CLERGY DISCIPLINE (IMMORALITY) BILL—(No. 239.)

HC Deb 02 June 1892 vol 5 cc464-518

CONSIDERATION.

As amended, considered.

(5.17.) MR. SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorgan, Mid)

I beg to move the 1st clause which is down on the Paper in my name, with one or two alterations. Those alterations are in line 9 to substitute "Justices" for "County Councillors," in line 10 to substitute "Court of Quarter Sessions" for "County Council," and in line to substitute "three" for "two."

New Clause—

Election of Assessors.

"(1.) The assessors shall be chosen in the prescribed manner from the list of assessors who shall be elected as soon as possible after the commencement of this Act and every three years afterwards, as follows (that is to say):—

1. (a.) three shall be elected from their own number by the members of the Cathedral Church of the diocese;
2. (b.) four shall be elected from their own number by the beneficed clergy of each archdeaconry in the diocese; and five shall be elected from the justices of the county by the Court of Quarter Sessions of each county wholly in the diocese, and of such of the counties partly in the diocese as may be prescribed.

(2.) Provided that—

1. (a.) the consent of an assessor to serve shall be obtained before he is elected; and
2. (b.) if an assessor ceases to be one of the body from whom he is elected or resigns, or dies or become incapable of acing, the chancellor may declare a vacancy, and thereupon the vacancy may be filled by another election.

(3.) When the presence of assessors is required three clergymen and three laymen shall be chosen out of the assessors on the said list, by ballot conducted by the registrar in the presence of such (if any) of the parties as desire to be present by themselves or their representatives.

(4.) The assessors chosen shall be bound to attend when required, and if anyone fails so to attend without a reasonable excuse satisfactory to the chancellor he shall be disqualified for acting or being elected again as assessor, and the chancellor shall declare a vacancy, and the vacancy shall be filled by a new election.

(5.) If any assessor is objected to by either party for reasons approved by the chancellor he shall be dis charged from serving.

(6.) If by reason of any objection or of non-attendance or otherwise the requisite number of assessors is not obtained before the trial the chancellor shall, if there is time, cause a clergyman or layman, as the case may require, to be chosen from the list of assessors by another ballot, but if there is not time shall appoint some clergyman or layman, as the case may require, who is willing to serve, and is not objected to by either party for cause shown and deemed sufficient by the chancellor to make up the full number of five assessors,"—(Mr. Samuel Evans,)

—brought up, and read the first time.

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

(5.18.) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,) Isle of Wight

May I ask the hon. Member, only for information, whether the Amendment "three" is at the beginning of Sub-Section 3, so that the words will read, "When the presence of assessors is required, three clergymen," and so on?

MR. EVANS

Yes.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a second time and added to the Bill.

MR. EVANS

I beg to move the new clause with regard to the punishment of disobedience to sentence.

New Clause—

(Punishment of disobedience to sentence.)

If a clergyman wilfully disobeys a sentence passed under this Act, or any requirement or direction contained in such sentence, he may be cited before the consistory court, I and if after the prescribed proceedings for enabling him to show cause to the contrary, the chancellor is satisfied that the clergyman has been so wilfully disobedient, and ought to be punished for it, the chancellor may pronounce judgment against him, which shall be subject to the like appeal as if pronounced on a trial under this Act, and sentence him to such ecclesiastical punishment as the gravity of the case appears to require, including a sentence of deprivation; and where any sentence is so passed the writ de contumace capiendo shall not be issued,"—(Mr. Samuel Evans,) —brought up, read the first and second time, and added to the Bill.

MR. EVANS

I beg to move the last new clause which is on the Paper in my name in a somewhat modified form, though the object is carried out which I had in view when I put the clause on the Paper. The form in which I beg to move it is:— No person shall, by reason of any employment or emolument under this Act, acquire any right to compensation, superannuation, or other allowance, on abolition of office or otherwise. My reason for moving this Amendment is that, when the ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the Consistory Courts was taken away in 1856, there was an immense sum of money paid by this country for compensation and allowance to those persons whose office was taken away. Under this Bill Consistory Courts are being again setup, and officers will be created, and the object of the clause is to provide that there shall be no claim for compensation by virtue of any employment or emolument which may come into existence under this Act.

New Clause—

(No vested interests to be created.) No person shall, by reason of any employment or emolument under this Act, acquire any right to compensation, superannuation, or other allowance, on abolition of office or otherwise,"—(Mr. Samuel Evans,) —brought up, and read the first time.

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

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

I doubt myself whether the words of the clause are necessary, because I do not know how any claim can possibly be made. If the hon. Member desires to make it clear that there should be no claim, I have no objection to insert the clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

MR. EVANS

If I am in order, I desire to move as a new clause Subsection 4, which is down on the Paper in my name, on Clause 5, page 4, line 22, with the substitution of the word "may" for "shall" in the 4th line. This clause will provide that the Bishop may after sentence, without further formality, depose a clergyman from holy orders where the ecclesiastical preferment that a clergyman has held becomes vacant under the Bill.

MR. SPEAKER

I think the Amendment will be in order as a new clause, and I shall put it accordingly.

New Clause—

(Deposition after deprivation.) Where by virtue of this Act, or of any sentence passed in pursuance of this Act, the ecclesiastical preferment of a clergyman becomes vacant, and it appears to the bishop of the diocese that he ought also to be deposed from holy orders, the bishop may, by sentence and without any further formality, depose such clergyman from holy orders, and the sentence of deposition shall be recorded in the registry of the diocese: Provided always, that such clergyman may appeal against the said sentence within one month from the date thereof to the archbishop of the province, whose decision shall be final,"—(Mr. Samuel Evans,) —brought up, and read the first time.

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

(5.22.) SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

In the form in which the clause stood on the Paper it was quite inadmissible, and I could not possibly have accepted it; but the hon. Member has proposed it in a permissive form. This clause is taken from the Bill of last year; but I am bound to say, after having made full inquiry, I find that the power given by the clause is inoperative and is not required. I do not myself pretend to be a very learned authority on ecclesiastical law; but I am informed by the best authorities on ecclesiastical law that deposition from holy orders has been obsolete for many years. I would, therefore, ask the hon. and learned Members who support the clause whether they can give us any warrant for its insertion; and if they can I shall not offer any opposition, for while I think the clause will be of no use, it will do no harm.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE (Lancashire, N.E., Darwen)

I should like to be informed by the hon. Gentleman opposite whether he proposes there-shall be any compulsion on the Bishop to depose?

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

No, he "may."

MR. EVANS

By the permission of the House, I will answer the question of the Attorney General. My desire for having this clause in the Bill, and the authority I have for thinking that it is a necessary clause, is that it was in the Government's own Bill last year.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read second time, and added to the Bill.

(5.25.) MR. EVANS

In proposing the first Amendment which is down in my name to Clause 1, I desire to make it perfectly clear to the House what its object is. I propose to leave out the words "on indictment" in line seven on Clause I. The clause as it reads would provide that, upon conviction of a clergyman for treason or felony, or on indictment for a misdemeanour, followed by imprisonment with hard labour, his living should be declared by the Bishop to be vacant. Now, the words "on indictment" are limiting words, making it necessary that there should be a prosecution either at the Assizes or at the Quarter Sessions; and I think that where an offence has been committed the living ought to become vacant, no matter what the Court is which exercises the jurisdiction and pronounces the conviction. The tendency of legislation of recent years has been to increase the jurisdiction of Justices' Courts as Courts of Summary Jurisdiction, and there are various offences—not only misdemeanours, but serious felonies—which may be dealt with by these Courts. The Justices may convict for larceny, stealing from the person, embezzlement, receiving stolen goods, and for a host of other very serious offences. It is true that where there is a plea of not guilty, if the goods stolen exceed a certain amount, the jurisdiction by summary process of the Justices is ousted, and the defendant must go either to the Assizes or to the Court of Quarter Sessions to take his trial; but where there is a plea of guilty, whatever the value may have been, the Justices can pass a sentence not exceeding six months' imprisonment with hard labour. It may be urged by those who support the clause as it at present stands that their object is that for such offences as entail deprivation a clergyman shall be tried by a jury. Permit me to point out to the House that the authority of Temporal Courts in matter of offences by clergymen is acknowledged to the fullest extent in this Bill, and in the next section it is provided that conviction by any Temporal Court is absolutely conclusive. If that be so, I do not think that it lies in the mouth of the Government or of their supporters to say that under this section you must have a trial by jury. It is clear it does not matter what the Court may be that found the man guilty: it is not a question of whether he had a fair trial or not. Let me use one illustration to show the House the incongruity of the section as it at present stands. Supposing a clergyman is prosecuted for embezzlement (which is not a felony), and is tried at the Quarter Sessions or at the Assizes; he is found guilty by a jury and is sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour. If so, he must vacate his preferment. But if a clergyman pleads guilty before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction to the same offence and the Justices sentence him to six months' imprisonment with hard labour, yet nothing follows under the section of this Bill. What ought to deprive a clergyman of the power of ministering to the spiritual necessities of the people is the commission of criminal offences, whatever the nature of the Court may be before which he is tried. It is not a question of his having a full and fair trial, because we have his own confession of guilt. Whatever the nature of the Court may be, I think it should follow that he should no longer hold his ecclesiastical preferment, but should make way for someone better fitted for the discharge of his sacred duties. I hope that the reasons I have given in support of this Amendment will be sufficient to induce the House to accept it.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 7, to leave out the words "on indictment."—(Mr. Samuel Evans.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'on indictment' stand part of the Bill."

