HC Deb 01 August 1898 vol 63 cc782-92
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

I move that the Lords' Amendments be now considered.

Question put, and agreed to.

Several formal Amendments proposed, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed— Page 1, line 17, leave out 'hereditament,' and insert 'with an estate in land of not less than one hundred acres, situate in the parish in which the benefice is situate, or in an adjoining parish, and belonging to the same owner, as the advowson, and any person who offers any right of patronage for sale by auction in contravention of this section, or who bids at any such sale, shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine, not exceeding one hundred pounds.'

Question put.

* MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS

Mr. Speaker, Sir, I do not intend to divide the House upon this Amendment, but I wish to call the attention of the House to its absurd and hypocritical character. One would suppose from the fact that so heavy a penalty as £100 is imposed upon anyone who offers an advowson for sale, or anyone who bids, at a sale by auction, of an advowson, that the Legislature means the sale of advowsons to be stopped. The Bill, as it left this House, enacted that— It shall not be lawful to offer for sale by public auction any right of patronage, save in the case of an advowson to be sold in conjunction with any manor or hereditament. That, in my opinion, was a very unreasonable distinction, but the Amendment to which the sanction of this House is new asked creates another more absurd still, in my judgment, for it provides that the advowson may not be sold, except— With, an estate in land of not less than one hundred acres, situate in the parish in which the benefice is situate, or in an adjoining parish, and belonging to the same owner as the advowson. That is to say, the owner of an advowson, if he happens to be> in possession of land to the extent of 100 acres, may sell it by auction in conjunction with the estate, but if he happens to possess less than 100 acres, then he is liable to the penalty imposed by this Amendment. Now, the operation of the law, if it be passed in this form, may be illustrated by reference to a gentleman who has attained of late unenviable notoriety. The Bishop of Southwell has thought fit to dispose of the advowson of Risley to Mr. Hooley, who happens to have an estate in the parish. I suppose the Official Liquidator will feel bound to dispose of that advowson for the benefit of the creditors. I do not know the extent of Mr. Hooley's landed estate, but if he happens to possess 100 acres in Risley parish then this advowson may be sold by auction in conjunction with the estate, just as it can be sold by auction now; but if he is the owner of less than 100 acres then he is precluded—the Official Liquidator will be precluded—from selling by auction, and he will have to have recourse to a clerical agent to effect the transaction. What is the difference between the two cases? Simply the difference between publicity and secrecy. In the one case the offender against the law will suffer a penalty of £100, and if he makes a bid in private, or a succession of bids, in private, at the office of a clerical agent, then he escapes punishment. If we are to have these ugly transactions in the name of religion and in connection with the Church, I would rather they were open to the public than that they were carried on in secrecy. The truth is that this part of the Bill is solemn make-believe. It is intended to produce the impression on the public mind that the sales of advowsons by public auction are to be altogether stopped, whereas that is not the case. The traffic, this hateful traffic, is to be conducted with fresh sanction on the part of the Legislature. It is a mere whitening of the sepulchre, while the rottenness within remains untouched.

Question put.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— Page 2, line 8, after 'section,' insert 'or commits any breach of the promissory part of his declaration.'

Question put.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed—

"Page 3, line 3, after the first 'ground,' insert 'included in section 2 of this Act, or of unfitness or disqualification of the presentee otherwise sufficient in law.'"

"Page 3, line 6, after 'presentee,' insert 'in the prescribed manner.'"

"Page 3, line 9, after 'archbishop,' insert 'of the province.'"

"Page 3, line 10, leave out from 'court' to 'and,' in line 11, and insert 'who shall be nominated by the Lord Chancellor from time to time for the purposes of this Act.'"

"Page 3, line 12, leave out 'instituted,' and insert 'constituted.'"

Question put.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed—

"Page 3, lines 15 and 16, leave out 'his decision thereon and his finding,' and insert 'find.'"

"Page 3, line 17, after 'disqualification.' insert 'and his decision on such questions of law and his finding as to any such fact.'"

Question put.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed—

"Page 4, lines 8 and 9, leave out 'of—(a),' and insert 'in the case of the first and second presentations by a patron in respect of the same vacancy of.'"

"Page 4, line 10, after 'or,' insert 'of.'"

"Page 4, line 11, leave out '(b).'

"Page 4, line 12, after 'refusal,' insert 'nor.'"

"Page 4, line 13, leave out '(c),' and after 'banefice,' insert 'of.'"

