HC Deb 23 June 1898 vol 59 cc1246-66
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.

formally moved that the proceedings on the Benefices (No. 2) Bill, if under discussion at Twelve o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order Sittings of the House.

The House divided:—Ayes 246; Noes 128.—(Division List No. 163.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r) Beresford, Lord Charles
Allhusen, Augustus H. E. Banbury, Frederick George Bethell, Commander
Allsopp, Hon. George Banes, Major George E. Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.
Arnold, Alfred Barnes, Frederic Gorell Biddulph, Michael
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Barry, Rt Hn A H Smith- (Hunts) Bill, Charles
Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis Barry, F. Tress (Windsor) Blundell, Colonel Henry
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Bartley, George C. T. Bolitho, Thomas Bedford
Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy Barton, Dunbar Plunket Bond, Edward
Bailey, James (Walworth) Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin Boulnois, Edmund
Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness) Beach, Rt Hon. Sir M. H. (Brist'l) Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)
Balcarres, Lord Beckett, Ernest William Brassey, Albert
Baldwin, Alfred Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John
Brookfield, A. Montagu Gunter, Colonel Mowbray, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Bullard, Sir Harry Hall, Sir Charles Muntz, Philip A.
Carlile, William Walter Halsey, Thomas Frederick Murdoch Charles Townshend
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes) Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G. Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W. Murray, C. J. (Coventry)
Cayzer, Sir Charles W. Hanson, Sir Reginald Myers, William Henry
Cecil, Lord Hugh Hare, Thomas Leigh Nicholson, William Graham
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. Hatch, Ernest Frederick G. Nicol, Donald Ninian
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) Heaton, John Henniker Phillpotts, Captain Arthur
Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) Helder, Augustus Plunkett, Rt. Hn. H. Curzon
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Henderson Alexander Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Charrington, Spencer Hickman, Sir Alfred Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down) Pryce-Jones, Edward
Coddington, Sir William Hill, Rt. Hon. A. S. (Staffs) Purvis, Robert
Coghill, Douglas Harry Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead) Rankin, James
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Hoare, Samuel (Norfolk) Rasch, Major Frederic Came
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Hobhouse, Henry Redmond, William (Clare)
Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready Holland, Hon. Lionel R. Renshaw, Charles Bine
Colston, C. E. H. Athole Hornby, William Henry Rentoul, James Alexander
Compton, Lord Alwyne Howard, Joseph Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)
Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow) Howell, William Tudor Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.
Cornwallis, F. S. W. Hozier, Hon. James H. C. Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson
Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D. Hudson, George Bickersteth Robinson, Brooke
Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H. Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice- Royds, Clement Molyneux
Cranborne, Viscount Jackson, Rt. Hon. W. L. Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelt'm)
Cripps, Charles Alfred Jenkins, Sir John Jones Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Johnston, William (Belfast) Rutherford, John
Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton) Johnstone, J. H. (Sussex) Scoble, Sir Andrew R.
Curzon, Viscount (Bucks) Jolliffe, Hon. H. George Seely, Charles Hilton
Dalbiac, Colonel Philip H. Kemp, George Seton-Karr, Henry
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Kenrick, William Sharpe, William E. T.
Dane, Richard H. Kenyon, James Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)
Davenport, W. Bromley- Kenyon-Slaney, Col. Wm. Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Denny, Colonel King, Sir H. Seymour Sidebottom, W. (Derbysh.)
Dorington, Sir J. Edward Knowles, Lees Simeon, Sir Barrington
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lafone, Alfred Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)
Doxford, William Theodore Lawrence, Sir E Durning- (Corn.) Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks)
Duncombe, Hon. H. V. Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool) Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)
Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H. Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks) Spencer, Ernest
Edwards, Gen. Sir J. B. Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry) Stanley, Lord (Lancs)
Ellis, J. Edward (Notts) Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H. Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)
Fardell, Sir T. George Lees, Sir E. (Birkenhead) Stewart, Sir M. J. McTaggart
Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs) Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.
Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r) Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Stone, Sir Benjamin
Finch, George H. Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset) Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUny.)
Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Swans'a) Thorburn, Walter