(5.32.) MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (, &c.) Carnarvon

I certainly expected some sort of an answer from the Attorney General to the arguments of my hon. Friend the Mover of the Amendment. As hon. Members must be aware, a clergyman who commits an offence against the law such as larceny is tried under the Summary Jurisdiction Act. But let us take the case of one who has been convicted by a jury of stealing property of the value of 42s. Under the Act as it stands at present, the conviction will enable the Bishop, without further trying the charges against the clergyman, to declare his living vacant. But supposing the property is only of the value of 6d., and the clergyman is found guilty in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, although it is exactly the same kind of offence, the living is not declared vacant. I fail to see why such a distinction should be made, because in each case the commission of the offence creates a scandal, and renders ineffectual the spiritual ministration of the offender. I must say that my hon. Friend has made out a most conclusive case in support of his Amendment. Other arguments of a similar nature might be urged in favour of it in regard to atrocious offences against the person. If a clergyman is found guilty by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, he has simply to abstain from appearing, and the section becomes inoperative. Now, I do not think that that can be the desire of the promoters, and I hope the Attorney General will answer the case which has been made out against the clause as it stands at present.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

My sole reason for not rising to answer the arguments of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment was that I desired to hear whether anything fresh was to be urged in regard to it. We have to consider, with reference to this first clause, whether or not we should allow the commission of an offence to justify the loss of a living unless there has been a trial by indictment. The effect of leaving out the words "on indictment" would be to make a conviction by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction sufficient to justify such a deprivation. I have had occasion to argue this question many times before the Committee, and, as I then stated, the Government consider that this highly penal consequence should only follow the commission of a grave offence which would be tried by indictment. We should remember that there are misdemeanours that are not, comparatively speaking, serious, and that are tried before the magistrates having summary jurisdiction, and those serious offences which are tried on indictment. We must draw a line between serious offences and cases of misdemeanour, and therefore I am not in a position to accept the Amendment.

MR. BROOKFIELD (Sussex, Rye)

The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment is to be congratulated on his desire to punish clergymen who are guilty of treason and other offences against the law. Nothing could be more scandalous than for those who have taken orders to afterwards disgrace their profession by showing a fondness for the commission of seditious offences.

(5.40.) MR. THOMAS ELLIS (Merionethshire)

I am not sure that the hon. Member who has just sat down has added anything valuable to the discussion. The object of this Bill is to secure a speedy, a cheap, and an effective means of purifying the Church by getting rid of immoral clergymen, and those who transgress the laws of this country. The first clause is the only really effective clause for this purpose; but the procedure is cumbrous, expensive, and dilatory. I trust the House will show clearly by its vote that clergymen who are guilty of criminal offences shall be speedily and effectively removed from their livings.

Question put.

(5.45.) The House divided:—Ayes 201; Noes 45.—(Div. List, No. 160.)

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, to leave out the words "with hard labour." I move that these words be left out, so that when a clergyman is indicted for felony or other offences and sent to prison without hard labour his living may be declared vacant. It should not be a question of whether he was sentenced with or without hard labour. The clergyman convicted may be in such a state of health that he is not sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour; or, if he is sixty years old, the Judge may make an allowance for his age, and remit the hard labour. What difference, then, does it make whether he is sentenced to hard labour or not? He has been found guilty of criminal offences such as will render his spiritual ministration of no effect in his parish, and therefore it is desirable to strengthen this clause. The effect of it as it now stands is, that when a clergyman has been found guilty of a criminal offence or offences by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, no further trial is necessary. Is it not, therefore, highly desirable, in the interests of this Bill, and the object it is intended to promote, to simplify and cheapen the method of getting rid of criminous clerks by every possible means? That is what I propose to do by this Amendment. The object of my hon. Friend's Amendment falls somewhat short of that which I desire to effect. I do not see any force in the objection that it would not be fair to the clergyman who gave way to a certain temptation to deprive him of his living. If this Amendment were carried what would happen in every case which comes within this first section would be this. The clergyman who is charged with any offence, treason, felony, or misdemeanour, will first of all be tried by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. There the whole of the evidence for the prosecution will be laid before the Court. He may or may not offer his own evidence, but he, at least, has the opportunity of hearing everything that can be urged by way of evidence and argument against him, and of applying that the trial take place before a jury in Court of Sessions or Assize within two or three months after he has heard all the evidence of the prosecution. How can it be possible to treat a criminous clerk in a fairer spirit than I propose by this Amendment? The only argument that can be urged against it is that in certain cases the Court may sentence the clergyman to imprisonment for one day. That can, however, be met by a further Amendment that the term of imprisonment should not be less than a couple of months. That will cover every possible objection that can be urged.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 8, to leave out the words "with hard labour."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'with hard labour' stand part of the Bill."

MR. PHILIPPS (Lanark, Mid)

I have deemed it a pity that so much of the Session should be occupied with legislation of this kind, but while we are engaged on this Bill it is desirable to make it complete. Surely it will commend itself to the Houses that a clergyman who is convicted of treason or felony or indicted as a misdemeanant should be deprived of his living, oven though he may not have been sentenced to hard labour. I think the Amendment is very reasonable. A clergyman who has been found guilty of those offences ought to be deprived of his preferment and be rendered incapable of holding any other preferment. I think the Government, by accepting the Amendment, will be acting in the interests of their own Bill.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

The Amendment, which aims at strengthening the first clause of the Bill, is as reasonable as any Amendment could be. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment (Mr. Lloyd-George) that Clause 1 is the only clause of the Bill which is of any use at all. It affords a speedy and cheap method of getting rid of the clergyman who has been guilty of certain offences, and declaring, the living to be vacant. Any Amendment, therefore, which in reason goes to strengthen this clause has my support. If the House will only consider for a moment how matters will stand if Clause 1 is to remain unamended, it will come to the conclusion that this Amendment is one that ought not to be rejected. It may be said that there will be a tendency to pronounce lighter sentences, because, under this Bill, there will be a forfeiture of the living. That such a result may follow this Bill is to be deplored. Whatever may be the forfeiture, surely the offence ought to be dealt with simply and solely on the footing of an offence against the law. A layman ought not to be sentenced to a heavier sentence simply and solely because there is an additional forfeiture which follows in consequence of the position the clergyman is supposed to hold. Let me point out how absolutely absurd it is to limit the operation of the first sub-section by the inclusion of the words "hard labour." The result would be this: There might be a conviction for felony or misdemeanour followed by a sentence of one or two months' imprisonment with hard labour. In that case the Bishop must declare the living vacant, and deprive the clergyman of his cure of souls. But supposing the term of imprisonment is twelve months, if without hard labour the result will not follow at all. Is the House prepared to say that a clergyman sentenced to imprisonment for one month with hard labour is to be deprived ipso facto of his living, and at the same time to say that a clergyman may be imprisoned for any period without hard labour, and not be deprived of his living at all except by the process under Clause 2? There might be some reason for adhering to the words as they are in the clause, if hard labour were always the measure of the seriousness of the offence. But that will not be so. As has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd-George), the considerations which weigh with a Judge in deciding whether or not he will impose hard labour are of various kinds; but the most obvious are age and health. Therefore, if on account of advanced years a Judge thinks fit not to impose hard labour in the case of a clergyman, that clergyman would not be touched at all by the provisions of this clause. Then the next most obvious consideration is that of weak health. But is a clergyman who is found guilty of an offence more fitted to hold a cure of souls because he is in weak health than if he were in strong health? I agree it would be a hardship that where there has been a small term of imprisonment for a technical offence, there should be forfeiture of a living. That is to be dealt with by the length of imprisonment, and not by the imposition of hard labour. Viewing this as the most important clause, I hope the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment to exclude the words "hard labour," in order later to define the clause by limiting the operation of it to certain lengthened terms of imprisonment.

MR. DAVID THOMAS (Merthyr Tydvil)

I should like to know whether the Attorney General has any reasons, additional to those advanced before the Committee, for not accepting this Amendment? It seems to me the Amendment is a very reasonable and moderate one, and one which would very much improve the Bill. I hope he will not consider that in bringing forward this question we are endeavouring in any way to wreck the Bill. I think when we were in Committee the Attorney General told us that if he were defeated on a certain point he would appeal to the House; and that is the position in which my hon. Friends and myself find ourselves. We think the Bill should not have been referred to the Committee on Law at all.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

This is a matter which was very fully discussed before the Committee, and therefore I think the House will permit me in two sentences to indicate why I must adhere to the view which I placed before the Grand Committee on Law. The only way in which distinction can be drawn between offences is in the character of the sentence which is inflicted. The second clause is very severe—the living must be declared vacant; but it does not prevent persons taking proceedings under the second clause if they desire to rely upon the crime for the purpose of inducing the Bishop to act. We have carefully considered what is best to guide the minds of Judges in marking their sense of whether a crime is or is not of a serious character, and those who are experienced in Criminal Law will agree with us that there is a distinction in the imposition or non-imposition of hard labour. As we have laid down that dividing line, it is impossible for us to accept the Amendment, which, among its other operations, would include offences in respect of which we think the punishment would be too severe.

MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)

I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment to a Division, because I think the answer of the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly conclusive. I think the distinction between with and without hard labour is a reasonable one. If the clause as it stands is open to any objection at all, it is on the side of being too drastic.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

The Amendment I now have to propose, while acknowledging the decision of the House as to the last Amendment, declares that where there has been a term of imprisonment for any considerable time the result which is declared in the first clause of the Bill shall follow. As the argument which applied to some of the earlier Amendments also applies to this, it will not be necessary for me to detain the House. I maintain that where a clergyman has been convicted on indictment for felony or misdemeanour and is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding six months, he should no longer be allowed to hold his living. The Attorney General, in reply to the last Amendment, said that the only way to decide as to the gravity of an offence is to look at the sentence imposed by the Court, and I venture to submit that where a Court thinks it necessary to impose as heavy a sentence as six months' imprisonment that clergyman should be declared to be no longer a fit person to minister to the spiritual needs of the parish. If the Amendment is rejected the House will practically declare that a clergyman who has committed an offence and is sentenced to six months' imprisonment is still a fit person to preach to his parishioners.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 8, after the word "labour," to insert the words "or for a term of not less than six months."—(Mr. Samuel Evans.)

