HC Deb 28 July 1874 vol 221 cc873-906

[Progress 17th July.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 8 (Representation by archdeacon, rural dean, churchwarden, or parishioners.)

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 41, after the word "representation," to insert the words— And it shall be the duty of the bishop on the receipt of the representation to ascertain, so far as he is able, whether the practice specified in such representation is or is not in accordance with the established custom, and whether it is or is not in consonance with the wishes of the members of the Church of England resident in the parish, and with the wishes of the persons attending or desiring to attend the services in such church."—(Mr. Cowper-Temple.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. COWPER-TEMPLE

said, that since he had moved the Amendment he had found that apprehensions existed in many quarters that it might be construed as extending further than was intended; and therefore, to prevent a waste of time in fruitless discussion, he was prepared to substitute other words. The purpose which he sought to effect was that when the time came for the Bishop to consider whether he should or should not give his veto to the proceedings, and when he had to deal with complaints which did not relate to any serious question of doctrine stirring up the consciences and feelings of the people concerned—when the question was one only, for example, of a direction set down in the rubric as a matter of convenience, he should be clearly entitled by the words of the Act to take into account all the circumstances of the case, as whether the rubric had become obsolete by the general consent of the people, or had failed to carry out the object with which it had been framed. He therefore proposed, if it met with the wishes of the right hon. and learned Recorder, to withdraw his Amendment as it stood, and substitute for it the words of which he had given Notice as coming in the next clause, and where it was stated that the Bishop would be bound, before he delivered an opinion as to proceeding or not proceeding with a particular case, to consider all the circumstances connected with it.

MR. LEVESON-GOWER

said, that in giving Notice of the Amendment which he had placed on the Paper, he had been actuated by no wish to impede the Progress of the Bill. He did not dispute the discretion of his right hon. Friend in withdrawing his Amendment under the circumstances; but he wished to urge on the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had charge of the Bill (Mr. Russell Gurney), the propriety of considering what some of the consequences of that measure might be, and whether he could not, even at the eleventh hour, prevent such results flowing from it as its friends would deeply regret, and which might produce a reaction against a Bill that he hoped would find favour with the community at large.

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

said, he had not the slightest objection to the introduction of such words as those which the right hon. Gentleman wished to substitute for the Amendment before the Committee. His feeling all along had been that the Bishop should exercise a certain discretion, and that could not well be done without he considered all the circumstances of the case.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. FORSYTH

wished to move an Amendment in the Proviso at the end of Clause 8. That Proviso was to this effect— Provided, that no proceedings shall he taken under this Act as regards any alteration in or addition to the fabric of the church completed five years before the commencement of such proceedings. He now proposed in page 5, line 1, to substitute "two years" for "five years." If, for example, a stone Communion Table had been put up in a church and had been patent to the whole parish for two years, that, he thought, was a long enough time to sanction it.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

hoped the Recorder would not accede to that Amendment. If the alteration in the fabric was illegal, it was not easy to justify the fixing of any limit of time; but if there was to be any, it ought not to be less than five or 10 years.

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

said, he must strongly object to the Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to forget that this Bill would not come into operation till next February. Five years was, he thought, a very moderate limit in those matters.

LORD HENRY SCOTT

remarked that, not far from that House—in Westminster Abbey—there was a very beautiful reredos, and although it had passed unchallenged for five years, it might, as the clause stood, still be interfered with. He was therefore in favour of the Amendment.

MR. FORSYTH

, in deference to the feeling of the Committee, said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. MONK

proposed to leave out the words in page 4— Provided, that no proceedings shall be taken under this Act as regards any alteration in or addition to the fabric of the Church completed live years before the commencement of such proceedings. He considered that the lapse of five years ought not to legalize what was illegal ab initio.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

trusted that the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment. He thought two years would have been a sufficient time; but like the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. Forsyth), he bowed to the feeling of the Committee, and regarded five years as a fair compromise. He asked the House to leave the present Proviso.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 (Proceedings on representation).

MR. DILLWYN

moved, in page 5, line 3, to leave out from "Bishop" to "shall," in line 6. The hon. Gentleman said, if they legislated on such a subject, they ought to provide that the law should take the effect designed. One diocese might be under a Ritualistic Bishop, and an adjoining diocese under a Bishop of different views; and supposing that Ritualistic practices were complained of, a Ritualistic Bishop might pass over the complaint.

MR. NEWDEGATE

wished to know whether the purport of this clause was that, if there were a repetition of an illegal action, the proceedings might not be renewed? The words in the clause were— Provided, that no judgment so pronounced by the Bishop shall be considered as finally deciding any question of law so that it may not be again raised by other parties.

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

admitted that the giving of a veto to the Bishops was a limitation of the original right of persons to complain of practices which they considered illegal; but he thought the power of veto was justified by the fact that it might at times prevent the commencement of frivolous and vexatious proceedings. Therefore, he could not agree with the Amendment which had been proposed. In reply to the question just put, he had to say that a settlement and an agreement between an incumbent and certain complainants would not be binding against other parishioners

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he thought the question of the discretion to be exercised by the Bishops was one upon which the Bill might break down in practice. It was absolutely necessary that there should be uniformity of practice in dioceses as well as in parishes; and if one Bishop acted broadly upon one view, and another Bishop acted broadly upon another view, all the evils which Parliament desired to remedy would return. A discretion of this kind was given to the Attorney General by the Act of Victoria 1834–5, whereby it was provided that no proceeding could take place without the sanction of the Attorney General. If it should turn out that the discretion of the Bishop could not be relied upon, the Act might be amended. He agreed, however, in thinking that the experiment embodied in the clause under discussion ought first to be tried.

MR. ROEBUCK

suggested that the difficulty might be obviated before it arose by giving an appeal from the decision of the Bishop.

MR. WALTER

reminded the Committee that there was an Amendment on the Paper, to be proposed by an hon. Member opposite (Mr. Holt), which would, if carried, limit the discretion of the Bishop in a manner more becoming than would be obtained by the absolute and unqualified proposal of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn). While he thought the discretion of the Bishop ought not to be absolute, he regarded the principle of the discretionary power as an important part of the Bill. He could not, therefore, vote for the Amendment under discussion, but should support the latter one to which he had referred, and which would give an appeal to the Archbishop.

MR. A. MILLS

opposed the Amendment on the grounds that he preferred to regard the Bill as one for the amendment of procedure, and that he wished to see an end put, as far as possible, to the commencement of vexatious and irritating proceedings.