Firbank, Joseph Thomas Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Thornton, Percy M.
Fisher, William Hayes Loder, Gerald W. Erskine Tomlinson, W. E. Murray
FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose- Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool) Tritton, Charles Ernest
Flannery, Fortescue Loyd, Archie Kirkman Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Fletcher, Sir Henry Lucas-Shadwell, William Waring, Col. Thomas
Flower, Ernest Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)
Folkestone, Viscount Macartney, W. G. Ellison Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Foster, Col. (Lancaster) McArthur, C. (Liverpool) Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Fry, Lewis McCalmont, Maj-Gen (Ant'mN) Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Galloway, William Johnson McIver, Sir Lewis Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Garfit, William Malcolm, Ian Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)
Gedge, Sydney Maple, Sir John Blundell Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)
Gibbons, J. Lloyd Marks, Henry Hananel Willox, Sir John Archibald
Giles, Charles Tyrrell Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E. Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Gilliat, John Saunders Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)
Gordon, Hon. John Edward Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E. Milbank, Sir Powlett C. John
Goschen, Rt Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's) Mildmay, Francis Bingham Wylie, Alexander
Goschen, G. J. (Sussex) Milner, Sir Fred. George Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.
Goulding, Edward Alfred Milward, Colonel Victor Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Monk, Charles James Younger, William
Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury) Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs) More, Robert Jasper
Gretton, John Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Greville, Captain Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)
Gull, Sir Cameron Mount, William George
NOES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) Pirie, Duncan V.
Allan, William (Gateshead) Harwood, George Price, Robert John
Allen, W. (Newc.-under-Lyme) Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale- Priestley, Briggs (Yorks)
Atherley-Jones, L. Healy, Maurice (Cork) Provand, A. Dryburgh
Austin, Sir J. (Yorkshire) Holburn, J. G. Reckitt, Harold James
Bainbridge, Emerson Holden, Sir Angus Rickett, J. Compton
Barlow, John Emmott Horniman, Frederick John Roberts, J. Bryn (Eifion)
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Johnson-Ferguson, J. E. Robertson, E. (Dundee)
Billson, Alfred Jones, David B. (Swansea) Robson, William Snowdon
Blake, Edward Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Broadhurst, Henry Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn. Sir U. Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles
Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson Kearley, Hudson E. Schwann, Charles E.
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Kilbride, Denis Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Kinloch, Sir J. G. Smyth Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Burt, Thomas Kitson, Sir James Shee, James John
Buxton, Sydney Charles Lambert, George Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)
Caldwell, James Langley, Batty Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Cameron, Robert (Durham) Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland) Spicer, Albert
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington) Stevenson, Francis S.
Causton, Richard Knight Leng, Sir John Strachey, Edward
Channing, Francis Allston Leuty, Thomas Richmond Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.) Lough, Thomas Tennant, Harold John
Clough, Walter Owen Lowther, Rt. Hon. J. (Kent) Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)
Colville, John Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Thomas. D. Alfred (Merthyr)
Crombie, John William Lyell, Sir Leonard Tully, Jasper
Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) Macaleese, Daniel Ure, Alexander
Daly, James McEwan, William Wallace, R. (Edinburgh)
Dalziel, James Henry M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.) Wallace, Robert (Perth)
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) McKenna, Reginald Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Maddison, Fred. Wayman, Thomas
Dillon, John Maden, John Henry Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Donelan, Captain A. Mappin, Sir F. Thorpe Williams, J. Carvell (Notts)
Doogan, P. C. Mellor, Rt. Hn. J. W. (Yorks) Wills, Sir William Henry
Doughty, George Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand Wilson, C. Henry (Hull)
Duckworth, James Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen) Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk)
Dunn, Sir William Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport) Wilson, H. J. (Yorks, W. R.)
Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan) Norton, Capt. C. William Woodall, William
Farquharson, Dr. Robert Nussey, Thomas Willans Woodhouse, Sir J T (Hudd'rsf'ld)
Fenwick, Charles Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham) Woods, Samuel
Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith) Paulton, James Mellor Young, S. (Cavan, E.)
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Pease, A. E. (Cleveland)
Goddard, Daniel Ford Pease, J. A. (North'mberland) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Warner and Mr. Thomas Bayley
Gold, Charles Philipps, John Wynford
Gourley, Sir E. Temperley Pickersgill, Edward Hare
MR. S. EVANS (Glamorganshire, Mid)

