a Report on the whole question of the Ecclesiastical Courts. Now, the hon. Gentleman may possibly be aware that the Lord Chancellor in another place has already intimated that extension has been given to the Chancery Commission—in consideration of a paragraph in their most valuable Report—to enable them to consider the whole question of testamentary jurisdiction with reference to proceedings in the Courts of Law, the Ecclesiastical Courts, and the Court of Chancery. The attention of the Government has been seriously called to the subject, and I have no hesitation in saying that they are unanimously of opinion that there ought to be a stringent, an extensive, and a decided reform in the Ecclesiastical Courts. Wishing, as I do, that this reform may be one that may be approved of generally, and carried into execution and effect with the approbation of the country, I certainly wish, for my own part, that no Bill should be brought in until the whole question can be taken into consideration. For that reason, I own, the Government have not at the present moment an immediate intention of bringing in a Bill, because they look with great anxiety to that Report of the Chancery Commissioners, which will probably settle the whole question. With regard to the second question, I hardly know how to answer it. There are no powers, that I am aware of, in the Crown for preventing what the hon. Gentleman has called Romish practices in our Church. The best mode by which they can be prevented is by the good sense of the people of this country, expressed, as it has been over and over again expressed, against the introduction of any such novelties into our Church; and, so far as the Government are concerned, they are as anxious as the hon. Gentleman, or anybody else can be, to see that our own Church is preserved in perfect purity, according to the principles established at the Reformation. With regard to the last question, which relates to Episcopal Incomes, the hon. Gentleman is aware that they were settled by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, by virtue of the Act, I think, to which he refers. I do not see that the Government ought to interfere with the life incomes of any of the bishops, but to leave the Episcopal Incomes in future to remain as they were settled by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, in pursuance of the Statute to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.