MR. CHILDERS

said, he hoped the Committee would retain the words in the clause. He was in favour of the principle of the Bill, and anxious as to its working well; but if these words relating to the discretion of the Bishop were taken out, the Bill would become a source of endless litigation and danger to the Church. The object of the Bill, speaking generally, was to enforce the Rubrics usually observed; but at the same time it must be borne in mind that others had fallen into desuetude. For instance, the Rubric provided, as regarded the marriage service, that the first part of it should be performed in the middle of the church, and then the people were to go to the east end. This was not observed in one church in a hundred. It was part of the Rubric that the minister should catechise the children on the Sunday afternoon, but in three out of four parishes that was not done. Again, the clergyman was to receive the names of those who wished to communicate, the day before the administration of the Holy Sacrament; but he should not think that was done in a hundred churches in England. If these Rubrics were to be put into operation, and the Bishop were not allowed to interfere, the result would be anything but that which the promoters of the Bill wished. He thought there was a good deal to be said in favour of allowing an appeal from the Bishop to the Archbishop of the province. Among 27 prelates there must be considerable diversities of opinion.

MR. DILLWYN

was still of opinion, notwithstanding what had been said, that the Bishops ought not to be armed with the veto set forth in the clause. He considered that members of the Church of England had a right to something like uniformity of practice, and did not see how it was to be secured unless the Amendment were adopted.

MR. COWPER-TEMPLE

said, he hoped the hon. Member would not divide upon this question. The distinction ought to be borne in mind between trivial and grave cases of non-observance or breach of law. There were cases of defiance of the law on the part of those who set up the law of tradition of the Church against the law of the land, which called for interference to compel obedience; but there were many other cases in which the letter of the law was wisely disregarded for the convenience and benefit of the congregation with general consent. If there were no discretion vested in the Bishop, the power of the Court might be set in motion by the indiscretion of three parishioners, against customs cherished and valued by the congregation.

MR. STEPHEN GAVE

observed that the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), was in favour of absolute uniformity in each parish, but if there was one thing more than another which would cause the Bill to break down, it would be any attempt under it to establish such uniformity. What he feared was that attempts would be made to render the Bill unpopular by the institution of frivolous proceedings, and he could not but regard the discretion of the Bishop as a security for the satisfactory working of the Bill.

MR. CAWLEY

said, he would be sorry to see the discretion of the Bishop absolutely taken away. They should remember, however, that the coming into operation of the Bill had been postponed to enable Convocation to propose a revision of the Rubrics, and, further, that the Bill was not meant to define the law, but to afford facilities for the carrying of it out. He hoped the discretion of the Bishop would be retained in the Bill, but that it would be modified by a provision for an appeal to the Archbishop.

MR. NEWDEGATE

pointed out that the giving of a discretion to Bishops was a novelty introduced into the ecclesiastical law in 1840, and though he was not in favour of such law, he could not vote for this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

MR. COWPER-TEMPLE

moved, in page 5, line 3, after "opinion," to insert "after considering the whole circumstances of the case."

Amendment agreed to.

LORD HENEY SCOTT

moved the substitution of the word "may" for "shall" in the following provision:—"In which case the Bishop shall state in writing the reason for his opinion." It might not be desirable that in all cases the Bishop should put in writing his reasons for acting. In this case, too, he ought to be allowed to exercise his discretion.

MR. DODSON

said, he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Russell Gurney) would not consent to the Amendment. The duty of having to give reasons in writing would be a great safe-guard against any capricious act on the part of Bishops.

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

said, he could not assent to the alteration proposed. He was strongly in favour of the discretion of the Bishop; but he would have some doubt as to the propriety of granting it if the Bishop were not bound to state his reasons in writing as required by the clause.

Amendment negatived.

MR. HOLT

moved in page 5, line 6, after "diocese," to insert "and a copy thereof shall forthwith be transmitted to the person who shall have made the representation." If the Bishop was bound to give his reasons in writing, there was no reason why they should not be made public.

MR.DODSON

said, that the representation would probably be made by several persons; and it would surely be enough that one of these persons should receive a copy of the reasons.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

moved that the words should be to "some one person" who had made the representation.

Motion (Sir William Harcourt) agreed to.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

moved, that a copy should be sent "to the person complained of."

Motion agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

MR. COWPER-TEMPLE

moved to amend the clause by adding to it the following words:— The bishop shall, on the receipt of the representation, transmit a copy of the same to the churchwardens of the parish, and the churchwardens shall forthwith cause a copy of such representation to be affixed to the doors of the church or churches of the parish, and shall duly summon the parishioners to a meeting to be held at some time within eight days from the date of the summons, for the purpose of considering-such representation; and the churchwardens shall report to the bishop the proceedings taken at such meeting, mentioning any resolution that may have been proposed, and also, so far as may be practicable, the names of those who voted for or against such resolutions. In cases of this kind the feelings and wishes of the lay members of the Church ought not to be ignored, and it would be a great advantage to the Bishop if he could ascertain what the views of the parishioners were on the subject of the representation. He admitted that such meetings might often be very noisy and troublesome; but all manifestations of popular opinion were equally open to that objection, while the mere raising a discussion in relation to the question would tend to develop clearer, sounder, and better views on the subject in the mind of the public.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Russell Gurney) would not assent to this Amendment, than which he could conceive nothing more mischievous. Nothing could be more objectionable than that the Bishop, who was on his own responsibility, and sitting as a quasi judicial functionary, to determine whether the proceedings were to go on or not, should be influenced in his decision by what had occurred at a meeting of the parishioners called to discuss the nicest questions on subjects which stirred people to the bottom of their hearts. Lot the hon. Member fancy what would be the result if an Election Judge were to call a meeting of the inhabitants of the borough whose reputation was in question in order to ascertain what the popular opinion on the subject was. The adoption of this Amendment would be most mischievous to the object in view, that of promoting peace.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment, the principle of which appeared to have been borrowed from the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), inasmuch as, if it were carried, the Bill ought to be entitled the Permissive Prohibitory Conformity Bill.

Amendment negatived.