moved— Page 3, line 32, to leave out sub-section 4 of clause 3. He said his objection to this sub-section was that it practically told the lord bishop of the diocese that he could do just as he pleased, and that ought not to be allowed after the decision of the judge of the High Court, sitting under the archbishop, that the presentee ought to be instituted.

Question put.

Amendment agreed to.

MR COURTNEY WARNER (Stafford, Lichfield)

moved— Page 3, line 35, after the word 'other' to insert the word 'legal.'

Question put.

Amendment negatived.

MR. BRYNMOR JONES (Swansea, District)

I think this is not a logical clause, having regard to what the House has already passed. The whole discussion yesterday, raised principally by the Amendment of my honourable and learned Friend the Member for Shrewsbury, was whether or not the patron should have the right to go to the High Court of Justice, and the answer of the Government was that it was the intention of this Bill, and the intention of this clause, that the timehonoured right which the layman has to go into the High Court of Justice, and have the matter tried by a judge and jury, should not be taken away by this Bill. If you take away that right I can quite understand why you should introduce this clause, but, having regard to the general conception of this Measure, I venture to put it to the Attorney General whether it is absolutely necessary to take away any right of action in the High Court of Justice. Why, for instance, should not the patron, whose presentee is refused institution, have the alternative right to go before this new court, or before the High Court of Justice? And, therefore, it is in order to raise that question that I move—

* MR. SPEAKER

That is out of order.

MR. BRYNMOR JONES

I have only one other observation to address to the House in regard to this clause, and that is, Sir, that I am not quite clear whether the words are not too broad. Is it absolutely certain, for instance, that if the archbishop's court should exceed its jurisdiction the prohibition shall be taken away? Is it absolutely clear that, if this new court fails to hear and determine the question submitted to it in a proper and legal manner, there is any right to go to the High Court in the matter? The words are very broad. They read— No proceeding in the nature of quare impedit or duplex querela shall be taken in any other court in respect of the refusal. There was some slight alteration made in the Standing Committee, and it may be that the point I am raising has no sufficient justification and no substance, but I should like to have it considered.

* MR. SPEAKER

That does not arise on this sub-section as it stands. It might be amended, but as it stands now there, is no reference to prohibition.

MR. BRYNMOR JONES

I beg to move— Page 3, line 36, leave out sub-section 5.

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

I hope the honourable Member will not press this Amendment, the objections to which I fully pointed out upon a previous Amendment.

MR. S. EVANS

There is another very important action which is to be tried by the bishop, and, on the whole, by a more satisfactory tribunal, which must consist of 12 persons, six of them laymen and six ecclesiastics. Now, Sir, if you are abolishing these actions we might as well know what the effect will be.

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

These proceedings do not in any way touch the acts of the bishops in such cases.

MR. S. EVANS

Then the action is not touched?

SIR R. FINLAY

No.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

* MR. H. S. FOSTER (Suffolk, Lowestoft)

I beg leave to move— Page 3, line 37, leave out from 'section' to 'in respect of' in line 39, and insert 'the patron and the presentee shall have the right of proceeding either under this Act or by way of quare impedit or duplex querela.'" The law officer of the Crown knows that it is not novel to give the appellant the choice of tribunals, because under the Clergy Discipline Act, section 4, the appellant has the option of going to Her Majesty in council or to the court of the diocese. In reference to this I observe that the Solicitor General referred to the existing method of quare impedit or duplex querela as being unsatisfactory. Now, I do not know upon what grounds it is unsatisfactory. In one case I understand that there is a trial before a judge and jury, and the other is the ecclesiastical court. Now, I do not see why if the presentee prefers that court he should not have the right to go there. Substantially, the point raised by this Amendment is whether or not it is right to take away the privilege which at present exists of going before a judge and jury if the patron and presentee so desire.