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

MR. THOMAS ELLIS (Merionethshire)

I cannot conceive that the Attorney General will refuse this Amendment, and I think, too, that it is one the House will approve of. The tendency of all punishments now is that they are made more lenient, and I am glad that is so. In this case there will be a second inducement in the mind of the Judge to make the punishment lenient, because if this Amendment were passed he would know that the clergyman would also have to suffer the deprivation of his living. I cannot conceive that any legal authority would pass sentence of six months' imprisonment with or without hard labour on any clergyman unless the offence was such as, in the mind of any sensible man, to merit forfeiture of the living. Therefore, I hope the Attorney General will accept this Amendment, and so make the clause still more valuable than it at present is.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

It is quite impossible for me to accept this Amendment, which revives the principle we decided a few minutes ago. We must adopt one principle or the other, and it seems to me that six months' imprisonment is not a sufficient distinction.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

As I understand it, the principle of the clause seems to be that a clergyman who is convicted of a certain offence should be deprived of his living without further trial; and whatever the principle of the Attorney General may be, I am sure that the Amendment of my hon. Friend is quite conformable to the Bill. My hon. Friend proposes that a clergyman who is convicted of a heinous offence and sentenced to six months' imprisonment should be deprived of his living without further trial, and surely the objection the Attorney General raised to my Amendment is not in the slightest degree applicable to this. He pointed out that my Amendment might by some possibility have covered some purely technical offence, but that objection surely would not apply to the Amendment now before the House. The Attorney General has stated that the consequences are so severe that he cannot possibly accept the Amendment. But what are the consequences? The consequences are that the clergyman should be deprived of the preferment he holds at the time of the conviction, but there is power under Section 4 to promote him to another preferment, and that is the only consequence. I quite agree that if the inevitable result of this Amendment were to deprive the clergyman for the whole of his life of not merely the preferment he holds at the time of conviction, but of all possible chance of being promoted to another, that would be a consequence of so thorough and drastic a character that my hon. Friend would not be justified in moving such an Amendment. But when you give the Archbishop, in a subsequent section, the power of promoting to another preferment, I do not see what possible ground of complaint the Attorney General can have that our Amendments are of too sweeping a character.

MR. DAVID THOMAS

With reference to what the Attorney General has already said, I should like to point out that this is not a Clergy Evidence Bill, but that it is a Church Immorality Bill. It is a Bill to protect the interests of parishioners, and any Member of the House must see that a clergyman who has been convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment is not fitted to exercise over a parish the necessary moral force.

Question put.

(6.30.) The House divided:—Ayes 53; Noes 173.—(Div. List, No. 161.)

MR. LLOYD - GEORGE

The first part of the Amendment which stands in my name is to the effect that a clergyman twice convicted within two years of an offence against the 12th or 18th sections of "The Licensing Act, 1872," shall lose his preferment. Sections 12 and 18 of the Act provide such penalties for drunkenness as show that it was regarded by Parliament as an offence of a serious character. To meet the scruples of hon. Members on the other side of the House, I propose to confine the operations of this Amendment entirely to cases which arise under the 18th Section of the Intoxicating Liquors Act. As the words of that section contain considerable verbiage, I may summarise two or three of the offences. The first offence is that of being drunk in a public highway or public building. And I may here explain that mere drunkenness in his own house would not bring a man within the meaning of the section. In order to make a clergyman liable to conviction his drunkenness must be in a public place, where he is liable to be seen by his parishioners and scandal created in consequence. A second offence under the section is one where a person is not only drunk and disorderly upon licensed premises, but absolutely refuses at the request of the licensee to quit. Under those circumstances the Act contemplates an offence of so heinous a character that the offender may be imprisoned with hard labour. Now, I think it is very fair and rational that when a clergyman, who has a spiritual charge, is guilty of an offence of so serious a character for the first time he should be deprived of his living. Our proposal, however, with regard to this Amendment is a moderate one—namely, that if a clergyman is convicted twice within two years of drunkenness he shall be deprived ipso facto of his preferment. That is an Amendment of such a character that I cannot for a moment see what reason the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General can have for opposing it in any shape or form, and I hope the House will vote in its favour.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 17, after "1878," to insert the words "or (f) a clergyman is convicted twice within two years of an offence against the twelfth or eighteenth sections of 'The licensing Act, 1872;' or (g) a clergyman is adjudged bankrupt, and the adjudication of bankruptcy against him is not annulled within twelve months of the date of the order of adjudication, and he does not obtain within the same period, from the Court having jurisdiction in the bankruptcy, his discharge, with a certificate to the effect that his bankruptcy was caused by misfortune without any misconduct on his part."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

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

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

I am afraid it is not much good to make an appeal to the hon. Members opposite, but I would point out to the House that although there are questions raised in this Bill which might be discussed, yet it is practically impossible to do so if we are to have all manner of reiterated Amendments on the same points. The hon. Member's Amendment deals with a certain offence which can be punished by summary conviction. I can pick out a large number of other offences which might be made the subject of discussion on similar grounds to this. The House has already decided that this Bill must be confined to offences that are indictable and punishable with hard labour, but the hon. Member proposes to argue this question again by fixing upon one breach of the Licensing Laws. Then with regard to bankruptcy—

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

I have not moved that part of the Amendment yet.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

I understand that Mr. Speaker has put the Amendment as a whole. Well, I would point out with regard to bankruptcy that it introduces a civil question which is outside the purview of this Bill. I ask hon. Members to deal with the House fairly and not to argue the same questions over and over again. We must adhere to those offences which cannot be dealt with by summary conviction, and I ask the House to reject this Amendment.

MR. ROBERTSON (Dundee)

I wish to endorse the appeal of the Attorney General, although at the same time I do not think the Government have much right to complain of the action of certain hon. Members owing to the way in which this Bill has been conducted. We are now on the eve of the Whitsuntide holiday, and there are ten pages of Amendments down for discussion. It is impossible that these can be got through in the time remaining at our disposal without resort to what I may call Parliamentary violence, which I for one should like to see avoided. I would respectfully submit to my hon. Friends below the Gangway that they should at this point determine upon and announce their decision to confine their observations to a select number of Amendments. Some of the Amendments on the Paper are of considerable importance, and I would point out that if they go on discussing all the Amendments they have put down, the inevitable result will be that the more important ones will not be reached at all. I wish to point out that I have never joined in the attacks which have been made upon the motives of my hon. Friends. I have always resented those insinuations; and if an unworthy spirit has been imported into the discussion on this matter, I for one trace it, in part at least, to the indiscreet zeal of some of the supporters of the Bill on the other side.

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! I have permitted the hon. Member to make an appeal in the interest of the House, but he must confine himself to that.

MR. ROBERTSON

I will only again, Mr. Speaker, respectfully urge my hon. Friends to now take a new departure and limit their observations to the really important Amendments, and allow the Bill to proceed through the House as speedily as possible.

MR. THOMAS ELLIS

We have no complaint to make of the spirit of the appeal which the hon. Gentleman has made to us. But I think we have not taken up much of the time of the House. Each Amendment has been briefly discussed, and one has been withdrawn at the request of an hon. Member on this side. I consider that the Amendments we have divided upon, and especially the one now under discussion, are very important. I was surprised to find that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General refused to accept this Amendment in Grand Committee, and I cannot understand why he cannot now do so, particularly the first part of it. His refusal to accept it appears to me to be an excellent proof of the want of genuineness on the part of the Government and the promoters of this Bill. It is ridiculous to say that drunkenness on the part of a clergyman is not a serious offence. I believe that it is a more heinous offence, spiritual and moral, than that of treason. Nowadays, talking treason and encouraging others to act it seems to have become a part of the Conservative policy.

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The hon. Member is not speaking to the Amendment.

MR. ELLIS

I am sorry to have transgressed, Sir, but I am trying to point out that drunkenness is a more heinous offence in many circumstances than are some of those which are included in the first clause of the Bill. It seems to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Lloyd-George) has withdrawn everything objectionable from his original Amendment, and I venture to say that as it now stands—simply providing that if a clergyman is convicted twice of drunkenness within two years he shall lose his preferment—it is one that the vast majority of the people will approve of.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

I am not going to occupy the time of the House at any length, but I must say that it seems to me impossible not to proceed with this Amendment, otherwise we shall be entirely false to our convictions on this point. I can assure the House that we do not regard this matter as one of minor importance, and I venture to put before hon. Members a new phase with regard to the first part of the Amendment—that is, the danger there is of clergymen setting an example of drunkenness. No one would be likely to become a thief or guilty of several other criminal offences because the clergyman of the parish committed such acts. The force of example in matters of this kind is not considerable; but if, after a clergyman has been convicted twice within two years of drunkenness, he is still allowed to enjoy his living, it would perpetrate scandal in the Church and have an injurious effect upon his parishioners. So much upon the first part of the Amendment. As the other part of it has also been put from the Chair, and my hon. Friend (Mr. Lloyd-Morgan) is prevented from saying anything upon it, I will now proceed to do so. I venture to think it will be sufficient for us to call the attention of the House to the provisions of the Bankruptcy Law as it now stands with reference to offences of this kind. It is not a mere adjudication of bankruptcy that renders the living vacant; it must be a bankruptcy which is not annulled within twelve months. Further, if the bankruptcy has been improperly obtained, or if the clergyman against whom the adjudication is made shall pay two shillings in the pound within two months, or if within twelve months he should receive his discharge and a certificate that the bankruptcy was caused by misfortune and not by his own fault, then the living is not vacated. I think that is acting with all possible leniency, and I do not think it is too much to say that a clergyman who has been living recklessly, who has been living on his creditors and whose bankruptcy is caused by misconduct, should not be allowed to hold his living any longer. The Bankruptcy Act of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) provides that such a bankruptcy shall disqualify from sitting and voting in the House of Lords, from being elected to the House of Commons, from acting as a Justice of the Peace, from holding the office of Mayor, Alderman or Councillor, or from exercising the office of Guardian of the Poor, Overseer, member of a Sanitary Authority or School Board, Highway Board or Select Vestry. Is the House of Commons going to say that what is a disqualification from these comparatively unimportant and minor offices is not a disqualification for a clergyman? I venture to contend that, where a bankruptcy is brought about by misconduct and not by misfortune, a clergyman should be placed under a like disqualification. "While the members of the Board of Guardians and of the School Board have only to deal with the temporal necessities of the people, the clergyman has charge of their spiritual welfare. I think the Amendment in both its parts is absolutely reasonable. We do not wilfully refuse to listen to appeals which have been made on this side of the House, but we regard these matters of such importance that we must ask the House to pronounce judgment upon them.

Question put.

(7.10.) The House divided:—Ayes 25; Noes 152.—(Div. List, No. 162.)

(7.15.) MR. SAMUEL EVANS: I beg to move— In page 1, line 17, at end, to add,—"(f) An order is made against a clergyman for alimony to his wife or children upon desertion and wilful neglect to maintain his family under 'The Married Women (Maintenance in case of Desertion) Act, 1886.' My Amendment has another sub-head, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether I shall be in order in moving this one first or whether they both go together.

MR. SPEAKER

Both sub-heads have reference to the same subject, and must be taken together.