MR. CHILDERS

moved, in page 5, line 8, before "person," to insert— Archbishop of the province, who shall decide whether proceedings should or should not be taken thereon. If he shall decide that proceedings should not be taken, he shall, within twenty-one days after receiving the representation, state in writing the reason for his decision, and copies of such statement shall be deposited in the registry of the diocese, and also in the registry of the province. If he shall decide that proceedings should be taken, he shall within twenty-one days after receiving the representation return it to the bishop, who shall transmit the same to the. He observed that the hon. Member for North-East Lancashire (Mr. Holt) had an Amendment on the Paper providing that where the Bishop decided that proceedings should not be taken, there should be an appeal to the Archbishop. These two provisions would be consistent and would help the working of the Bill. What was wanted was to insure uniformity as far as possible; but uniformity could not be secured if each of the 27 Bishops was allowed to exercise his own discretion without appeal. If his proposal were accepted we should get uniformity to this extent—that in the Province of Canterbury the representations of the parishioners, churchwardens, or archdeacon would be dealt with in an uniform way, and they would be dealt with in an uniform way also in the Province of York. More uniformity than that we could not get; but it would be a decided improvement on what we should obtain under the Bill as it stood.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he hoped neither the Committee nor his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Russell Gurney) would accept the Amendment. It would be fatal to interfere with the discretion of the Bishop. There was a certain variety allowed in the services of the Church, and he thought that it should be left to the discretion of the Bishop to decide whether a case should proceed.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

opposed the Amendment, but intimated that he would support that of the hon. Member for North-East Lancashire (Mr. Holt). Where a Bishop was of opinion that there had been a violation of the law, the question ought to go before the Judge; but where he decided that proceedings should not be taken, he (Sir William Harcourt) certainly thought there should be an appeal to the Archbishop. A short time ago a Bishop presented a Petition to Convocation, declaring that those who signed it did not consider the decision of Her Majesty in Council to be final. He (Sir William Harcourt) should be dissatisfied to have to bow to the decision of a Bishop who would present such a Petition as that to Convocation.

LORD HENRY SCOTT

said, he thought that, in accordance with the order in the preface to the Prayer Book, it should be left to the discretion of the Bishop whether he should take the opinion of the Archbishop.

MR. HOLT

said, he could not support this Amendment. If the Bishop thought it right that a case should be tried, the case ought to go before the Judge.

MR. WALTER

said, the limitation of powers proposed by his right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) was not all analogous to that which the hon. Member for North-East Lancashire (Mr. Holt) intended to propose. He might illustrate the matter by what occurred before a bench of magistrates. Many cases were brought forward at Petty Sessions which the magistrates, instead of sending for trial to a higher Court or Quarter Sessions, dismissed. That was an exercise by them of a veto. If they abused the power they would hear of it from the Home Secretary or the Lord Chancellor. Put whoever heard of a person appealing to the Home Secretary or the Lord Chancellor against a case being sent for trial to the Quarter Sessions? That was the sort of appeal which his right hon. Friend proposed to give in ecclesiastical cases.

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

said, he could not see that where the Bishop decided that proceedings should be taken there should be any appeal to the Archbishop.

MR. CHILDERS

said, he had moved the Amendment thinking it would go well with the appeal which the hon. Member for North-East Lancashire intended to propose. To give an appeal whore the Bishop refused to proceed, and to refuse it where he consented, would be a very one-sided appeal. However, he would not press the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

moved, in page 5, line 11, to leave out "without appeal," and insert "as hereinafter provided."

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

considered that the case put by his hon. Friend would be provided for by a paragraph which he proposed to insert at line 20.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

moved, in line 20, to insert as a new paragraph,— The parties may at any time after the making of a representation to the bishop state any questions arising in such proceedings in a special case signed by a barrister at law for the opinion of the "fudge, and the parties after signing and transmitting the same to the bishop may require it to be transmitted to the Judge for hearing, and the Judge shall hear and determine the question or questions arising thereon, and any judgment pronounced by the bishop shall be in conformity with such determination.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he hoped before the Bill was reported that sufficient machinery would be provided for making the decision by arbitration have the same and vital effect as the decision by the Judge.

MR. DODSON

proposed that "join in stating" should be substituted for "state."

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

MR. HOLT

moved an Amendment to the effect that where the Bishop decided that proceedings should not be taken there should be an appeal to the Archbishop. He concurred in thinking that a discretion should be given to the Bishop; but he did not think that he should have an absolute veto on all proceedings. There might be different views taken in different dioceses; but if there was an appeal to the Archbishop, and if the Archbishop acted on the same principle, there would probably be a greater uniformity in the administration of the law.

Amendment proposed, after the last Amendment, to insert the words— Provided also, That if such bishop shall be of opinion that proceedings should not be taken on any representation, it shall be lawful for the person making such representation to cause notice to be served on such bishop (which notice may be served by depositing the same in the registry of the diocese), and also on the person complained of, that it is his intention to appeal against the decision of such bishop to the archbishop of the province within which such diocese is situate; and thereupon such bishop shall cause the representation, the declaration, and the statement aforesaid deposited in such registry to be sent to such archbishop; and such archbishop shall within one month return such documents to such bishop with his decision thereon in writing confirming or annulling the decision of such bishop, which several documents shall be deposited in the registry of such diocese; and if the decision of such archbishop so require, such bishop shall within twenty-one days after receiving such decision proceed as hereinbefore directed, in the case of his deciding that proceedings shall be taken on the representation."—(Mr. Holt.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

trusted his right hon. and learned Friend the Recorder would not accept this Amendment. The whole object of leaving cases to the discretion of the Bishop was to prevent frivolous objections, and he could conceive nothing more demoralizing than that a person who made a frivolous complaint should be allowed to take the matter before the Archbishop. If an appeal to the discretion of the Archbishop were allowed the Bill would become a machine for promoting uniformity not of public worship, but of public dissension.

LORD HENRY SCOTT

said, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

MR. WALTER

, on the other hand, trusted the hon. Member for North-East Lancashire would stick to the Amendment, and that his right hon. and learned Friend in charge of the Bill would adopt it. The hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. B. Hope) had attempted to answer the arguments of the hon. Member for North-East Lancashire by simply begging the question. The hon. Gentleman said an appeal would be made in all kinds of frivolous cases. Now, that was just the class of cases in which an appeal would not be made. The object of the Amendment was to guard against the possible danger which might arise if a Bishop of very strong opinions chose to ignore a case which he ought to take up.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

differed from the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter), and thought the persons who made the most vexatious and frivolous complaints were the persons most likely to carry on an appeal to any quarter they could find. He trusted the Committee would not, after having consented to allow a discretion to the Bishop, nullify that consent by giving an appeal to the Archbishop, who could not know the circumstances of the parish.

