COMMITTEE. [Progress 18th December.] (Hansard, 19 December 1888)

§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)
said, that, through an unfortunate misunderstanding last night, or early this morning, he had been compelled to move to report Progress, not that he wished to oppose the Bill, or prevent it from passing, though he had no real desire to see it become law. He had risen to ask for a word of explanation. When he was pulled up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer he had not the slightest intention of expressing himself discourteously to the hon. Gentleman who occupied the Chair; far from it. The reason he did not wish to oppose the passing of the Bill was because an hon. Friend of his on that (the Opposition) side of the House had withdrawn his objection, and had asked him not to press any great objection. In deference to the wishes of his hon. Friend he did not propose to do anything to prevent the Bill from passing. He had been about to move an Amendment last night, and he now proposed to move one; but he was rather in a difficulty about the matter, as he had two Bills in his hand. He should like to ask the Attorney General, if he was in charge of the Bill, how it was that there were two measures on the same subject, both coming from the House of Lords, there being, so far as he could make out, a material difference between them.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)
said, the titles of the Bills were not the same. This Bill now before them was the Suffragans Nomination Bill. By an early Statute of Henry VIII., when Suffragan Bishops were appointed, they were obliged to be named in connection with certain towns mentioned in the Act. Some of those towns had ceased to exist, and others had become such that it would not be suitable for them to give the titles to Suffragans. All the present Bill did was to enable Her Majesty's Government, when a Suffragan Bishop was appointed, to give that Bishop the name of a well-known town. He thought that even the most stalwart opponent of the Church of England 845 would find nothing to object to in the measure.

§ MR. CONYBEARE
said, he noticed that there was a difference of title in the two Bills; but the essence of the measures seemed to be the same. He thought that when measures of this kind, suggesting such alterations as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had described, were passed through Parliament, Members representing constituencies interested in the matter should be allowed to express the views of those constituencies. He had already, on a former occasion, stated to the House that it would be perfectly possible for an Order in Council to be issued under the Bill constituting a suffragan diocese for Cornwall; and he thought it only fair that the people of his Division of Cornwall should have an opportunity of saying whether they desired to have a Suffragan Bishop established amongst them, or whether they desired that the title of the principal town—namely, Camborne, should be applied to him. He was certain that if it were put to his constituents, the majority of them would object to the proposal. He could see no other course, therefore, than to protest that through their Representative in the House of Commons they should have the liberty of expressing their assent or dissent to the proposal. The only alteration he would suggest in the Bill would be that the Orders in Council should be laid upon the Table of the House for a limited period, as was done in the case of other Orders in Council. He did not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman would have any objection to that. It seemed to him a very fair proposition.

§ SIR RICHARD WEBSTER
said, it was quite unusual to lay such Orders in Council as these upon the Table of the House. There were many Orders of Council with regard to names and dates for the carrying out of small matters; and, as far as he knew, there was no precedent for such Orders being laid on the Table of the House. He would point out that there was no real necessity, even from the point of view of the hon. Member himself, for the proposal made. A Suffragan Bishop could only be appointed after exceeding publicity. There were a great many arrangements to be made as to the pro- 846 vision of funds, and the provision of means, and the manner in which the duties were to be performed, to be publicly discussed. He did not think that any Suffragan Bishop could be appointed for any Division of Cornwall without the hon. Gentleman knowing of it, and having the fullest opportunity of expressing his opinion in the House. The Amendment the hon. Gentleman proposed would impede the progress of the Bill very materially; and he (Sir Richard Webster) was therefore sorry to say that he could not accept it.

§ DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)
said, he was glad that the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall had taken this matter up, and regretted that the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was not present, inasmuch as that hon. Baronet always endeavoured to carry out the doctrine of Local Option, He sincerely hoped that when a Bishop was to be established in any locality the people of that locality would have some voice in the matter. There was involved in this question the payment of considerable fees to counsel; and he thought, at any rate, that the action of the counsel should be referred to the localities for indorsement. It was for that reason mainly, that attention had been called to the matter, that he regretted that the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth was not present to further enforce the doctrine of which he was such an able exponent in that House.

§ MR. ILLINGWORTH (Bradford, W.)
asked, whether the Bill was applicable to Wales? He supposed it was.

§ SIR RICHARD WEBSTER
It is applicable to Wales.

§ MR. ILLINGWORTH
said, then he thought that before a Bill of this miserable character should occupy the time of two important Legislative Assemblies—and it only showed the abject slavery to which the country was reduced to the Episcopal Bench—they should be assured that the measure had the unanimous assent of the majority of the people whom it would affect. He thought, however, that in the case of Wales the Bill might be a serious offence. In some towns there 7–8ths of the people were Dissenters from the Established Church, and yet there were a set of gentlemen connected with the 847 Church of England, and notably ecclesiastics, who would for that very reason give the name of a Welsh town to a Bishop. He did not think it would be unreasonable, seeing that such town fixed upon must contain an overwhelming number of Dissenters, that before such an arrangement was made the Order in Council should be required to lie on the Table of the House for a month. That would be some safeguard that the thing would not be done if objected to by the people.

§ SIR RICHARD WEBSTER
said, that the towns enumerated were not towns in Wales. The object was to give the name of the locality where the Suffragan Bishop was going to be. He thought it extremely improbable that any Suffragan Bishop would be appointed in Wales; and he could not conceive, if a Suffragan Bishop was being appointed for a place in England, that a Welsh title would be given to him. Of course, if in any part of Wales there were a sufficient number of members of the Church of England to require a Suffragan Bishop, no objection would be taken to the name of a Welsh town being given.

§ MR. CONYBEARE
said, he would not press the suggestion he had made, although he was very sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman could not see his way to allow the people of a district to express their wishes, in some way or other, on a matter which must be of great importance to them, on all questions of sentiment or otherwise. He should be inclined to suggest as an alternative proposal that before the name of a district were given to a Suffragan Bishop the opinion of the County Council of that district should be considered. However, he would not press that suggestion. He did not accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument as to there being no precedent for his (Mr. Conybeare's) proposal. It was time that they started to make new precedents in cases of this kind. When they considered that there was a democratic spirit arising amongst the people, and much greater educational and intellectual vitality, it was quite time that they did away with a great deal of the rubbish that was talked about precedents.

§ DR. TANNER
I object.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The Question is one for the House to decide.