MR. GEDGE

I wish to say, Sir, I do not understand lines 8 and 9. What is meant to be left in and what is meant to be left out? Perhaps the honourable Member in charge of the Bill will explain.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir R. FINLAY,) Inverness Burghs

My honourable Friend will see in a moment we are obliged to make the alteration by excepting the two periods—the period between a presentation by a patron and the refusal by the bishop to institute or admit the presentee, and the period between the refusal of the bishop to institute or admit and the decision of the Court upon such refusal—or the thing might go on indefinitely. You might have 10 presentations, and until by gathering up the periods between each you got a period of six months, which might take 50 years, you might have no means of presenting the unhappy parish with an incumbent.

Question put.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed—

"Page 4, line 17, at the beginning of clause 6, insert— (1) A patron may not present again a person who has been refused by the bishop in respect of the same vacancy, and any such second presentation shall be void.

MR. GEDGE

Does that mean at any future time?

SIR R. FINLAY

It is in respect of the same vacancy.

Question put.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed—

"After clause 6, insert clause (A)— (A) So much of the Statutes 3 and 4 James I., cap. 5, sect. 13, and 1 William and Mary, cap. 26, sect. 2, is hereby repealed as prevents the Chancellor and scholars of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge from presenting or nominating to the benefices and livings there mentioned persons already holding any benefice with cure of souls, provided that nothing be done in contravention of the other Acts regulating the holding of benefices in plurality. And further the said universities shall be permitted to elect to such benefices and to any other benefices or livings that are or may hereafter be in their patronage, and to exercise any other rights that they may possess in respect to them in any way that they may hereafter, by statute or ordinance of the university made in the ordinary manner, from time to time determine to be expedient.

Question put.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed—

"Line 23, leave out 'Act,' and insert 'Acts.'"

"Line 27, leave out 'chairman of quarter sessions of the county,' and insert 'person who has presided as chairman of the last preceding quarter sessions for the county or division of the county in which the benefice is situated.'"

Question put.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— Line 34, leave out from the first 'the,' to 'as,' in line 36, and insert 'ecclesiastical duties of a benefice are inadequately performed, and that this is due to the negligence of the incumbent of the benefice in the performance of those duties (which report the Commission is hereby empowered to make) the bishop, if he thinks the appointment of a curate desirable, shall himself appoint a curate or curates.'

COLONEL SANDYS

The point which I wish to draw the attention of the House to is the word "negligence." I should like this word "negligence" to be a little more clearly denned, and I should also like to know that it is not the intention of the framer of this Amendment to use "negligence" as a lever by which to oppress a certain section of the clergy of the Church of England, and I would explain to the House in a very few words, in a straightforward way, what I have in my mind. I believe it to be the intention of certain persons who are connected with the Church of England to insist that every incumbent in the Church of England shall hold daily services within their churches. Many of my honourable Friends say, "Hear, hear!" and I perfectly understand the ground they take, but there are others of us who think that the holding of daily services in all churches throughout this country would be unnecessary, and even oppressive. There are many places in the country where the daily services would have no people to attend it, and there are many places also where there is only one incumbent, on whom, it would be a great burden to have to conduct a service daily. Therefore I should like to be perfectly satisfied, I should like to be assured, that the term "negligence" shall not be held to include, to mean, the holding of daily service in the Church; and unless I have an assurance to that effect I intend to divide the House upon that question.

SIR R. FINLAY

Mr. Speaker, in answer to my honourable and gallant Friend I may say I do not think his observations are really pertinent to the Lords' Amendments, because, if he will look at the clause as it went up from this House he will find there we have the adjective "negligent." There does not appear to me to be any difference between the adjective "negligent," and the substantive "negligence" as it came back from the Lords. I may say, also, that if any question arose as to the obligation to have daily services that really would be a question of the law of the Church, which would have to be decided in the regular way in the Courts.

COLONEL SANDYS

I accept the assurance of my honourable and learned Friend that it is not intended that "negligence" shall cover that particular point.

Question put.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— Page 5, line 7, after 'pluralities,' insert 'Acts Amendment.'