MR. DODSON

said, he had not much confidence in the statement of the hon. Member for Berkshire that frivolous cases would not be taken up to the Archbishop. On the contrary, he thought parochial personages who wished to give themselves importance, would not be unwilling to add to their first importance by making an appeal. Still, the Committee had to choose between two difficulties. The objection to allowing appeals to lie to the Archbishops was that they would be placed much in the position of twin Popes; but, on the other hand, Bishops would differ in opinion unless a controlling authority were established, and there would be different uses in different sees. The present Amendment would not impose any great amount of labour on the Archbishop, who would not be bound by it to go into the question at all. If he had confidence in the Bishop from whom the appeal was made, and he judged that the case was a frivolous one, and that the appeal was sent up in order that the complainant might acquire additional importance, he would at once endorse the decision of the Bishop. The power of appeal to the Archbishop would make the Bishop proceed carefully, and afford increased security against the action of an eccentric or partizan Bishop.

MR. CAWLEY

said, this was not an appeal to the Court, but a reference of the reasons given by the Bishop to the Archbishop, and this was desirable in the interests of uniformity. The notice, however, should be given "to the person complained of," and he moved the insertion of those words.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he hoped the right hon. and learned Recorder, in forming his view of the Amendment, would consider by whom it was supported and by whom it was op-posed. It was opposed by Gentlemen who had conscientiously opposed this Bill from the commencement. He wished to prevent a High Church Bishop deciding one way, and a Low Church Bishop another. The hon. Member for West Kent (Mr. J. G. Talbot) said, the Archbishop would not know the circumstances of each parish; but it was not to be supposed he would go and overrule the Bishop except for a very grave reason. A frivolous objection which had been rejected by the Bishop would be rejected by the Archbishop. It was the well-founded objection which the Archbishop would be required to support against the indiscreet Bishop, if there were one, and the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) only speculated on there being one. It was only in the case of an indiscreet determination not to enforce the law that the power of appeal was wanted. He therefore hoped the right hon. and learned Recorder would tell them he was able to accept the Amendment.

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

said, it was not for him but for the Committee to determine whether the Amendment should be accepted. He should be content to leave the discretion of the Bishop unfettered; at the same time, he did not see any objection to the appeal to the Archbishop in this case. He did not think the evils which had been suggested would arise, and it was impossible for him to resist the very strong opinion which had been expressed by the Committee.

MR.HUBBARD (London)

said, he was very much in favour of attaining uniformity; but even if only a qualified trust were placed in the Bishops it would be exceedingly hard to deprive them of all power of resisting injudicious complaints. The great object they ought to have in passing such a Bill as this was to preserve as much deference as they could for the court and authority of the Bishop; otherwise they should be setting up a Pope in England, and of the two dangers he thought the less would be an indiscreet Bishop. For these reasons, and because he supported uniformity, he must oppose the Amendment.

Amendment amended by inserting the words "and the person complained of."

MR. GREGORY

proposed to omit the words requiring the Archbishop to give the reasons for his decision in writing, confirming or annulling the decision of the Bishop.

MR. SPENCER WALPOLE

considered it desirable that the words should be retained.

MR. HOLT

said, he thought it would be sufficient to strike out the words requiring the Archbishop to give the reasons for his decision.

MR. CHILDERS

said, the Archbishop should only be required to give his reasons when he rejected the appeal.

MR. DODSON

considered it desirable to adopt the proposition of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he thought it would be sufficient to strike out the words requiring the Archbishop to give the reason for his decision.

MR. GREGORY

said, he was willing to adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Words struck out.

On Motion of Mr. RUSSELL GURNEY, after "shall proceed as hereinbefore directed," words inserted "in the case of his deciding that proceeding shall be taken on the representation."

Question, "That the said Amendment, as amended, be agreed to," put.

The Committee divided: safest course would be to insert the words—Ayes 103; Noes 37: Majority 66.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

moved, in line 26, to leave out from "at any," to "province or," in line 27. He trusted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would accept this Amendment, because as the Bill stood the provincial Judge might try the case at the little village where it happened, or in the metropolis. There was such a thing as having law too cheap; but in this case it would probably cost as much to take the lawyers down as to bring the witnesses up. But it might not only create much scandal to have the trial in the village school or perhaps the village ale-house, but permanently weaken the influence of the clergyman although he escaped unscathed. In all ways it would be a more dignified proceeding to have the trial in London.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he hoped this would not be assented to. The Judge might possibly have to inspect the church.

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

said, he did not wish to drag parties up to London or Westminster against their will; but he had proposed a Proviso which he thought would answer the object of the hon. Member (Mr. Beresford Hope)—namely, in page 5, line 27, to leave out the second "or," and insert "Provided that if the parties consent, the matter of the representation shall be heard in."

MR. GRANTHAM

said, he thought the trials in all cases should take place in London, as that would be much the cheaper arrangement. When there were special pleas, and barristers were taken into the country, their fees were heavier than in London.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)

said, that in the case of a disputed ornament or decoration it might be desirable for the Bishop to visit the church. If, on the other hand, some abstract question of law were at issue, it would be cheaper for the parties to have it argued in Westminster Hall instead of bringing counsel down with large retaining fees into the country. It would be better therefore to leave the matter to the discretion of the Archbishop or Bishop.

MR. FOESYTH

agreed that the matter had better be left to the discretion of the Bishop.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, it would be undesirable that the party with the longest purse should have the advantage.

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

said, he thought the parties ought to have a voice in the matter.

Amendment and Proviso, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BERESFOED HOPE

moved in line 28 (the Judge shall give not less than 21 days notice to the parties of the time and place at which he will proceed to hear the matter of the said representation), to leave out "21," and insert "28."

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 28, to leave out the words "twenty-one," in order to insert the words "twenty-eight."—(Mr. Beresford Hope.)

Question put, "That the words 'twenty-one' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 83: Majority 36.

Amendment agreed to.

On Motion of Mr. RUSSELL GURNEY, all the words after "Her Majesty in Council," in page 6, line 25, down to the end of the clause, were omitted.

MR. FRESHFIELD

(for Mr. GREGORY), moved in page 6, line 28, at end of clause to add— The Judge may, on application in any case, suspend the execution of such judgment or monition pending an appeal, if he shall think lit,

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he thought the addition of the words hardly necessary. It was in the power of any Judge to direct that the execution of any order which he might make should be suspended.

MR. GRANTHAM

said, he thought that where there was an appeal the judgment or monition ought not be enforced until the appeal was determined, unless the Judge should otherwise order.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)

thought the safest course would be to insert the words.

Amendment agreed to;

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

Clause 10 (Registrar of the diocese to perform duties under the Act).

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

moved the omission from the end of the clause of the Proviso that the fees to be paid to the Registrar of the diocese or his deputy for the performance of his duties under the Act should not in any one suit amount to a larger sum than three guineas.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11 (No fresh evidence to be admitted on appeal) agreed to.

Clause 12 (Inhibition of Incumbent).