MR. EVANS

The second sub-head is as follows:— (g) A clergyman is found in a divorce or matrimonial cause to have deserted his wife or family for a period of twelve months, or to have been guilty of cruelty towards his wife or family. In another place the Government accepted an Amendment of mine to the effect that a clergyman who was found guilty of an assault so aggravated as to result in a judicial separation at the hands of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction should be no longer entitled to hold preferment. I think this Amendment touches an equally serious offence, and I think that a clergyman who deserts and refuses to maintain his wife and family is guilty of at least as great an offence as a clergyman who on one occasion inflicts such a serious blow as to constitute an aggravated assault. The House should remember what has to be proved. It must be proved that the desertion is wilful, and that he neglects to maintain his wife and family when he has the means to do so. I think that would amount to absolute cruelty. With respect to the second part of the Amendment, I think it will be admitted that a clergyman who is found guilty of such conduct is not fit to go into the pulpit.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 17, after "1878," to insert the words "(f) An order is made against a clergyman for alimony to his wife or children upon desertion and wilful neglect to maintain his family under 'The Married Women (Maintenance in case of Desertion) Act, 1886;' (g) A clergyman is found in a divorce or matrimonial cause to have deserted his wife or family for a period of twelve months, or to have been guilty of cruelty toward his wife or family."—(Mr. Samuel Erans.)

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

(7.19.) SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

With regard to the first branch of the Amendment, the hon. Member seems to have forgotten what would be the result. Under the present law an order would be made on the clergyman to pay to his deserted wife a sum not exceeding £2 a week, and the only means probably whereby he could make these payments would be taken away from him if he were deprived of his living. Therefore that branch of the Amendment would be absolutely devoid of beneficial effect. There is absolutely no need for the second branch of the Amendment, because there is no proceeding, or no finding, or no verdict, whereby a clergyman could be found guilty of cruelty unless an order for judicial separation had been made. That part of the Amendment is absolutely futile.

MR. HUNTER

I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment to a Division, because it is on similar lines to one which has already been decided.

MR. SPEAKER

Does the hon. Member press the Amendment?

MR. EVANS

No, Sir.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Motion of Sir RICHARD WEBSTER, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 1, line 19, after "shall," to insert "within twenty-one days."

(7.21.) MR. EVANS

The next Amendment which stands in my name has been described as a very important Amendment, but, in my opinion, it is not of so much practical importance as some other Amendments which have been proposed. It involves, however, theoretical and theological considerations, and there is also the point of view of the Bishop himself, who may refuse to carry out the sentence of the Court. Now, if a clergyman is found guilty of treason or felony, under the Act of 1870 his living is ipso facto vacated without anything being done by the Bishop or the Archbishop. That is changed by this Bill, and I have heard no reasons to show that it is advisable to repeal the legislation of 1870. In another place the Archbishop of Canterbury, in introducing this measure, said the Bill did not repeal the Act of 1870, but it was pointed out at that time, and the Bill is now in the same condition, that there is, at all events, an implied repeal of the provisions of the Act of 1870. I do not know whether the Attorney General is prepared to support the view taken by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The right rev. Prelate said that they were making no change in the law, because the first clause provides that in certain events the living shall be declared vacant in precisely the same manner as under the Act of 1870. I should like to ask if the Attorney General agrees with that statement of the law. It is my opinion that the law is changed by this Bill. The whole tendency of legislation on this subject since the Reformation down to the Act of 1870 has been to secure that a living should be declared vacant without any action on the part of the Bishop. This clause in the Bill has given rise to more discussion outside than any other clause, and I think I am justified in saying that the laity of the Church of England object entirely to the provision that it should be necessary for the Bishop to take any action. It is regarded as an act of clerical aggression and a retrograde step. It is said that in this matter the Bishop would act in two capacities, as the officer of the State and the officer of the Church; and also that as the Bishop is the only person who can institute a clergyman, he should be the only person who can deprive a clergyman of his living. I will not now argue the question of what would take place if a Bishop refused to carry out the provisions of the Bill, but I say that the Bishop is not the only person who can institute a clergyman. That can be done by the vicar-general or ordinary of the diocese. The Bishop does no doubt place his hands on the head of the clergyman, but he does not necessarily institute. Then, with respect to the carrying out of this Bill, I desire that there should be no difficulty or friction, or any danger of a refusal on the part of a Bishop to act. Some people may say that the Bishop would not refuse to act, but some Bishops might refuse, and the result would be that, so far as their dioceses were concerned, the Act would be entirely nullified. I have the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Gladstone) for assuming that there might be an indiscreet Bishop in a diocese. The right hon. Gentleman, speaking in 1874, said that we had twenty-seven or twenty-eight Bishops and Archbishops, and in discussing the question of the discretion of those Bishops, he mentioned that in a Cabinet of sixteen Members there might be one Member who was indiscreet. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman was speaking of some personal experience in the Cabinet. The right hon. Gentleman thought that out of twenty-seven Bishops it was a fair allowance that twenty-six were discreet; but that there might be some indiscretion on the part of the twenty-seventh — that there might be some Bishop who was fond of power, fond of meddling, or who did not combine discretion with courage. But it is not simply whether Bishops will be discreet, but we have it on the authority of one of the greatest ornaments that ever adorned the Episcopal Bench that Bishops will be right in certain circumstances in refusing to carry out the law and make the declaration I am now discussing. In the Bill of last year there was no declaration required from the Bishop, and two Archbishops have argued against the present proposal. One of them — Archbishop Magee—said that he resented the idea of being ordered to come into Court as the executioner or crier of the Court to proclaim a judgment he might differ from. Therefore I am not assuming too much when I say that it is possible, even probable, that Bishops and Archbishops may refuse to carry the law into effect. I object to the retention of the words "be declared by the Bishop to be," and I ask the House to say that the provision in previous Bills is the proper one—namely, that the living shall be ipso facto vacant on conviction. I object to their retention because they are against the whole policy of legislation in matters ecclesiastical, from the Reformation down to 1870—because they are an act of clerical aggression, and because they will create a difficulty in carrying out the Act.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 20, to leave out the words "be declared by the bishop to be," and insert the word "become."—(Mr. Samuel Evans.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

(7.33.) MR. T. E. ELLIS

The Attorney General knows that objection to these words is not alone among those who dislike legislation of this kind, but that among the zealous laity of the Church itself there is a great difference on the point. In previous Bills there has been no provision of this character, and my hon. Friend has conclusively shown that it will completely change and reverse the law. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will explain the change of attitude on the part of the Government. This is a very important matter, and the proposal is a new one and one which is looked upon not only with suspicion, but with very great dislike, not only by those who are not members of the Church of England, but by those, who are zealous in her cause.

(7.35.) MR. PHILIPPS

I am sure that hon. Members must admit that every Amendment which has been moved from this side has been calculated to strengthen the Bill and make it more effective, though at the same time it might make the Bill too drastic. I am sorry the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Fowler), who ably argued the case for this Amendment in Committee, is not here to speak upon it. It is perfectly clear that the adoption of the Amendment would simplify the working of the Bill, because if a clergyman were found guilty by a Civil Court of any of the offences in Clause 1, from that day he would be incapable of holding the living, and it would be vacant. It is an unnecessary waste of time to call in the Bishop at all in the matter. I cannot help feeling that the Government are opposing this Amendment for a reason given in the Grand Committee with reference to another Amendment—that it could not be accepted because it would be against an understanding, something in the nature of a compromise, which had been made in another place. As a Member of the House of Commons, I protest against our being bound by a compromise the Government have made in another place with the Bishops. I hope the Government will repudiate the charge that any part of the Bill is being retained in the face of argument because of a compromise in the House of Lords.

(7.40.) MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

This Amendment raises a very large question, and deals with a proposal never made in any legislation previously before Parliament. It proposes that when a clergyman has been found guilty of certain offences the Bishop shall, without further trial, declare the living vacant. I understand that the Bishop is to have no discretion; then why import him into the Bill? It would be more reasonable and more consistent with the dignity of the Episcopal Bench that the living should become vacant without the intervention of the Bishop at all. Something has been said about depriving a clergyman of his spiritual functions as the reason for the interference of the Bishop. Last year this argument did not strike the Government, as there was no such provision in the previous Bill. Does the House contemplate what the result would be if a Bishop conscientiously objected to carrying out the order of the Court? I can understand circumstances in which he might conscientiously object to the verdict of the Court being enforced. Supposing that a clergyman is prosecuted for a criminal offence, which would be of public notoriety. Persons who are not in the Court, but who read the papers, are apt to come to a different conclusion from those who hear the case and see the witnesses. Suppose that the Bishop comes to a different conclusion from the jury, and forms the opinion that the clergyman is not guilty of the offence, is it proposed under those circumstances to compel him to declare the living vacant? If the Bishop refuse, and the Archbishop also, you are to issue a mandamus, and if he refuse to obey then you issue a writ of attachment and imprison him for refusing to do that which he has a conscientious objection to do. I think it would be well, if the Government cannot accept this Amendment, that they should accept the one I have down later, giving the Bishop a discretion.

(7.45.) SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

I will indicate why I cannot accept the Amendment. A clergyman receives from the Bishop, from the ecclesiastical authority, his spiritual functions, and we consider it a right and proper recognition of that position that conviction for a crime should be followed by the Bishop himself declaring that no longer is the clergyman a fit person to carry out these spiritual functions. Another ground is that there must he kept a proper record. If the conviction is made by a Civil Court in some Assize town there would be no record, but there would be a record in the documents kept by the Bishop who acts in the case. We do not consider that this is merely a sentimental feeling, but that it is right that by the authority from which he has received his power and right to perform spiritual functions, that power and light should be taken away. The hon. Member asked me to say that this was not the result of a bargain in the House of Lords. It is not the result of a bargain in the House of Lords, and I have never consciously made reference to any such supposed bargain. I regard this as an important matter, entirely consistent with the spirit of the principle and practice of previous legislation.