SIR R. FINLAY

I hope my honourable Friend will not press this Amendment.

Amendment negatived without a Division.

SIR J. FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.)

I beg leave to move— Page 3, line 40, leave out from 'archbishop' to end of sub-section and insert 'three bishops nominated by the Queen under her sign manual, and having power to act by a majority of their number. It seems to me inconvenient and most absurd that where a presentation is made to an archbishop the archbishop of the other province, either Canterbury or York, should be called from his province to decide. I venture to suggest that the words of the sub-section should be restored, so as to restore it to the form in which it originally appeared before the Grand Committee.

SIR R. WEBSTER

I was not aware until the right honourable Gentleman rose that he was going to raise this question again. We have not a very strong view of the matter, but I think it would be better to leave it now as it stands. The grounds brought forward by the right honourable Gentleman are that it would not be consistent with the practice of the Church, when there was a case in the diocese of the Archbishop of Canterbury, that there should be an appeal to the Archbishop of York. Under these circumstances it would be a case with which the judge and the high ecclesiastical authority would be able to deal. Now, the alternative of my right honourable Friend is the sub-section as originally proposed. I have no very strong opinion about it, but I must point out that it means very great interference with duties; and, knowing that this is the case, there may be great difficulties in consulting the convenience of those concerned, or of getting suitable arrangements made. I cannot help thinking that unless there is some constitutional objection, from the point of view of convenience and the minimum of interference with duties, it would be, on the whole, better to maintain the sub-section as it stood.

* MR. MONK (Gloucester)

My objection to this proposal is, I think, a very sound one—namely, that it would be calling away bishops from their respective dioceses, which would be very objectionable. In the case of the Amendment of my right honourable Friend I do not see why three bishops should be deemed the equivalent of one archbishop, and I do not see why one bishop should not take the place of an archbishop. I must protest altogether against bringing bishops all the way from their dioceses to sit in this court.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE (Rochester)

I may point out to the House that I raised this question on the Grand Committee, and I think the matter might be left over now for consideration in another place. I confess that the present condition of the Bill is not satisfactory, and I might, perhaps, remind my honourable and learned Friend that the proposal which was cut out of the Bill in the Grand Committee is the same proposal in the Bill for which he was responsible when a private Member, and one which we supported year after year under his able leadership. The real truth is that the argument as to the convenience of the bishops might be left to themselves to determine in another place. The matter has been discussed over and over again in Convocation, and they believe that the original proposal was the right one, because an appeal from one archbishop to another is contrary to the practice of the Church. I think it is very unfortunate that this provision was introduced. As to the question as to whether there should be two or three bishops, that is a mere detail. I think it would be better if my right honourable Friend would allow this question to be discussed and settled in the House of Lords, because a matter of this kind is one which concerns their own convenience, and perhaps that course might be advantageously adopted.

* MR. H. S. FOSTER

I hope that the House will reject the Amendment of my right honourable Friend. The House has been again and again appealed to to support the Grand Committee. The honourable Member for Shrewsbury raised this very question, and it was very fully discussed, and there was a Division, and I had the satisfaction of voting in the same Lobby as the representatives of the Government.

* MR. H. D. GEEENE

I should like to say a word or two upon this question. I respectfully protest against this matter being left by the House to be decided in another place. I have the greatest possible respect for all that is done in the House of Lords, but, at the tame time, I do not like to see the functions of this House entirely done by the other House. Sir, the reasons which I put forward were those, I think, which have been repeated here. First, I suggested that it would be a very great inconvenience, not to the bishops, but to the dioceses, that three of them should be taken away to assist one judge on any matter which arises throughout any part of England. Again, I do not know the reason why three bishops should be taken as equivalent to one archbishop. I do not yet understand the ecclesiastical rules of proportion which tell us that three bishops, rather than two, should be equal to one archbishop. There must be some calculation of ecclesiastical arithmetic with which we are not acquainted which makes one equal three. In answer to that the noble Lord said that the three bishops were to act together—they were to be one unit and the judge was to be the other unit—in this extraordinary and incomprehensible tribunal. I think it would work very unsatisfactorily, and the view which I take is the view taken by the majority of the Committee after very full discussion. I hope the House will accept the decision of the Standing Committee, and will not allow the matter to be left to the other House.