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

moved the omission of words which would render it unlawful for the patron to appoint to any benefice the incumbent by whom it was avoided under the Act.

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

opposed the Amendment, remarking that the people in the parishes were to be considered as well as the incumbents.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

Clause 13 (Faculty not necessary in certain cases).

MR. RYDER

moved in page 8, line 9, to leave out "gratuitous," and insert— (if unopposed) for a total of fees not exceeding two guineas (exclusive of stamp duty), and in accordance with a scale recently adopted in the diocese of Canterbury, and approved by the Archbishop of Canterbury on the twenty-eighth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-three.

MR. MONK

supported the Amendment, as he thought the Proviso in question was unadvisable and would work unjustly. Some one would have to pay the stamp duty on the Faculty, and it ought to be made clear whom it was intended to make liable to do so.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

feared great inconvenience would be occasioned to the clergy if upon every alteration of the fabric of the church, such for instance, as the introduction of an "eagle" for a reading desk, or the substitution of open seats for a pew, a Faculty should be applied for.

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

pointed out that under the clause as it stood no inconvenience could arise save in cases in which the Bishop directed proceedings to be taken—that was to say, in cases where a breach of the law was supposed to have been committed. He moved that the word "gratuitously" should be retained in the Proviso and the words inserted after it "with the exception of the stamp duty."

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

concurred in the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Recorder.

MR. WAIT

objected to the retention of the word "gratuitously."

Amendment (Mr. Russell Gurney) agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14 (Service of notices) agreed to

Clause 15 (Substitute for bishop in case of illness).

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

moved, in page 8, line 16, after "if," to insert "any Bishop be patron of the living proceeded against, or if," the effect of which would be to transfer to the Archbishop in such ease, as well as in the case of a Bishop incapacitated by illness, the discharge of the duties imposed by the Act.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. MONK

moved, in page 8, line 16, after "bishop," to insert— Shall be patron of the benefice or of any ecclesiastical preferment held by the incumbent against whom a representation shall have been made, or.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 (Application of Act to cathedral churches).

Clause 17 (Limitation of proceedings against incumbent) agreed to.

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

moved the omission of the clause. He had provided for the cathedral churches in another part of the Bill.

Clause struck out.

Clause 18 (Rules for settling procedure and fees under this Act).

MR. MONK

moved, in page 9, line 30, after "persons," to insert "one of them being the Lord High Chancellor or the Lord Chief Justice of England."

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

considered the Amendment a desirable one.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

Clause 19 (Chapels, &c. to which Act not to extend.)

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

moved, in page 10, line 7, after "Durham," to insert as a separate paragraph "the university church of any of the said universities when used by such university."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, that Amendment showed that that clause really ought not to be in the Bill at all. He was glad that the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council had given Notice of an Amendment to strike out all those exemptions. Why should there be those exemptions? If there were any churches in the land in which the law should be more scrupulously observed than in any others, they were the University churches. Then, again, as to the chapels of colleges and halls, why were young men to be brought up in practices of that kind? Why, too, were the Temple Church, and the chapels of Gray's Inn, Lincoln's Inn, and the Rolls to be exempted from the observance of the law? If they wanted to put these practices down in parish churches, surely they ought also to put them down in chapels coming under the Public Schools and the Endowed Schools Acts. He hoped the Vice President of the Council would move his Amendment for expunging that clause altogether.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he hoped the Committee would consent to strike out that clause. He could not really see on what principle they could say that the services of the Church were to be performed according to the Rubric, in places which were attended by the old, but not in places which were attended by the young. The chapels might be private to a certain extent; but they were only sanctioned to carry out the worship of the Church of England as established by law.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have altogether forgotten the University Tests Act passed by the last Parliament, which took college chapels out of the operation of the Act of Uniformity, under which it was now desired to place them. In that Act it was set forth that it should be lawful for any visitor of one of those colleges, on the request of the Governing Body, to authorize from time to time on week days any abridgment or adaptation of the service, instead of that set down in the book of Common Prayer, and in the succeeding year the Act of Uniformity Amendment Act provided that nothing which it contained should effect the exemption which had been made with respect to the chapels at Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, &c. He would make the assumption that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) sometimes attended the University church on Sundays, and, if so, he must be aware that the service at 2 o'clock at St. Mary's, Cambridge, or at the analogous church at Oxford, was not conformable to the Act of Uniformity, nor was it desirable, he thought, that three parishioners should be allowed to meddle with it. If his hon. and learned Friend wished, he might move that the chapels of the Inns of Court should be struck out of the list of exemptions; but to strike out the chapels in the Universities would be to cause great embarrassment and inconvenience, and to cast a very unmerited slur on grave and ancient institutions. [A laugh.] It was all very well for hon. Gentlemen behind him to laugh; this was Conservative reaction, to destroy those ancient forms of public worship in the Universities which had been of old created out of regard to their peculiar wants and duties. He had it from the highest authority at Cambridge, that if those exemptions were omitted from the Bill very great vexation and exasperation would be the probable result. So strongly did he feel on the subject that he should certainly take the sense of the Committee with respect to it.

VISCOUNT SANDON

said, he did not think the point raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge University was a very important one. The University Tests Act provided that there might be abridgments in the services; but it did not provide that the law of the Church should be broken generally. The effect of this clause would be very wide and very serious, and he hoped the Committee would carefully consider before passing it. He must not only protest against any additions to the exemptions already contained in the Bill as it came down to them from "another place": but he must beg the House to examine well these exemptions themselves; and later, in accordance with the Notice he had placed on the Paper, he should ask the House to get rid of all these exemptions, and thereby to enact that the same provisions for the observance of the laws of the Protestant Church of England should be made for the chapels in which the large portion of the youth of the country was educated, as for the Parish churches. In the Act of Uniformity special provision was made by Parliament for extending its provisions for securing uniformity in our Reformed Public Worship, to the chapels of the colleges at the Universities, and to those of our then leading Public Schools. Our ancestors being well aware of the importance of preventing the leading youth of the country from being brought up in a form of worship contrary to that authorized by law in the Church of England. But what did this clause of the Bill do? This clause would exempt from the operation of the Act, in opposition to the whole spirit of the former Acts of Uniformity, not only the chapels of all schools, hospitals, asylums, public and charitable institutions, but would also sweep into this exemption the chapels of all the endowed grammar schools of the country, and the chapels of Eton, Winchester, Westminster, Charter House, Harrow, Rugby, and Shrewsbury; as well as the chapels of the Colleges of Oxford, Cambridge, and Durham, and then, to go further, the chapels of Lincoln's Inn, Gray's Inn, the Temple, and the Polls. By this clause, the Committee would be, in fact, authorizing the use of unlawful ceremonies in the whole of the schools, colleges, and Universities in the land. A complete scheme was here laid down by which the whole of the leading youth of the country might be brought up accustomed to services alien to the spirit of our Reformed Church, and which, be it remembered, had been declared unlawful by the Courts, and against which Parliament was now, tinder the guidance of the two Archbishops, with remarkable unanimity, taking special precautions. This exemption began with the picked children at our Charitable Institutions; it then extended to the flower of the lower middle class who would be educated at our reformed grammar and endowed schools; it took in the children of the upper classes at all the great public schools; it followed them all to our ancient Universities; and provided for the existence of such services even when they entered the Inns of Court. He again asked the Committee to pause before passing such a clause, for he felt confident that the country when the case was fully laid before it, would never permit such exemptions to prevail, or allow such a danger to exist of all her more cultivated youth being subjected to the influence of practices and ceremonies in their chapels, against the prevalence of which in our churches generally the nation had demanded, in an unmistakeable manner, the interference of the Legislature. He should certainly take the sense of the House upon this subject, and, in accordance with his Notice, should move at the proper time the omission of the whole clause.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