(7.50.) MR. J. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion)

The only reason for the proposal in the Bill is the suggestion that, as spiritual functions are conferred by the Bishop, the clergyman shall also be deprived of those functions by the Bishop. But he should have a discretion. As a matter of fact, this does not deal with spiritual functions at all; it simply says that the Bishop shall declare the living vacant. On a conviction deprivation must follow; the words are that the Bishop shall declare the living vacant, and I feel very strongly that that is not desirable. The admitted reason why this proposal is retained is that among certain of the High Church party there is strong objection to a Civil Court interfering in spiritual matters, and this is introduced into the Bill as a sort of sop to the High Church party, a sort of make-believe. It appears to give the Bishop a discretion which he does not really possess, for if the Bishop does not declare the living vacant, the Archbishop is called upon to do so, and in the event of his refusing it is provided that a mandamus shall issue, and that on further refusal he shall be sent to gaol. The position is so absurd that I shall support the Amendment.

Question put.

(7.55.) The House divided: — Ayes 91; Noes 23.—(Div. List, No. 163).

(8.0.) MR. EVANS: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name— Page 1, line 21, leave out "said date," and insert "date of the commencement of the proceedings in which such conviction, order, or finding shall have been pronounced, made, or found, but such vacation shall not affect any marriage, baptism, or other ceremony which may have been solemnised or performed by the clergyman while holding the preferment.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

May I point out to my hon. and learned Friend that it is wholly unnecessary and would be meaningless to insert such an Amendment as this. The validity of such marriage in no way depends upon the date when the preferment was held to be vacant. It depends upon the question of the status of the clergyman at the time when the marriage ceremony was performed. It would be simply meaningless to insert these words.

MR. EVANS

I may say that I framed the Amendment in the way in which it stands on the Paper owing to the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) when I proposed something of this kind. My view is that the living should be vacant as from the date of the sentence. If the learned Attorney General is of the same view as myself upon that point, I should not move more than the first three lines of my Amendment. In other words, I should omit from the word "but" in the third line to the end. But the first part of the Amendment obviously is of a substantial character. This is not an Amendment which was moved in the Select Committee. Similar words were moved and negatived in another place. I have to admit that perhaps that Amendment which was moved and negatived went a little too far. I did propose that the living should be vacant as from the commission of the offence. Much might be said in favour of a proposal of that kind; but there would be a difficulty very often in working it, because it would be difficult to know when the commission of the offence actually occurred. I propose that the date should be the commencement of the proceedings in which such— Conviction, order, or finding shall have been pronounced, made, or found. That is a date which can be easily ascertained; it is a date which is absolutely fixed. The doctrine "of relation back" is one which is very well-known in law; as, for instance, the voidance of settlements under the Bankruptcy Law, and so on; and there would be no difficulty in the operation of the Clause.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 21, to leave out the words "said date," and insert the words "date of the commencement of the proceedings in which such conviction, order, or finding shall have been pronounced, made, or found."—(Mr. Samuel Evans.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'said date' stand part of the Bill."

(8.10.) SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

I really find it difficult to treat this matter seriously. It is not a fact that it is the commission of the offence that renders the living vacant; it is the conviction, because a man is presumed to be innocent until he is convicted. What I want to know is what has the date of the issue of a writ to do with it? The hon. and learned Member must forgive me if I cannot occupy the time of the House by dealing with such arguments when there are far more important matters to be dealt with.

(8.11.) MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

I think the Amendment is not of so trivial and unimportant a character as the learned Attorney General has contended. It is a matter of some importance. However, I think the matter is not worth dividing the House upon, and I hope my hon. and learned Friend will withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

(8.12.) MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

I beg to move— In page 1, line 24, after "Crown," insert "accompanied by a certificate signed by one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State to the effect that such pardon was granted on the ground of the discovery, since conviction, of fresh evidence exculpating him. I venture to think this Amendment is of a substantial character. I want to cover the case where the pardon of the Crown is attributable to something besides the discovery of evidence exculpating a clergyman. Suppose the case of where a clergyman is charged with some conspiracy. After the sentence of the Court is passed upon him he turns Queen's evidence, and he is prepared to give evidence against an accomplice, and the pardon of the Crown is extended to him. Does my hon. Friend the Attorney General really contend that in such a case as that the clergyman should be reinstated in his preferment? If so, I say it is simply scandalous; and I challenge the learned Attorney General to point to any word in this Bill as it stands which provides for a case of that character. That is the construction I place upon that sub-section. Take the case of a clergyman who was of a weak mind at the date when the offence was committed, and was not, therefore, responsible for his acts, and the pardon of the Crown was extended to him. That is a case which occurs frequently with regard to persons charged with criminal offences. Of course, if the weakness of mind was of a permanent character, there would be no likelihood of the clergyman being reinstated; but suppose it was simply a temporary lapse of intellect, and the Home Secretary discovered, on evidence produced before him, that at the date of the commission of the offence the man was under some sort of hallucination which impelled him irresistibly to commit a felony, or treason, or misdemeanour, does the hon. and learned Gentleman really contend that under circumstances of that character a clergyman should be reinstated in his preferment? To provide against such cases I propose that there must be a certificate of the Home Secretary or of some Secretary of State when the prerogative of the Crown is exercised, stating that it was due to the discovery of evidence which exculpates the incriminated clerk. This would violate no principle, and I do not see why it should not be done. As a matter of fact, the Crown does not interfere at all. We all know very well that it is simply the Home Secretary who sits as a sort of criminal appeal, and investigates such documentary and other evidence as is laid before him, and he comes to the conclusion, say, that owing to the Court not having the full evidence before it, it came to a wrong conclusion. What is there in that state of things to prevent the Home Secretary from stating, in the document announcing his decision and the pardon of the Crown, the grounds on which he arrived at that conclusion? I simply give the Home Secretary the same power, sitting as a Court of Appeal, as if he were sitting as a Court of Criminal Appeal de jure.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 24, after the word "Crown," to insert the words "accompanied by a certificate signed by one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State to the effect that such pardon was granted on the ground of the discovery, since conviction, of fresh evidence exculpating him."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

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

(8.17.) SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

I really did hope that after the explanation that was given in the Grand Committee the hon. and learned Member would not again raise this matter. I must again point out to him that the prerogative of pardon is granted upon the responsibility of one of Her Majesty's Ministers, and that it would be contrary not only to the practice, but to the whole principle on which the power is granted, that any reason should be stated at all. It would be utterly impossible to state the reasons, and it would introduce into our executive a principle that would be highly dangerous. It would be contrary to everything connected with the exercise of that prerogative; there may be reasons why a pardon should be granted quite independently of the discovery of fresh evidence exculpating a clergyman. The course suggested by the hon. Member would be highly dangerous; it could do no good, and would be contrary to the usual practice governing the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown.

(8.18.) MR. SAMUEL EVANS

I venture to point out to the learned Attorney General that we do not suggest that there should be such an alteration as he seems to anticipate. We do not say that in every case the Home Secretary should say what were the grounds on which the prerogative of the Crown was granted. We say that where the prerogative is exercised and pardon is granted on the discovery, after conviction of fresh evidence exculpating a clergyman, the Secretary of State shall give a certificate to that effect. I see no difficulty in carrying that out. There may be a Secretary of State who may transgress the rules of the high position he holds. If that be so, it would be within the powers of a Secretary of State, without any sufficient ground, through the influence of some person of high rank, for instance, to give a pardon, without giving any reason for it.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

I do not press this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Notice taken, that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members being found present,

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

I think the next Amendment standing in my name is one which will commend itself to the general sense of the House. I propose to leave out the word "shall," in order to insert "may." As the Bill stands at the present moment, the Government propose to compel a Bishop to re-institute a clergyman whenever the mercy of the Crown is extended to him. I can conceive several cases in which a Bishop would not consider it in the interests of the parishioners to re-institute such a man. After all, we must not forget that this Bill is not intended to protect the parsons, or even to punish them, but it is proposed to purify the Church to the greatest possible extent; and, as was said by the Leader of the House, it is brought forward in the interests of the parishioners and not of the clergyman. It is in the spirit of that declaration of the First Lord of the Treasury that I propose this Amendment. Take a case which I mentioned before, and which the Attorney General did not dispose of. Take the case of a clergyman who gets a free pardon on the ground that he was of weak mind at the date of the offence. Would you compel the Bishop to re-institute that clergyman, without any option whatever? My Amendment gives the Bishop a discretion.

*MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is going over arguments which have been repeatedly used to-night. I must caution him against repeating himself or the arguments of other Members. This I have power to do under the Standing Orders.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

I am very sorry if I have in any sense transgressed the Rules of the House. I can assure you, Sir, that I have done so unwittingly. I do not think any of my hon. Friends in my hearing has ever used this argument—that the effect of this clause as it stands is that if the Bishop refuses to re-institute for some reason, a mandamus will be issued against him to re-institute. Is that a desirable state of things? Is it not well that the Bishops, who are chosen because they are considered to be men of discretion., common sense, great ability, and influence in the Church, may be safely trusted to administer the law and to have a discretion to re-institute if they think there are circumstances which would justify that refusal?

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 26, to leave out the word "shall," and insert the words "may, if he think it to be to the interest of the parishioners."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'shall' stand part of the Bill."

(8.58.) MR. THOMAS ELLIS

I cannot understand why Churchmen, at any rate, cannot accept this Amendment. I am not quite sure if my hon. Friend, in moving the Amendment, is quite consistently showing that unbending Liberationist sentiment attributed to him by his opponents. It is a very remarkable provision to be proposed by the Bishops and to be supported by the friends of Episcopacy—namely, that power should be given to the Home Secretary to override the decision or desire of the Bishops with regard to this question. If Churchmen fully realised that in this matter the Bishop is to be completely set aside in favour of the Home Secretary they would vote against that provision of a Bill which they have hitherto so faithfully and consistently supported. I hope the Attorney General will see that the provision in the Bill is really too drastic. I hope that the Attorney General will be able to accept this Amendment. It would operate, it seems to me, not only in the interests of the Bishop and the parishioners, but ultimately also in that of the clergyman himself. It would be very wrong, in my opinion, for a clergyman who has been convicted of a serious offence to be thrust again, by the mere word of the Home Secretary, upon unwilling parishioners, and against the wishes and decision of the Bishop of the diocese.