MR. S. T. EVANS

I have followed this Debate with some interest, and I find it very difficult indeed to know how to vote upon the matter, because, although on the one hand there may be something to be said in favour of sending three bishops into a particular diocese, it is very inconvenient on the other hand to establish a precedent that the Archbishop of York ought to sit on the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Archbishop of Canterbury holds a very high, office. There is no question at all as to his precedence over all the bishops and the other archbishops. I find he is the first Lord of the Realm, has precedence over every other person in the country except those of the Royal blood. But a bishop is a mere baron. He is nowhere. He is under the degree of a viscount, and a viscount is not very high up in the scale of peerage. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is an extraordinary thing to ask that three bishops—three ordinary bishops—should sit upon the decisions of the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Archbishop of York. I believe that the Archbishop of Canterbury has power to remove any of the bishops, and has the same jurisdiction and supremacy as the patriarchs of Constantinople. Well, Mr. Speaker, I should like to suggest a way out of the difficulty. The figure three has been hit upon, and we have been told that three bishops are equal to one archbishop. There are three bishops of the Church who have precedence of the other bishops. After the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Arch, bishop of York come the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Durham, and the Bishop of Winchester. Would it not be a good way out of the difficulty if these three bishops were selected as the Court of Appeal, when the decision of an archbishop is in question?

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Question put— That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill.