contended that, though the clause was left out, there would be no means under the Bill of dealing with the chapels in Universities as with parish churches, which had connected with them archdeacons, churchwardens, and parishioners. The machinery for putting its provisions into operation would, therefore, in the ease of the former be wanting, and if the clause were not retained, some new machinery would have to be established. The University church did not come under the Act of Uniformity, and therefore it must have an exemption, or people would say that the services were not being performed in the authorized way. With respect to the Amendment immediately before the Committee, it seemed to him to be a most reasonable proposal.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

maintained that the passage quoted by the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) with respect to the visitor being entitled to authorize a particular form of service on week days did not prove that the chapels in question had been taken out of the operation of the Act of Uniformity. That, moreover, was not the sort of thing which the present Bill proposed, because it said that all those colleges and chapels without the leave of the visitor might do as they liked. In reply to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy), he might observe that if no machinery were provided in the Bill for putting its provisions into operation in the case of University chapels, the necessary machinery might very easily be supplied in the Report. They were going to do that in another matter; and the case of cathedral and collegiate churches, and the case of these chapels were in pari imperio. It should be remembered that the University of Oxford, at times, had not been uniformly Protestant. By this clause the very churches would be exempted to which it was most important to apply the provisions of the Bill. It was to be hoped no such invidious distinctions would be made, and that machinery would be provided for dealing with these as well as other churches.

MR. SPENCER WALPOLE

said, there was no objection to the Universities and Colleges being under the Act of Uniformity. The objection of the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge was that the Committee was going to reverse that which Parliament had settled upon a great settlement of a very important question—namely, the admission of persons not members of the Church of England to the colleges in the Universities. The University Tests Act allowed, upon the ground of liberality, to non-members of the Church, with the consent of the Bishops and on the application of the Governing Body, certain shorter services to be used on week days, and to reverse that would be to throw back the legislation of the country instead of advancing it. He objected to omit this clause, unless a proper provision was made for securing that which was intended to be secured by the University Tests Act for the benefit both of Churchmen and non-members of the Church.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he thought they seemed to be rather running away from what was proposed to be done. It was said that there was no machinery for dealing with this class of cases, but that might be obviated by bringing up a clause on the Report. Under the first sub-section of Clause 8 the offences chargeable related to the introduction of forbidden decorations, and the clause went on to provide for the case of those clergymen who had made, or permitted to be made, any unlawful addition to, alteration of, or omission from the services, rites, and ceremonies enjoined. A clause might be inserted in the Report which would save the University Tests Act.

MR. SPENCER WALPOLE

said, that he should be satisfied if they agreed upon the Report to insert a clause that nothing in this Bill should alter or affect the provisions contained in the University Tests Act, or the Act of 1872, with reference to this matter.

MR. FORSYTH

pointed out that, as the Bill made it unlawful on the part of the incumbent, to fail to observe the directions in the Book of Common Prayer, it would have the effect of overriding the provisions of the University Tests Act.

MR. DODSON

said, he thought it immaterial whether the clause was retained or not, inasmuch as if it was struck out there would be no machinery for the enforcement of the provisions of the Bill, in so far as the college chapels were concerned. At the same time, for the sake of clearness, he would prefer to see it retained. Perhaps it would be better, under the circumstances, to reserve consideration of the matter till the Report, when they would have an opportunity of dealing again with the machinery.

MR. MOWBRAY

would appeal to the right hon. and learned Recorder to let the clause stand as it was. The phraseology of Clause 8 had nothing whatever to do with college chapels.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)

said, if there was a defect in the language of the clause as was suggested, that defect, so far as concerned the wording of this Bill, applied to every Protestant Church in England, because the Act of Uniformity was in force with reference to a parish church just as much as it was in force with reference to churches and chapels of colleges. In the case of a parish church, the ordinary might give his sanction to the mode of performing the service—in the case of a college church or chapel the visitor had the power of giving directions on that subject.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, the general principle laid down in the Bill was that the worshippers had a right to call their minister to account for deviations unauthorized. But who were the worshippers in a college chapel? Undergraduates in statu pupillari. How could they expect these young men to call their superiors to order? In parish churches the congregations would find no difficulty in doing so, but to encourage undergraduates to set themselves up as the dictators of the college authorities was simply to strike a blow at discipline.

VISCOUNT SANDON

said, it was surely most important that obedience to the law should be specially insisted upon in the great educational institutions of the country. The youth who were educated in them should be subject to the same law in this respect as prevailed in parish churches or chapels—namely, the Act of Uniformity. Who should complain of breaches of the law, and to whom those complaints should be addressed were only matters of detail, and could easily be arranged before the Report; but the question raised by the clause was clearly of the gravest importance; the matter would not stand as it did before the passing of this Bill; but this special exemption of the school and college chapels would probably be held to convey somewhat of a sanction from the Legislature to the introduction and continuance of practices and ceremonies in these chapels which were condemned in Parish churches.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

, referring to the objection of the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. B. Hope) that the clause would enable undergraduates to call their superiors to order with reference to the mode of conducting Divine Service, said, that objection could be removed by altering the clause so as to enable only the parents of undergraduates to make complaints on that subject.