(9.2.) MR. SAMUEL EVANS

I do not wish to go over the ground traversed by my hon. Friend. I can quite conceive that the clergyman himself, against whom the proceedings had been taken, would not desire to go back to the same parish. There may be a coolness between him and his parishioners, although many of them may regard him as an innocent man. No hardship will be inflicted upon the clergyman, because by the words we have already adopted in the clause, when a free pardon has been granted to him, the Bishop need not send him back to the same parish, but may prefer him to another living. I believe that there are many sensitive clergymen who would rather go to a living which would be of less value than be thrust back upon the living where the parishioners did not see eye to eye with him in regard to the charges made against him. It is one thing to say that a free pardon declares the innocence of the clergyman, and quite another to say he should be forced back upon his old parishioners. This is really the first Amendment on which we have been able to discuss the position of the parishioners. They may have a suspicion that the free pardon did not whitewash the clergyman, which would destroy entirely the influence for good which his ministrations should possess. On these grounds I hope the Attorney General will accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend.

Question put.

(9.10.) The House divided:—Ayes. 80; Noes 25.—(Div. List, No. 164.)

On Motion of Sir RICHARD WEBSTER, the following Amendment was agreed to:— Page 1, line 26, after "shall," insert "within twenty-one days after receiving notice in writing of such pardon.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 1, to leave out sub-section (3) of Clause 1.—(Mr. Samuel Evans.)

Question, "That the words '(3.) If any Act required under this section to be done by a bishop is not done within' stand part of the Bill, put, and agreed to."

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

I now move the following Amendment:— Page 2, line 3, at end, add "and if it is not done by or under the authority of the Archbishop within such twenty-one days, the perferment shall become vacant at the end of that period of twenty-one days. I cannot accept the clause as it stands, because it says that the Bishop may, or may not, obey the Act of Parliament. Moreover, it allows the Archbishop to come in and to interfere with the authority of the Bishop, which I think Parliament ought not to assent to. I have been looking into this matter lately, and I have found that the great ecclesiastical authorities say that the Archbishop ought not to be allowed by the Canon Law to interfere with the Bishop in any act which the latter may think necessary for the government of his diocese. Therefore it is that I propose that if the Archbishop is brought in, and nothing is done within twenty-one days, the living shall be declared vacant.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 3, at end, add "and if it is not done by or under the authority of the Archbishop within such twenty-one days, the preferment shall become vacant at the end of that period of twenty-one days.

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

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

. I would ask the Attorney General this question: Supposing the Bishop refuses to take action in the matter, and that the Archbishop also refuses, which of the two can be compelled to perform the duty by mandamus—the Bishop or the Archbishop? There is nothing in this clause to decide the question—it is not carried to its proper conclusion; and I should like to know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman intends to make it complete by the insertion of words for that purpose?

MR. ROBY (Lancashire, S.E., Eccles)

I really think the clause requires re-construction. I consider that if the Bishop does not within a certain period declare the living vacant under such circumstances, it should become vacant without action on his part. I should like to hear what the Attorney General has to say upon the subject.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

The matter has been most carefully considered. It is intended to make the duty imperative. It should be done by the Ecclesiastical Authorities. If the Bishop does not declare the living vacant within twenty-one days it would certainly devolve upon the Archbishop to do so.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

I now propose the next Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper— In page 2, line 3, at end of Clause 1, to insert the words "and if it is not done by or under the authority of the Archbishop within twenty-one days, it shall be lawful for three clergymen or five laymen from the diocese to notify such conviction order or finding as in this section specified, and thereupon the preferment shall become vacant. I venture to say that under the cumbrous process proposed in this clause the last state of things will be worse than the first. If the Bishop and the Archbishop refuse to declare the living vacant, it should be open to clergymen or laymen to take steps to bring about that result. That, I think, is a reasonable remedy to provide, and the best way out of the difficulty.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 3, at end of Clause 1, to insert the words "and if it is not done by or under the authority of the Archbishop within twenty-one days the preferment shall become vacant at the end of that period of twenty-one days."—(Mr. Samuel Evans.)

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

MR. THOMAS ELLIS

I am not sorry that my hon. Friend did not press the last Amendment to a Division. I hope that the Attorney General will accept this proposition. It would bring deserved scandal on the Church, and, I think, inflict great pain on Churchmen, if a Bishop or an Archbishop had to be compelled by mandamus to declare the preferment vacant under such circumstances. I believe that the Amendment will carry out the real purpose of the Bill.

MR. DAVID THOMAS

I wish to ask why the necessity for this proceeding should be forced upon the Bishop or Archbishop? Why not accept the Amendment, and thus get over the difficulty?

Question put.

(9.30.) The House divided:—Ayes 29; Noes 79.—(Div. List, No. 165.)

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

I must accept the decision of the House on the last Amendment presented, and the Amendment on the top of the page has also been provided for by the Attorney General in another part of the Bill. Therefore it is unnecessary to move the Amendment next standing in my name. The House has decided that an adjudication in bankruptcy is not to be a sufficient disqualification of a clergyman. By passing the first clause it has decided that bankruptcy shall not be one of the causes which shall ipso facto declare a living vacant. Now we approach that part of the Bill in which we institute Courts, and which provides the procedure in order to deprive for any immorality, immoral conduct, or immoral habit. The Amendment I now have to propose would make bankruptcy, with certain limitations, immoral conduct within the meaning of the second section. The House will know that bankruptcy is not a disqualification per se, but I propose that it should be an act in respect of which complaint can be made against a clergyman in one of these Ecclesiastical Courts, and so that he may either be deprived of his living or suspended for a certain period. I think it would be a great advantage to the Bill if we declared an adjudication in bankruptcy to bring the clergyman within the possibility of prosecution under the section. Bankruptcy alone would not be sufficient to prosecute upon. If a clergyman can get an adjudication of bankruptcy annulled within six months, or if he obtains his discharge within six months with a certificate that the bankruptcy was caused by misfortune without misconduct on his part, then the Amendment will not apply. I would remind the House that this bankruptcy is an absolute disqualification with regard to all kinds of office. For instance, a man must cease to be a Town Councillor or a member of a School Board upon an adjudication for bankruptcy, and therefore I do not think it is too strong an order to ask that a parishioner if he desires, or a Bishop if he thinks fit, should be allowed to found a prosecution upon bankruptcy which has been brought about by misconduct. I would remind the House that I confine the Amendment to cases where a man has been guilty of reckless living, gambling, and where there is no real justification for the course of life pursued, so that a clergyman may no longer be hedged in by a sort of benefit which precludes prosecution. It is for the Court to decide whether the bankruptcy has been caused by such circumstances as would disqualify him. It may not be necessary to disqualify, but bankruptcy may have been caused by conditions which are bad enough to justify suspension for a time in order that his living may be sequestered. The Amendment is a reasonable one, and although there was a great deal to be said for excluding bankruptcy adjudication from the first clause, it seems to me that nothing can be urged against its inclusion in Clause 2.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 6, after the word "him," to insert the words "or if he is adjudicated bankrupt, unless the adjudication of bankruptcy is annulled within six months, or unless he obtains from the Court his discharge withim six months with a certificate to the effect that his bankruptcy was caused by misfortune without any misconduct on his part."—(Mr. Samuel Evans.)

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

*SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

This Amendment is not only unnecessary, but it would be wrong to insert it. If a clergyman were guilty of habitual gambling or going to racecourses, or of reckless living, the acts will amount to immorality, and he could already be prosecuted under the clause as it stands. The hon. Member suggests that if a simple case of bankruptcy supervenes, that of itself should constitute a right of proceeding independently of the morality of the act. The only protection he suggested was that the clergyman must obtain a certificate that the bankruptcy was caused by misfortune, and not by misconduct on his own part. But how many persons become surety for others when they ought not to, and so become bankrupt? It is obvious that to insert this kind of clause would not in any way protect the parishioners against immorality, or even offences against ecclesiastical law, but would bring in a class of offence or charge founded simply upon the fact of bankruptcy. The question was amply discussed in Committee by the Gentlemen who have conducted the whole of this discussion to-night. There are no right hon. Members who have again raised this question, and therefore I trust we may be allowed to proceed without reviving the question again and again.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

The Attorney General is wrong in attributing the discussion in the Grand Committee on Law to my hon. Friend and myself. It was practically on a Motion by the hon. Baronet the Member for Devon.

*SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

It was not moved; it was merely taken up.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

If I may be allowed to say so, the Attorney General is incorrect. The hon. Baronet did not press it to a Division, but there was a discussion on it. I would point out that some of the arguments used by the Attorney General are outside the mark. He has given the case of a clergyman who has become bankrupt in consequence of being surety for another. But surely such a case is covered by the last words of the Amendment of my hon. Friend relating to the certificate that the bankruptcy was not due to misconduct. I would point out to the House that there is a difference between a bankrupt clergyman and a trader in the same plight, each of whom has not kept books. The bankruptcy in the latter case would probably be attributable to gross negligence, and discharge would probably be refused. But the non-keeping of books would not be sufficient ground for depriving a clergyman of his living, or even suspending him for a term of years, because a clergyman would not be called upon by any Court to keep accounts. I think that in the case of ministers at least it has been decided that the fact of their not keeping books of account is not a sufficient ground for refusing a discharge. If the Attorney General will take every case in which discharge can be refused, he will find that not one would be applicable to a clergyman except fraud or extravagance were proved. I ask the House whether extravagance or anything of that kind would not alone be sufficient to utterly destroy any spiritual force a clergyman possessed?

Question put.

(9.55.) The House divided:—Ayes 24; Noes 100.—(Div. List, No. 166.)

On Motion of Mr. ROBY, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Clause 2, page 2, line 7, to leave out the word "misconduct," and insert the word "conduct."

On Motion of Sir RICHARD WEBSTER, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 2, line 8, to leave out the words "he is charged with," and insert the word "of."