Question put.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed—

"Page 5, line 19, after 'province,' insert— (5) An incumbent so inhibited shall not be liable to any penalty or forfeiture for non-residence, but section ninety-three of the Pluralities Act, 1838, shall apply as if the incumbent were not resident as therein mentioned, and thereupon section ninety-four of the same Act shall apply as in the case where the curate's stipend is not less than the whole value of the benefice. The incumbent shall remain liable for repairs, but shall be entitled to retain out of the curate's stipend such amount in respect of repairs during the curate's occupation, and shall be entitled to such facilities for executing repairs as the bishop may, in case of difference, decide to be reasonable.

Question put.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed—

"Page 5, line 20, after 'appeal,' insert 'against the appointment of a curate by the bishop under this section and.'"

"Page 5, line 21, after 'after,' insert 'such appointment or.'"

"Page 5, line 26, leave out 'inhibition,' and insert 'appointment and inhibition if any.'"

"Page 5, line 28, after 'thereof,' insert 'the said appointment should have been made and also whether.'"

"Page 5, line 29, after 'from,' insert 'performing.'"

"Page 5, line 33, after 'Act,' insert 'with respect to procedure.'"

Question put.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed—

"After clause 8, insert clause (B)— In the case of incumbents presented or collated after the commencement of this Act, if on bankruptcy, or in aid of any writ of execution against property, the benefice of any such incumbent is sequestrated within twelve months after his institution, or if such sequestration, if issued after that period, continues for the space of one whole year, or if any such incumbent incurs two such sequestrations in the space of two years, the benefice shall, unless the bishop in the manner and within the time to be prescribed, otherwise direct, become void, and section fifty-eight of the Pluralities Act, 1838, shall apply in like manner as if the benefice had become void under that section.

Question put.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed—

"Page 5, line 36, after 'prescribed,' insert 'and for defining the duties of the officials by whom registration is to be effected.'"

"Page 5, line 38, after 'Act,' insert 'and the application thereof for the remuneration of the officials in the registry in respect of such registration and inspection.'"

"Page 5, line 41, after 'inhibition,' insert 'or appointment of a curate.'"

"Page 5, line 42, after 'court,' insert 'and otherwise for carrying the purposes of this Act into effect.'"

Question put.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed—

"Page 6, line 1, after 'made,' insert 'for the purpose of framing rules under this section the judge nominated by the Lord Chancellor for the purposes of this Act shall be added to the said Rule Committee if not already a member thereof.'"

"Page 6, line 3, after 'possible,' insert 'the fees paid in respect of proceedings in the court, under this Act shall be paid over to the common fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who shall, out of such common fund, defray all the expenses of and incidental to the sittings of the court and the remuneration of its officers, and all expenses which are necessarily incurred in the execution of tins Act in such proceedings: Provided that no portion of any fund destined for the relief of necessitous incumbents shall be applied to the payment of the aforesaid expenses.'"

"Page 6, line 13, after 'Crown,' insert 'or of the Duchy of Cornwall.'"

"Page 6, line 17, after 'institution,' insert 'nor to any private chapel.'"

"Page 6, line 19, leave out 'Act,' and insert 'Acts.'"

"Page 6, line 22, after 'bishop,' insert— (3) In section nine of this Act, and in the Pluralities Act, 1838, and the Pluralities Acts Amendment Act, 1885, the expression 'ecclesiastical duties' shall, in all respects, include those duties mentioned in section two of the Pluralities Acts Amendment Act, 1885, and also the observance of all the promises as to conduct which every clergyman of the Church of England solemnly makes at the time of his ordination; and the expression 'negligence in the performance of ecclesiastical duties shall include wilful default in the performance of such duties.

Question put.