MR. HENLEY

said, that when during the last 20 years they had done everything to disassociate the Universities from the Church of England, it seemed strange that attempts should be made to bring these chapels, which were strictly private, within the operation of the Bill. At Oxford it had been a vexed question as to the colleges repudiating the jurisdiction of the Bishops. Were they going, by a side-wind, entirely to do away with the charters and foundations of these colleges, and place them under a jurisdiction that at present they were not subject to? This was the great difficulty that he had. He had seen several occasions where the jurisdiction of the Bishop in the University had been successfully resisted; and if they were going to strike out the exemption clause they could not leave the matter in that position.

MR. CAWLEY

pointed out that the definition of a church in the Bill was a place of public worship in which the incumbent was bound to conduct Divine Service according to the Book of Common Prayer; and if it were true that these chapels were not bound so to conduct the service, then the Bill did not touch them at all. If, on the other hand, they were bound to conduct Divine Service according to the Book of Common Prayer, then there should be no exemption.

MR. NEWDEGATE

objected to the inclusion of the chapels of public schools among the list of exemptions, because it involved the assumption that the services in these chapels were not conducted in accordance with the Book of Common Prayer, and in its present form the clause might be interpreted as leave to depart from the customary mode of conducting public worship.

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

said, the only doubt he ever had as to college chapels being included under the operation of the Bill arose from the provisions of the University Tests Act. It appeared however, that the Bill would only apply to cases where the service of the Church of England was required to be performed according to the Book of Common Prayer. It would, therefore, apply to those chapels on Sunday, but not on other days when the shorter services authorized by the University Tests Act were performed. He would withdraw his Amendment, and vote for striking out the clause.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 53; Noes 200: Majority 147.

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

moved to leave out Clause 16, and insert the following clause— (Provisions relating to cathedral or collegiate church.) The duties appointed under this Act to be performed by the bishop of the diocese shall in the case of a cathedral or collegiate church be performed by the visitor thereof. If any complaint shall be made concerning the fabric, ornaments, furniture, or decorations of a cathedral or collegiate church, the person complained of shall be the dean and chapter of such cathedral or collegiate church, and in the event of obedience not being rendered to a monition relating to the fabric, ornaments, furniture, or decorations of such cathedral or collegiate church, the visitor, or the judge, as the case may be, shall have power to carry into effect the directions contained in such monition, and if necessary to raise the sum required to defray the cost thereof by sequestration of the profits of the preferments held in such cathedral or collegiate church by the dean and chapter thereof. If any complaint shall be made concerning the ornaments of the minister in a cathedral or collegiate church, or as to the observance therein of the directions contained in the Book of Common Prayer, relating to the performance of the services, rites, and ceremonies ordered by the said book, or as to any alleged addition to, alteration of, or omission from such services, rites, and ceremonies in such cathedral or collegiate church, the person complained of shall be the clerk in holy orders alleged to have offended in the matter complained of, and the visitor, or the judge, as the case may be, in the event of obedience not being rendered to a monition, shall have the same power as to inhibition, and the preferment held in such cathedral or collegiate church by the person complained of, shall be subject to the same conditions as to avoidance, notice, and lapse, and as to any subsequent appointment, presentation, collation, or nomination thereto, and as to duo provision being made for the performance of the duties of such person as are contained in this Act concerning an incumbent to whom a monition has been issued, and concerning any benefice or other ecclesiastical preferment held by such incumbent.

Clause read a second time and added to the Bill.

MR. GREGORY

moved after Clause 10, to insert the following clause:— (Parties may appear in person or by proctor or solicitor.) In any proceedings under this Act any person, whether complainant or defendant, may appear either by himself in person, or by any proctor or any solicitor of the Supreme Court.

Clause read a second time and added to the Bill.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

moved the following clause— (Proceedings in case of bishops.) If ten inhabitants of the diocese resident during the preceding twelve months, of whom three at least shall be incumbents, shall be of opinion that the bishop thereof has in any church or burial ground within the diocese (1st) used any unlawful ornament of the minister of the Church, or (2nd) failed to observe the directions contained in the Book of Common Prayer relating to the performances in such church or burial ground of the services, rites, and ceremonies ordered by the said book, or has made any unlawful addition to, alteration of, or omission from such services, rites, and ceremonies, such inhabitants may, if they think fit, represent the same to the Metropolitan by sending to him a form as contained in Schedule (C) to this Act, duly filled up and signed, and accompanied by a declaration made by them under the Act of the fifth and sixth year of the reign of King William the Fourth, chapter sixty-two, affirming the truth of the statements contained in the representation. Such representation shall only relate to matters which have occurred within six months from the date of the sending thereof to the Metropolitan. The Metropolitan may, if he think fit, within six months after he has received a representation in manner agreed proceed to consider the same in his Provincial Court, in public, with the assistance of the judge of his Provincial Court and two or more bishops of the province, to be chosen in the manner directed in the rules and orders; and the Metropolitan shall, after due consideration, pronounce judgment in regard to such representation, and if the judgment so require shall issue a monition to the Bishop in the form prescribed in Schedule (E) to this Act, admonishing him to refrain from such unlawful acts or omissions. The persons making the representation, or the bishop, may appeal within twenty-eight days after judgment has been given to her Majesty in Council, and in such case the appeal shall be heard and determined in the same manner as if it had been an appeal from the Court of Appeal of the province. A copy of such monition shall be sent within twenty-eight days from the date thereof to the bishop; and if, whilst a monition is in force, it be shown to the satisfaction of the Metropolitan in his provincial court, after notice to and hearing of the bishop, that obedience has not been paid to such monition, or to the part thereof (if any) which shall not have been annulled on appeal, the Metropolitan shall thereupon, unless the bishop shall show sufficient cause to the contrary, inflict upon the bishop such ecclesiastical censure or censures as shall he prescribed by the rules and orders. Provided always, That if the bishop so proceeded against shall be the Archbishop of Canterbury or of York respectively, then the representation shall be made to the Metropolitan of the other province, who shall, if he think fit, proceed to hear the same as hereinbefore provided, with the assistance of the judge of his provincial court, and of two or more bishops of his province. The hon. Member observed that as every other clergyman in the land was to be subject to the operation of the Bill he thought there could be no objection to bring within the meshes of the law those, above all, whose duty it was to set an example of obedience to it. In bringing the Bishops within the framework of the Bill he thought the Committee would agree with him that there should be safeguards to protect them against vexatious proceedings, and to that end he had taken care to provide that the parties to institute proceedings against a Bishop should not be a chance churchwarden and three parishioners, but 10 inhabitants of the diocese resident during the preceding 12 months, of whom three at least should be incumbents. The representations to be made, also, were to go back only six months, instead of five years, as in the case of an incumbent, subject to the penalties of the Act.

Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

said, he hardly thought that the hon. Gentleman, in proposing this clause, seriously intended the House to adopt it. So far from contributing to uniformity, it would introduce a system different from that of the Bill, which proceeded on the principle of having a clergyman tried by a Judge. The Bill proceeded on the principle of amending the procedure, and enforcing the provisions of the Church Discipline Act, so far as related to the fabric of the Church and religious worship; but the Bishops were not included in that Act; and therefore the new clause departed from the scope of the Bill. There had been no such complaints of Bishops as would render it necessary to include them, and the clause was drawn in such a way as to suggest that it was not intended to work.

MR. WAIT

said, he hoped the Committee would support the clause. He was sorry to hear the right hon. and learned Recorder suggest that the mover of it was not serious. It was a serious clause, and it was consistent with the principle that the Bill should countenance no exemptions, and that every one, high and low, Church dignitary or simple priest, should be within the scope of the Bill. They protested against the infallibility of a foreign Bishop, and they ought not to proceed on the assumption that English Bishops were infallible. As respected the working clergy, it would be a healing clause, because it would show that the Bill was not aimed at them exclusively.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

assured the Committee he was serious in moving the clause, and he had received widespread encouragement to do so from all parts of the country, and from all classes of the clergy, from the Bishops down-wards. If the Bill was to be complete, it must take in the Episcopal Order—that was, if it was to be regarded as a fair Bill, dealing with ecclesiastical offences without favour or partiality. If something of the sort was not adopted, the existing irritation would be increased.

MR. FORSYTH

said, that as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Recorder had promised to bring in a Bill next Session to amend the Act of Uniformity, that would be the time to bring in the Bishops.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, the Bill contained no reference to the Church Discipline Act, but it would make absolutely now law, and he did not see why the Bishops should not be included. If they infringed the Rubrics he did not see why they should not be brought under the Act.

MR. GREGORY

said, one of the objects of the Bill was to give the Bishops a more ready jurisdiction, and the object of the new clause was to degrade the Bishops. ["No, no."] That would be the effect of it, because it implied that the Bishops themselves were guilty of these practices. He trusted it would not be agreed to.

MR. DILLWYN

said, he could not see why Bishops should be exempted more than any other of the clergy from the operations of the Bill. The object of the Bill was not to give greater power to the Bishops, but to promote greater uniformity he did not agree with the Bill at all, but could not see why there should be any exemptions.

LORD HENRY SCOTT

said, he did not want to degrade the Bishops, but if the Bill was to be equal it must apply to all orders of the clergy. The clergy would see the propriety of obedience more clearly if the Bishops were amenable to the same law. He supported the clause.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, five Members had spoken in favour of the clause, and they were among the most distinguished opponents of the Bill. If the clause were carried it was fatal to the Bill. Everybody knew that if this clause were carried the hon. Member who moved it would have achieved the object of all his opposition. [Mr. BERESFORD HOPE: No, no.] Of course, the hon. Member would deny that he wanted to defeat the Bill. Everybody knew the Bill had been introduced to supply a new machinery for the cumbrous machinery of the Church Discipline Act. The object of this clause was to defeat the Bill in the House of Lords.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

questioned the authority of the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that the Bill would be lost if this reasonable clause were accepted. He had no conception that the object of the Bill was to give additional dignity to the Bishops; if it was to place them above the law, he objected to their having any such additional dignity. It was new to him that there was to be a special order of the clergy excepted from the laws applicable to the rest. He hardly thought the right hon. and learned Recorder could be serious in objecting to the substance of the clause because it required Amendment. If the Bill was to be carried it should be in such a form as to be above the suspicion of partiality. If it was to become law, let it be a law for all classes of the clergy. The Bishops were not well served by those who advocated that they should be placed above or permitted to contravene the law.

MR. WHITWELL

was surprised at the proposal to add such a clause as this to the Bill. The hon. Member (Mr. B. Hope) did not even establish the Court by which the Bishop was to be tried.

MR. CAWLEY

said, the clause would bring the whole question into ridicule if it were passed. There was no machinery in this Bill to deal with Bishops or Archbishops. He protested against its being considered that they were placing Bishops above the law by omitting this clause.

MR. W. EGERTON

submitted that this was a legitimate corollary of the clause that dealt with the question of appeal from the Bishops to the Archbishops.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

denied that the object of those who supported this clause was to defeat the Bill by a side-wind. He believed the Bishops would set an example to those under them of obedience to the law; but if they did not, they would deserve to be brought under the operation of this law just in the same way as any incumbent. The Bill being in its present temperate state, he wished it to become law, and he repudiated the insinuation of the hon. and learned Member (Sir William Harcourt) that he wished to oppose the Bill.

MR. NEWDEGATE

thought if any proceeding were to be taken against any Bishop or Archbishop, it should be instituted by the Crown.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 65; Noes 173: Majority 108.

MR. FOESYTH

moved the following clause:— (Judge not to be a Member of the House of Commons.) That no Judge appointed under this Act shall be capable of being elected as a Member of or sitting in the House of Commons.

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

said, it was clear his hon. and learned Friend had not read Lord Macaulay's speech with reference to the exclusion of the Master of the Rolls from a seat in the House. Such a provision would exclude a man like the late Dr. Lushington.

Clause negatived.

Clause 1 postponed.

MR. HUBBARD

moved as an Amendment that, instead of the Act being cited as "The Public Worship Regulation Act, 1874," its short title should be "The Ecclesiastical Causes Procedure Act."

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

said, he had no objection to the clause being omitted altogether, but he could not agree to the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HUBBARD

then moved the omission of the clause.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 177; Noes 53: Majority 124.

Schedule A.

COLONEL MAKINS

moved, in page 11, line 4, after "England," to insert— and that I have been baptised and confirmed in the same, and that I sincerely believe the doctrines contained in the Book of Common Prayer. to meet the view urged by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), that every Nonconformist was by law a member of the Church of England, and would be entitled to take action under the Bill.

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

objected to the Amendment.

MR. BASSETT

asked what constituted a member of the Church of England? They were all members—some conforming, others not conforming.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

appealed to the hon. and gallant Colonel not to press the Amendment. The Bill was drawn not to include matters of doctrine, but of procedure.

Amendment negatived.

MR. DILLWYN

moved the omission of the Schedule, on the ground that it was objectionable to limit the operation of the Bill to a mere section of the community.

Question put, "That the Schedule stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 170; Noes 41: Majority 139.

Schedule agreed to.

Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Friday, at Two of the clock, and to be printed. [Bill 236.]

MR. DISRAELI

gave Notice that on the Report he would bring up a clause to provide for the salary of the Judge.