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

I beg to propose to leave out the words "Consistory Court," in line 13 of Clause 2, in order to insert the words "Provincial Court." My object in moving this Amendment is to prevent this House restoring to the Consistory Courts the power of jurisdiction which they were deprived of some years ago, as the result of the Report of the Commissioners appointed for the purpose of inquiring into the condition of Ecclesiastical Courts. One of the reasons given by the Commissioners for depriving these Courts of their jurisdiction, was that there was not sufficient remuneration to induce a capable practitioner to settle down as a Judge. Since that time we have curtailed the emoluments of these Courts enormously, so that the objection raised then not only holds good now, but is even stronger-There are twenty - six different Courts; and in order to effectively carry out this Bill, if you retain the words "Consistory Court," you must have an efficient bar at these places to deal with ecclesiastical law. Take the case of St. David's with a population of a few thousands. Is it not simple folly to establish Consistory Courts to try cases of the importance-you propose shall be tried in these Courts in a place like that? It is proposed in this Bill that cases of immoral conduct against clergymen which may result in depriving him of his stipend for three years, and perhaps leave an indelible stain upon his character, shall be tried in an outlandish place like St. David's, where you cannot get efficient counsel without importing them. What I propose is that Provincial Courts shall be substituted for those Consistory Courts, and I venture to submit that they will be found adequate for dealing with cases of this sort.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 13, to leave out the words "Consistory Court of the diocese," and insert the words "Provincial Court."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

MR. HENNIKER HEATON (Canterbury)

I would point out that three or four Welsh Members have been discussing Clause 1 for five hours. If we go on at that rate the House will be unable to adjourn until far into August. I do not like to move the Closure now, but I will appeal to hon. Members opposite to say whether this folly—("Order, order!")—whether this course of conduct is calculated to raise them in the estimation of their friends opposite or in the estimation of their constituencies in Wales. I maintain that in acting as they have been doing they are not supported by the Welsh people, and I appeal to the House and to you, Mr. Speaker, to say if this thing is to continue any longer?

*MR. SPEAKER

I have never known a Bill on Report debated in this way. I have never known such elementary and long speeches made on every Amendment; and I must say that if this sort of thing continues the House has the remedy in its own hands.

MR. S. EVANS

If we do not present arguments ourselves sufficient to satisfy hon. Members on this question, I can cite authorities against the establishment of these Consistory Courts which I think may appeal to them. The late Archbishop Thomson, speaking in 1888 of these Courts, referred in unfavourable terms to them, and said there would be difficulty in getting them to work harmoniously. That is an authority which hon. Members opposite may perhaps place some store by. As the result of the Report of the Commissioners appointed to examine into these Courts, they were abolished at very great expense to the country, and I think the House should continue to abide by the recommendations of those Commissioners. It seems to me that the onus lies upon those who wish to re - establish them to show that they will admit of a simplified procedure and enable the law to be carried out effectively.

Question put, and agreed to.

On Motion of Sir RICHARD WEBSTER, the following Amendment was agreed to:— Page 2, line 14, after the word "preferment," to insert the words "and may be so prosecuted and tried.

MR. S. EVANS

I propose that subsection (a) of Clause 2 be omitted. One great objection I have against this Clause is that it places in the hands of the Bishop of the diocese the power to disallow any prosecution. I do not think it is likely that any proceedings will be instituted unless some good ground exists for them; and I may point out that there is a provision in the Bill to the effect that the prosecutor may, at any stage of the proceedings, be ordered to give security for costs. Surely that is a strong safeguard against frivolous or vexatious proceedings being taken. Let the House consider what the effect will be of giving power to the Bishop of the diocese to disallow prosecutions. A particular Bishop may be opposed to this Bill, and although the House may desire to purge the Church they are placing in the hands of such a Bishop the power to stop prosecutions, and so far render the Bill inoperative, because there is no appeal from his decision. That seems to me an important matter, and I think the sub-section should be omitted.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 16, to leave out sub-section (a) of Clause 2.—(Mr. Samuel Evans.)

Question, "That Sub-section (a) of Clause 2 stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

MR. PHILIPPS

I have to propose as an Amendment that Sub-section (b) of Clause 2 be left out. The provision of this sub-section is that the prosecutor may at any stage of the proceedings be ordered to give security for costs, unless the offence alleged in the prosecution is one of which the clergyman has been convicted by a Temporal Court. I think the reason for leaving out this sub-section is sufficiently obvious. In most cases the prosecutors under this Bill will be poor men—namely, churchwardens, who as a rule will be farmers in country parishes and tradesmen in small towns. There will be great difficulty in getting these men to prosecute a clergyman for any misconduct if he is liable at any part of the proceedings to be called upon to give security for costs, because everyone knows what overwhelming evidence will be required to obtain the conviction of a clergyman for immorality. It must be the desire of the Government to encourage prosecutions for the purpose of getting rid of criminous clerks; and I think therefore they should agree to omit this sub-section, otherwise the Bill will be to a large extent ineffective.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 19, to leave out Sub-section (b).—(Mr. Philips.)

Question proposed, "That Subsection (b) of Clause 2 stand part of the Bill."

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

The only possible reason in favour of a provision for prosecutors to be called upon at any stage of the proceedings to give security for costs has been removed, by the decision of the House not to deprive the Bishop of the diocese of the power to disallow a prosecution that he may consider to be too vague or frivolous to to justify a prosecution. As my hon. Friend has pointed out most of the prosecutors would be poor men, and to provide that such persons shall give security for costs out of his own property is not a rational course, and I shall oppose it. It is to the interest of the parishioners that an immoral clergyman should be prosecuted, and I therefore think that security for costs should be given out of the rates, if at all.

Question put.

(10.30.) The House divided:—Ayes 124; Noes 23.—(Div. List, No. 167.)

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

I move, in Clause 2, page 2, line 25, to leave out from "of whom," to "appointments," in line 27. I understand that the Attorney General accepts this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. EVANS

I move, in Clause 2, page 2, line 39, to leave out "either," and in line 30 from "or that" to the end of the sub-section. At present the verdict may be found by a majority of the assessors, of whom there are five, and I desire on behalf of the clergymen to make it read that the verdict shall be unanimous. I do not, however, care very much about it if the Attorney General is not anxious to have it in.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 29, to leave out the word "either."—(Mr. Samuel Evans.)

Question, "That the word 'either' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

(10.39.) MR. EVANS

The next Amendment that stands in my name is one that we consider very important. It deals with the procedure to be employed. Anybody has the right to become a prosecutor, and I propose that the parishioners or inhabitants of a parish may appear as third parties to the proceeding. That is not a very revolutionary proposal. We know that in matters in which Corporations are interested they can appear as third parties, and I see no reason why that principle should not be applied in this case. I see no argument that can be used against it, and it seems to me that in a matter of this kind, where the parishioners are vitally interested, they should be allowed to be parties to the suit. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.

Amendment proposed, At the end of Clause 2, page 2, line 39, to insert the words, "(f) In any such prosecution or trial, and in all appeals or proceedings arising thereout, the parishioners or inhabitants of the ecclesiastical parish or place concerned may appear as third parties to the proceedings, and after such appearance they shall be deemed parties to the proceedings, and may be represented by counsel, and act in all things as such parties."—(Mr. Samuel Evans.)

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

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

I think we ought to have some intimation from the Government as to the view they take of this proposal, because it represents a very important principle. In an earlier part of the clause there is power for a certain number of the parishioners to appear before the Court, but this is a totally different proposal. This gives the power where somebody else is the prosecutor and the parish has not taken the initiative for the parish to be represented in Court. This power is given in the High Court, and I believe in the County Court, and I do not see why it should also not be given in the Ecclesiastical Court.

Question put.

(10.45.) The House divided:—Aves 26; Noes 133.—(Div. List, No. 168.)

(10.51.) MR. EVANS

I beg to move, in Clause 3, page 2, line 40, after "may," to insert "with the leave of the Court." The first sub-section of this clause gives the right to either party to appeal from the Consistory Court with respect to any matter of law. I venture to think it is the duty of this House when setting up these Consistory Courts to make them strong enough to decide questions of law without the necessity of any appeal. The circumstances that have driven the Bishops as representing the Church of England to this House with Bills of this description show that my Amendment is necessary. The complaint against the present procedure is that it is dilatory and expensive, and the reason of that is the frequent appeals on frivolous questions of law. Some points of law are material and others are not, and I propose that the Court should have the power to say whether there shall be an appeal—that is to say, whether there is a legal point involved on which it is desirable to have the opinion of a higher tribunal. If that is not done, the man who has the longest purse will be able to starve out the opposing litigant.

(10.53.) SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

Before you put that Question, Mr. Speaker, I should like to call the attention of the House to the Amendment which is moved by the hon. Member (Mr. S. Evans) and to ask your ruling. I should like to call the attention of the House to the fact that with reference to this clause there are no fewer than twenty-three Amendments put down in the names of two hon. Members. They are, in fact, attempts to import into this Bill, and have discussed, matters which are nothing but matters of practice, and which in all other Bills of a similar kind have always been dealt with by rules. I ask your permission to call attention to what has been the result of the practice which has been adopted by hon. Members opposite. There are sitting behind me hon. Gentlemen who take a great interest in this Bill, who are interested in the Church of England, and who desire to see this Bill made a useful measure. But the result of the mode in which this discussion has been carried on has been that these hon. Members have been reduced to silence, and there have been delivered to this House speeches which, with all deference to hon. Members, I venture to say have been useless for all purposes of discussion. They have not tended in the smallest degree either to improve the Bill or to assist the House; and having regard to the character of these Amendments, I ask your permission to move that the Question be now put that Clause 3 and Clause 4 down to line 32 stand part of the Bill.

MR. SPEAKER

I can only put part of that Motion. We are now dealing with Clause 3, and I can put that to the House.

(10.57.) Question put, "That the Question that Clause 3 stand part of the Bill be now put."

The House divided:—Ayes 137 Noes 24.—(Div. List, No. 169.)

(11.5.) Question put accordingly, "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill."

The House divided:—Ayes 151; Noes 21.—(Div. List, No. 170.)

(11.15.) MR. EVANS: I beg move— In Clause 4, page 3, line 19, after "offence" to insert "or from the date when the offence shall first have been found out or ascertained. I venture to think that this is an Amendment which will commend itself to the learned Attorney General.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 19, after the word "offence" to insert the words "or from the date when the offence shall first have been found out or ascertained."—(Mr. Samuel Evans.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

(11.16.) On Motion of Sir RICHARD WEBSTER, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Clause 4, page 3, line 33, leave out "in a case in which," and insert "after."

(11.17.) MR. EVANS

I beg to move, in page 3, line 37, to leave out "except in the case of a summary conviction." This is an exception which weakens the Bill considerably, and I fail to see any necessity for it. I think this provision should be omitted.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 37, to leave out the words "except in the case of a summary conviction."—(Mr. Samuel Evans.)