The House divided:—Ayes 279; Noes 104.—(Division List No. 164.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) Howell, William Tudor
Aird, John Curzon, Viscount (Bucks) Hozier, Hon. J. H. Cecil
Allhusen, Augustus H. E. Dalbiac, Col. Philip Hugh Hudson, G. Bickersteth
Allsopp, Hon. George Dalrymple, Sir Charles Humphreys-Owen, A. C.
Arnold, Alfred Davenport, W. Bromley- Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Denny, Colonel Jackson, Rt. Hon. W. L.
Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. Henry Digby, J. K. D. Wingfield- Jebb, Richard Claverhouse
Atkinson, Et. Hon. John Donkin, Richard Sim Jenkins, Sir John Jones
Austin, Sir J. (Yorkshire) Doogan, P. C. Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.
Bailey, James (Walworth) Dorington, Sir John Edward Johnston, William (Belfast)
Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness) Doughty, George Johnstone, J. H. (Sussex)
Balcarres, Lord Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Jolliffe, Hon. H. George
Baldwin, Alfred Doxford, William Theodore Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r) Duncombe, Hon. H. V. Kenrick, William
Banbury, Frederick George Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart Kenyon, James
Barnes, Frederic Gorell Edwards, Gen. Sir J. Bevan Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William
Barry, Rt Hn A H Smith- (Hunts) Fardell, Sir T. George King, Sir Henry Seymour
Barry, F. Tress (Windsor) Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward Kitson, Sir James
Bartley, George C. T. Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) Knowles, Lees
Barton, Dunbar Plunket Finch, George H. Lafone, Alfred
Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne Lawrence, Sir E Durning- (Corn.)
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l) Firbank, Joseph Thomas Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)
Beach, W. W. B. (Hants) Fisher, William Hayes Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks)
Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe Flannery, Fortescue Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)
Beresford, Lord Charles Fletcher, Sir Henry Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.
Bethell, Commander Flower, Ernest Lees, Sir E. (Birkenhead)
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Folkestone, Viscount Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)
Biddulph, Michael Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)
Bigwood. James Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk) Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)
Bill, Charles Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Sw'ns'a)
Bolitho, Thomas Bedford Fry, Lewis Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.
Bond, Edward Galloway, William Johnson Loder, G. W. Erskine
Boulnois, Edmund Garfit, William Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)
Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn) Gedge, Sydney Lowles, John
Brassey, Albert Gibbons, J. Lloyd Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. (C. of Lond) Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Brookfield, A. Montagu Giles, Charles Tyrrell Macaleese, Daniel
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Gilliat, John Saunders Macartney, W. G. Ellison
Bullard, Sir Harry Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. J. McArthur. C. (Liverpool)
Burt, Thomas Gordon, Hon. J. Edward McCalmont, Mj.-Gen (Ant'mN.)
Butcher, John George Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E. McIver, Sir Lewis
Buxton, Sydney Charles Goschen, Rt Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's) Malcolm, Ian
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Goschen, George J. (Sussex) Maple, Sir John Blundell
Carlile, William Walter Goulding, Edward Alfred Mappin, Sir F. Thorpe
Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward Gourley, Sir E. Temperley Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs) Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury) Mellor, Rt. Hn. J. W. (Yorks)
Cayzer, Sir C. William Greene, W. Raymond- (Camb) Meysey-Thompson, Sir H M.
Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W. Gretton, John Milbank, Sir P. C. J.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.) Greville, Captain Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) Milner, Sir Frederick George
Charming, Francis Allston Gull, Sir Cameron Milton, Viscount
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Gunter, Colonel Milward, Colonel Victor
Charrington, Spencer Hall, Sir Charles Monk, Charles James
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. Halsey, Thomas Frederick Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants)
Coddington, Sir William Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G. Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Coghill, Douglas Harry Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W. More, Robert Jasper
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Hare, Thomas Leigh Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)
Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale- Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)
Colston, C. E. H. Athole Heaton, John Henniker Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)
Compton, Lord Alwyne Holder, Augustus Mount, William George
Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow) Henderson, Alexander Mowbray, Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Cornwallis, F. Stanley W. Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter Murdoch, Charles Townshend
Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D. Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down) Muntz, Philip A.
Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H. Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead) Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)
Cripps, Charles Alfred Hoare, Samuel (Norwich) Murray, C. J. (Coventry)
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Hornby, William Henry Nicholson, William Graham
Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton) Howard, Joseph Nicol, Donald Ninian
Pease, A. E. (Cleveland) Sidebottom, W. (Derbysh.) Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)
Pease, Arthur (Darlington) Simeon, Sir Barrington Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Phillpotts, Captain Arthur Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.) Wentworth, B. C. Vernon-
Pretyman, Ernest George Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand) Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.) Spencer, Ernest Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)
Pryce-Jones, Edward Spicer, Albert Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Purvis, Robert Stanley, Lord (Lancs) Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)
Rankin, James Stanley, E. J. (Somerset) Williams, J. C. (Notts)
Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Steadman, William Charles Williams, J. P. (Birm.)
Renshaw, Charles Bine Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart Willox, Sir John Archibald
Richards, Henry Charles Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M. Wills, Sir William Henry
Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l) Stone, Sir Benjamin Wilson, H. J. (Yorks, W. R.)
Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W. Strauss, Arthur Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T. Sturt, Hon. H. Napier Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)
Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Sutherland, Sir Thomas Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Robertson, H. (Hackney) Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr) Wylie, Alexander
Robinson, Brooke Thorburn, Walter Wyndham, George
Royds, Clement Molyneux Thornton, Percy M. Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.
Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelt'm) Tomlinson, W. E. Murray Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) Tritton, Charles Ernest Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)
Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles Valentia, Viscount Younger, William
Savory, Sir Joseph Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.
Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard Wallace, R. (Edinburgh)
Seely, Charles Hilton Wallace, R. (Perth) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Sharpe, William E. T. Waring, Col. Thomas
Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfr'w) Warner, Thomas C. T.
Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire) Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)
NOES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Horniman, Frederick John Randell, David
Allan, William (Gateshead) Howorth, Sir H. Hoyle Redmond, William (Clare)
Allen, W. (Newc-under-Lyme) Hutton, A. E. (Morley) Rickett, J. Compton
Atherley-Jones, L. Jameson, Maj. J. Eustace Robson, William Snowdon
Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy Jones, David B. (Swansea) Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Barlow, John Emmott Kearley, Hudson E. Schwann, Charles E.
Bayley, Thos. (Derbyshire) Kinloch, Sir J. G. Smyth Shaw, C. E. (Stafford)
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Lambert, George Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Billson, Alfred Langley, Batty Smith, J. P. (Lanarks)
Birrell, Augustine Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland) Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Leng, Sir John Soames, A. Wellesley
Broadhurst, Henry Lewis, John Herbert Stevenson, Francis S.
Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson Lloyd-George, David Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Caldwell, James Lough, Thomas Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUny.)
Cameron, R. (Durham) Lucas-Shadwell, William Tennant, Harold John
Cecil, Lord Hugh Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)
Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.) McEwan, William Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Clough, Walter Owen McKenna, Reginald Tully, Jasper
Colville, John Maddison, Fred. Ure, Alexander
Cranborne, Viscount Maden, John Henry Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Crombie, John William Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen) Wayman, Thomas
Daly, James Moss, Samuel Wedderburn, Sir William
Dalziel, James Henry Myers, William Henry Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford Wilson, C. H. (Hull)
Duckworth, James Norton, Capt. Cecil William Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk)
Dunn, Sir William Nussey, Thomas Willans Wilson, John (Govan)
Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan) O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)
Farquharson, Dr. Robert Paulton, James Mellor Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')
Fenwick, Charles Pease, J. A. (North'mberland) Woodall, William
Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith) Philipps, John Wynford Woodhouse, Sir J T (Hudd'rsf'ld)
Goddard, Daniel Ford Pickersgill, Edward Hare Woods, Samuel
Gold, Charles Pirie, Duncan V.
Harwood, George Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Hobhouse, Henry Price, Robert John TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir James Fergusson and Mr. Vicary Gibbs.
Holburn, J. G. Priestley, Briggs (Yorks)
Holden, Sir Angus Provand, A. Dryburgh
Holland, Hon. L. Raleigh Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Amendment proposed— Page 4, leave out clause 4."—(Mr. Brynmor Jones.)