* MR. GEDGE

Sir, I wish the House to disagree with, this, the last of the Lords' Amendments. It introduces a new definition of "ecclesiastical duties." A great deal of pains was taken in the Standing Committee that these words should be limited to certain duties of clergymen, and special care was taken that the phrase should not enable any bishop to refuse presentation to a clergyman on the ground that he had not had twice a day the whole Morning and Evening Services in his church every day in the week, and also that he had Evening Communion, as to both which there is a great division in the Church of England. It is notorious that for three centuries daily services were almost unknown except in cathedrals, college chapels, and similar places of worship; but of late years there has sprung up an idea that it is absolutely the duty of a clergyman, however hard worked in other directions, to hold this daily service; and a certain party in the Church make a very great point of it. They are increasing in number, but still, at the same time, at the present moment, in a large proportion of the churches of England there is not twice a day daily service in the church, and to make it compulsory on every clergyman to do so, and by a side-wind, would be very unfortunate and unnecessary. If it is the law let it be so decided by the Counts, and that party in the Church to which I have the honour to belong will cheerfully obey any law which is laid down. I am afraid that if we accept the definition of the words "ecclesiastical duties" which has been put in this clause at the last moment, which is extending it far beyond the definition, which we came to after considerable discussion by those most interested in the matter in the Grand Committee, and which was adopted by this House on Report. I am afraid both these matters may be included, a thing which a very large number of the members of the Church of England have protested against. It does not seem necessary that we should enlarge the definition which this House has adopted. We have not time to discuss it at length. We have it from the Archbishop of Canterbury that, while certain Amendments were to be moved, he would be sorry to stop the Bill on account of any Amendment; and as we have agreed to accept every other Amendment I hope this one will not be pressed. This is a matter which really affects a great number of people, a large portion of the clergy of the Church of England, and I think in such a matter as a definition of the words "ecclesiastical duties," when this House had adopted a definition which would suit us all—as contained in the Bill when it came up from the Standing Committee and passed by this House—I submit to the House that it would be a very great mistake for this alteration, made in the other House, to be agreed to. I hope they will differ from it.

COMMANDER BETHELL

Sir, it is quite clear that if the expression "negligence" is to include such matters as my honourable and gallant Friend referred to earlier in the evening, we certainly ought to have an explanation of the Lords' Amendment. I do not think the word "negligence" can be such a, matter as the very questionable question whether daily service ought to be performed by the clergy or not.

SIR R. WEBSTER

Mr. Speaker, I must say, having regard to what has passed in this House since this matter was under discussion, I think it is, perhaps, a little late to suggest that we are to be bound by any particular view which was expressed in the Grand Committee. After all, the Grand Committee is only a means of presenting the Bill in the best shape to the House, and the House must remember that this Bill has been dealt with in this House in the Report stage, when we had a very animated and interesting discussion as to what the views of the clergy are. It seems to me that the honourable Gentle- man, the Member for Walsall, has entirely overlooked the fact that the clergyman is bound by the words in the clause— Also the observance of all the promises as to conduct which every clergyman of the Church of England solemnly makes at the time of his ordination. Now we certainly have heard enough in this House of the breaches of the promises made by the clergyman at the time of ordination, and, in my judgment, it cannot be suggested that the non-holding of public services under circumstances which would be justifiable according to the law of the Church, could possibly be held to be non-observances of promises as to conduct made by a clergyman at the time of ordination. With regard to the word "negligence," difficulty does not arise, because the clause simply includes in the definition of "negligence" "wilful default in the performance of such duties." Now, I deny that there is any hard and fast rule us to the holding of these services. There are circumstances in which it would be a great dereliction of duty not to hold them, and there may be other circumstances in which the law of the Church would not require them to be held, but including in "eclesiastical duties" "wilful default in the performance of such duties," and also promises as to conduct made at the time of ordination, could not refer to any such matter. I think the Amendment moved in another place has really carried out what was the general feeling in this House on consideration of this Bill on Report, namely, that there shall be an obligation on the clergyman to carry out the vows made on his ordination, and also that he should not be wilfully neglectful of his duties.

Question put.

Amendment agreed to.

SIR R. FINLAY

I now move, Mr. Speaker— To omit in line 7 of the schedule the words 'from A. B., the position thereof.'

DR. CLARK

May I put a question upon this? This is not a Lords' Amendment, but a new Amendment proposed by the Government. I have never known new Amendments proposed by the Government when Lords' Amendments were being discussed.

MR. SPEAKER

I understand this is a consequential Amendment.

SIR R. WEBSTER

The Lords introduced an Amendment to clause 1, sub-section 5, respecting a breach of the promissory part of his declaration, making it an offence under the Clergy Discipline Act. That being so, it became necessary to alter the form of the declaration so that it might accord with the actual facts of the case.

Question put.

Amendment agreed to.

SIR R. FINLAY

I also beg to move— That the words 'with A. B., the patron of the said rectory (or vicarage, etc.), or with any person,' in line 16 and 17, of page 7, be left out.

MR. CALDWELL

Could he explain why?

SIR R. FINLAY

The object is simply to make that applicable to a case where he wanted to institute himself.

MR. CALDWELL

The point was the consequential Amendments upon the Lords' Amendments—not whether these words are proper, but how these words are consequential on the Lords' Amendments.

SIR R. WEBSTER

Both these Amendments are in consequence of the alterations made by the House of Lords.

Question put.

Amendment agreed to.