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

(11.18.) SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

I beg to move— In page 3, line 38, at end, add—"In the event of any such conviction, order, or finding, by or before a temporal court, as renders a clergyman liable under this Act, the court shall cause the prescribed certificate of the conviction, order, or finding to be sent to the bishop of the diocese in which the court sits, and such certificate shall be preserved in the registry of that diocese, or of any other diocese to which it may be sent by direction of the bishop.

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

(11.19.) MR. EVANS

I have no objection to this Amendment. I have merely to thank the learned Attorney General for having now accepted by the addition of these words an Amendment which I moved on another portion of the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

(11.20.) MR. EVANS

I beg to move— In Clause 5, page 3, line 41, after "concerned," insert "as declared in the prescribed manner by the parishioners of the parish or inhabitants of the place concerned, and to the wishes of the same parishioners or inhabitants declared in the prescribed manner. I venture to draw the attention of the House to the importance and seriousness of this Amendment. It is declared in this section that when a clergyman is under the Act adjudged guilty, regard shall be had in considering the sentence to the interests of the ecclesiastical parish or place concerned. I wish to ask the learned Attorney General how the Court are to decide what is for the interest of the ecclesiastical parish or place concerned, and what is not. The people who are competent to declare what is for the interest of the parish or place concerned are the parishioners themselves or the inhabitants of the parish. I know one stock argument against this Amendment is that the parish contains not only poor Church people, but Nonconformists, and that it would be necessary to allow Nonconformists to attend the Vestries in order to declare what the interest of the parish is. Well, we are told that we are all members of the Church of England. But I venture to say, on behalf of the Nonconformists, that there would be no difficulty on that head at all. We have no desire to interfere in the internal arrangements of the Church of England.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 41, after the word "concerned," to insert the words "as declared in the prescribed manner by the parishioners of the parish or inhabitants of the place concerned, and to the wishes of the same parishioners or inhabitants declared in the prescribed manner."—(Mr. Samuel Evans.)

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

(11.21.) MR. THOMAS ELLIS

I hope the learned Attorney General having placed at the end of the last clause an Amendment which my hon. and learned Friend had previously moved will, at any rate, not only give some consideration to this Amendment, but see that the parishioners, whether Nonconformists or Churchmen, are allowed to have, as they ought to have, some voice in the decision of these matters. I hope the learned Attorney General will give us some reason why he cannot accept this Amendment.

Question put.

The House divided: — Ayes 26; Noes 147.—(Div. List, No. 171.)

(11.33.) Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question, 'That Clause 5 stand part of the Bill,' be now put."

Question put, "That the Question, 'That Clause 5 stand part of the Bill, be now put."

The House divided:—Aves 152; Noes 26.—(Div. List, No. 172.)

Question put accordingly, "That Clause 5 stand part of the Bill."

The House divided:—Ayes 158; Noes 19.—(Div. List, No. 173.)

(11.58.) MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

I beg to move, in page 4, line 23, to leave out the words, "The Rule Committee." I propose this Amendment because I consider that the House should not delegate to such a body extensive powers relating to procedure, practice, costs, expenses, and fees. The adoption of such a course would be quite unprecedented, and I am sure the House would not be justified in sanctioning it. I would also point out that the clause says nothing about the character of the sentences which may be passed under this Act. It simply says that the powers shall be delegated to a Committee of four or five persons. It may be considered that this is a matter of utter insignificance, but I do not regard it as such. I challenge any Member on that side of the House to point out a single Bill embracing a proposal of this character submitted to the House of Commons before. Under the circumstances, I am sure it is but right that discussion should be afforded. Where you have a proposal of this unexampled character, I think it ought not to be handed over to the Law Committee. In the Bill of last year you had five pages of fourteen clauses dealing exclusively with the question of procedure, and now you propose in the course of one clause, two sub-sections, and something like half a page, to deal with the same matter. I consider last year's Bill a condemnation of the proceedings of the Government on this occasion.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 23, to leave out the words "the Rule Committee."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

Question, "That the words 'the Rule Committee' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE (Lancashire, N.E., Darwen)

I beg to move, in Clause 6, page 4, line 32, to leave out from "the" to "appointment," in line 34, inclusive.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

MR. EVANS

I should like to know from the Government whether they propose to leave out from the operation of the Rule Committee the appointment of the Chancellor of the Consistory Court. In the multifarious duties entrusted to the Rule Committee by the Bill is the appointment of Deputy Chancellor. I agree that the powers given to the Rule Committee under this section are absolutely unprecedented; there is a complete delegation of the work of Parliament with reference to these various matters. They are even allowed to decide where the Consistory Court shall sit.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

I am much surprised to hear what has fallen from the hon. and learned Member. The hon. Member, having put down in his own name a new clause to the same effect as the Amendment now before the House, I communicated with him, and I proposed to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord on this ground. Inasmuch as the Bishop appoints the Chancellor, it was thought right that the same authority should appoint the Deputy Chancellor. I made that understanding with the hon. Member, and he was satisfied with it. Certainly he indicated no objection of the kind he has now inferred. I should not have asked the noble Lord to move it except that I thought I was keeping faith.

MR. EVANS

I was not aware that this had any connection with any other Amendment of the noble Lord. It is true that a communication passed between the Attorney General and myself, the result of which was that I said I would not move a certain Amendment. But this is the exclusion of the words, and not the proposition on an Amendment.

Question put, and negatived.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question 'That Clause 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill' be now put."

Question put, "That the Question 'That Clause 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill' be now put."

(12.7.) The House divided:—Ayes 152; Noes 23.—(Div. List, No. 174.)

Question put accordingly, "That Clause 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

(12.20.) The House divided:—Ayes 159; Noes 18.—(Div. List, No. 175.)

The ATTORNEY GENERAL rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question, 'That the words of Clause 7, down to the word "Act," in page 5, line 30, stand part of the Bill' be now put."

Question put, "That the Question, 'That the words of Clause 7, down to the word "Act," in page 5, line 30, stand part of the Bill' be now put."

(12.30.) The House divided:—Ayes 149; Noes 28.—(Div. List, No. 176.)

Question, "That the words of Clause 7, down to the word 'Act,' in page 5, line 30, stand part of the Bill," put accordingly, and agreed to.

On Motion of Sir RICHARD WEBSTER the following Amendment was agreed to:— Clause 7, page 5, line 30, to leave out the word "misconduct," and insert "conduct"; and after the word "habit," to insert the words "or of any offence against the laws ecclesiastical being an offence against morality, and not a question of doctrine or ritual.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

As a consequential Amendment on what we have already passed, I beg to move as an addition to this clause— The Bishop may appoint as a deputy chan-chancellor a barrister of not less than seven years' standing, or the holder of a judicial appointment.

MR. EVANS

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask if that can now be moved? It is down as an Amendment to a previous clause which has been carried by the Closure.

MR. SPEAKER

The Amendment is in order. It was put down to the previous clause by mistake.

Amendment proposed, In page 7, line 32, at the end of Clause 7, to insert, as a new sub-section, the words "(5.) The Bishop may appoint as a deputy chancellor a barrister of not less than seven years' standing, or the holder of a judicial appointment."—(Viscount Cranborne.)

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

MR. EVANS

I should like to know how this is to be added to the clause?

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

This is a new sub-section.

MR. EVANS

It is not down as a new sub-section, and it seems to me that it will make the clause read in a nonsensical fashion.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

The Amendment as it was shown to me before it was handed to the Table was prefixed by the numeral "five," and commenced with a capital letter. It is intended as a new sub-section.

MR. EVANS

We do not know what is handed in at the Table. We only know what is down on the Paper.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

On the merits of the Amendment, Mr. Speaker, I must say something. I do not think so important an appointment as this should be left to the Bishop.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

I rise to order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to ask whether this Amendment is not purely consequential?

MR. SPEAKER

It is consequential.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

What I object to, Mr. Speaker, is that this appointment should rest with the Bishop. It is a very important appointment, because the Chancellor has not only to judge of questions of fact, but also of questions of law. You are very careful about the appointment of the assessors; but when it comes to the appointment of an officer who must necessarily have legal qualifications, it is left in the hands of the Bishop, who has absolutely no legal knowleged whatever. The proposal is unreasonable and inconsistent with what we have always passed.

Question put.

(12.47.) The House divided:—Ayes 146; Noes 23.—(Div. List, No. 177.)

On Motion of Sir FREDERICK MILNER, Clause 8 omitted.

Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question, 'That the words of Clause 9 down to the word "discipline," in page 6, line 14, stand part of the Bill,' be now put."

Question put, "That the Question, 'That the words of Clause 9 down to the word "discipline," in page 6, line 14, stand part of the Bill,' be now put."

(12.56.) The House divided:—Ayes 146; Noes 25.—(Div. List, No. 178.)

Question, "That the words of Clause 9 down to the word 'discipline,' in page 16, line 14, stand part of the Bill," put accordingly, and agreed to.

Amendment, proposed, In Clause 9, page 6, line 14, after "discipline," add—"The expressions 'immoral act, 'immoral misconduct,' and 'immoral habit' shall include such acts, conduct, and habits as are prescribed by the seventy-fifth and one hundred and ninth canons issued by the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury in the year one thousand six hundred and three."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

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

(1.9.) MR. SAMUEL EVANS

I do not object to the definition, but I cannot allow the opportunity to pass without a protest against the insertion of the admission in an Act of Parliament that these Canons have any force at all. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby is not here to join in the protest. I have read the Canons, and I must say they contain bad definitions of immoral acts and misconduct. My only objection is to the admission of them as Canons.

Question put, and agreed to.

Words added.

Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question 'That Clause 10 stand part of the Bill' be now put."

Question put, "That the Question 'That Clause 10 stand part of the Bill,' be now put."

(1.10.) The House divided:—Ayes 144; Noes 25.—(Div. List, No. 179.)

Question, "That Clause 10 stand part of the Bill," put accordingly, and agreed to.

Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question, 'That Clause 11 stand part of the Bill' be now put; "but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question, remarking that there was notice of but one Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, lines 33 and 34, to leave out the words "three months," and insert the words "seven days."—(Mr. Philipps.)

Question, "That the words 'three months' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in the Title, to add, at the end thereof, the words "of the Church of England."—(Mr. Samuel Evans.)

Question put, "That those words be there added."

(1.20.) The House divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 130.—(Div. List, No. 180.)

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

(1.30.) The House divided:—Ayes 145; Noes 17.—(Div. List, No. 181.)

Bill read the third time, and passed.