[Lords.] [BILL 199.] COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 26 June 1865)

§ MR. HADFIELD
said, he condemned the measure as affording no real relief or comfort to the minds of many clergymen of the Established Church, who entertained conscientious scruples in respect to the forms of subscription hitherto adopted. The Bill in no way dealt with the Articles of the Church or with those of its formularies and ceremonies, which urgently required re-adjustment. Among the latter were the Baptismal Service, the Office for the Visitation of the Sick, the Catechism, and the Burial Service, parts of which were most objectionable, not to Nonconformists merely, but to many excellent clergymen of the Established Church. But what was still the language of the heads of the Church? Did they hold out any hope that these questions should be dealt with and settled? No; they said they could not devise another or a better form of Services, and consequently clergymen would still have to read a Burial Service which in some cases must be most revolting to them, when they considered what the professions, the principles, and the moral life of the deceased had been. The Romanist practices indulged in by many clergymen receiving Protestant pay were obnoxious to the public. But this Bill would not afford any relief to those who objected to these fantastic displays, and who desired that they should be put an end to. He deplored the way in which Parliament treated these questions, and feared that it would bring heavy reproach upon them as legislators in the eyes of posterity. He would offer no opposition to the Speaker leaving the chair; but there was one notice of Amendment given by the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin to which he could not help adverting. That Amendment declared that the Queen's Majesty was, under God, the only Supreme Governor of this realm, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things as temporal. He thought that Amendment would, if carried, excite throughout the United Kingdom the most determined hostility. He believed in one head of the Church—Jesus Christ—who was its sole governor and head, whether on earth or in heaven. To Him alone the Protestantism of this country would yield obedience and subjection. He did not oppose this Bill, but he thought the paltry and unworthy compromise which it made would yield no satisfaction to the minds of those for whom it was intended.

§ MR. ROLT
said, considerable doubt was entertained by some clergymen as to the effect of the words at the end of the declaration, "except so far as shall be ordered by lawful authority." It had been suggested that the exception was necessary to provide for the occasional prayers which were ordered by the Queen in Council on fast or thanksgiving days, or on any emergency. That was his own opinion, and if the Government would state that that was the object of the exception, the doubt which had been expressed on the subject would be removed.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, he did not think the words liable to the objection stated. He did not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman had read a very valuable paper appended to the Report of the Commissioners which had been drawn up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole), and which gave a most admirable history of all the declarations on this subject which had been required to be taken from time to time, the writer being in favour of one uniform and simple declaration. This part of the declaration had been drawn up very carefully. The words were limited to the occasions mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Rolt), and he did not think they were liable to any real objection.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, that the view of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rolt) entirely agreed with that of the Commissioners.

§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITH
said, he must express his regret that the Commissioners had recommended any alteration in the declaration without an amendment in the law of simony. The alteration proposed was that the person taking the declaration had made no payment or compact which to the best of his knowledge was "simoniacal." These words would offer a loophole to a robust conscience and a trap to a tender conscience. He could not help thinking that it was better to retain the former language of the declaration than to alter it in so objectionable a manner. He begged, accordingly, to move that the old wording be restored, not with a view in 840 the thin state of the House of pressing it to a division, hut in order to place the opinion upon record.

§ MR. NEATE
said, he concurred with much that had been said by the hon. Member for Devizes, but thought it would be better to omit all reference to simony. Simony had been extended to acts which were not originally simoniacal, and he thought the punishment for simony might safely be left to the penalty of forfeiture, and the provisions of the statute of Elizabeth. The word "simony" had been not only misapplied hut fraudulently applied by the canonists, and he, for one, had always been of opinion that it would be better for all parties if vacant livings could be sold, just in the same way that reversions to livings not vacant were sold under the existing system.

§ MR. LYGON
said, he had never been able to comprehend the exact reason why the alteration was made. So far from preventing clergymen from obtaining a living by unworthy means, it left the offence, if it existed, to be defined, not by certain well known rules, but according to the conscience of the individual. It was admitted that the law of simony was in an unsatisfactory state, and the declaration, as it stood, presented a great snare to persons of tender consciences. If the hon. Member for Devizes pressed his Amendment to a division he should vote for it.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, the question was really one of words. The proposed declaration was in substance the same as the existing declaration. The proposed declaration was intended to meet persons whose scruples were excessive, and who might say, "The matter on which I am asked to make a declaration is not simoniacal so far as my knowledge is concerned, but how do I know whether in law it may be deemed simoniacal or not?" The Commissioners thought that to meet such persons' objections the declaration ought merely to require an averment that nothing had taken place which, to the best of then-knowledge, was simoniacal. Refusing to speak as to a matter of law about which they were imperfectly informed, they were quite prepared to declare that "to their knowledge" there had been nothing simoniacal in connection with the transaction.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, he could confirm the statement of the hon. and lerrned Gentleman as to the reasons inducing the Commissioners to assent to the alteration. 841 The uncertainty of the law as to what constitutes simony had raised a difficulty in the way of tender consciences, which it was hoped to remove by the amended form of declaration, the declaration itself remaining in substance the same. The uncertainty of the law on the subject rendered it highly expedient that an amendment or repeal should take place. But until the law was amended or repealed, it was in such a state that many of the clergy objected to make the declaration without the qualifying words referred to; and that was the sole reason why they were introduced.

§ MR. SELWYN
said, that when the Amendment of the hon. Member for De-vises was disposed of, words could be added to the declaration preserving the common form, according to which the declarant spoke "to the best of his knowledge and belief."

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, he would accept the suggestion.