MR. BRYNMOR JONES

said he put down the notice to omit clause 4 of the Bill by way of precaution, as he did not know how far clause 3 might be amended in course of consideration by the Committee. But having regard to the fact that the House had not seen fit to adopt any Amendment which had been suggested upon clause 3, and also having regard to the period which the Session had reached, and that there were many other important topics which there was a strong desire to discuss, he thought it was his duty not to move the Amendment.

* MR. H. S. FOSTER

also declined to move an Amendment to the same effect; and moved— Page 4, line 35, after 'benefice' insert 'and, being an aged or infirm incumbent, has failed to provide adequately for the discharge of his duties.' The honourable Member said that in moving his Amendment he was not sure whether the effect of the clause was that neglect of duty on the part of an infirm incumbent could be said to be negligence. If that was not the intention, his Amendment would not be necessary, but there was some fear expressed outside that infirmity might, under this clause, be regarded as negligence.

SIR R. FINLAY

said that cases of inadequate performance of duty owing to infirmity would be regarded as the misfortune of the incumbent, and not his fault.

The clause was withdrawn.

LORD H. CECIL (Greenwich)

moved— Page 4, line 35, leave out from 'benefice' to 'if' in line 37, and insert 'the bishop may himself appoint a curate, as in the said section mentioned, without requiring the incumbent to do so, and may also.'

Agreed to.

MR. CRIPPS (Gloucester, Stroud)

, moved— Page 4, line 39, at end, insert— '(2) The power conferred by the said section, amended as aforesaid, and by this section, of appointing and requiring the appointment of a curate, may be exercised from time to time in case of any vacancy in the curacy. '(3) Where a curate has, before the commencement of this Act, been appointed under the said section as so amended, the bishop may, if he sees reason to believe that the incumbent is negligent in the performance of the ecclesiastical duties of the benefice, issue a commission under the said section as so amended to inquire into the facts of the case, and if that commission reports that the incumbent is so negligent, the bishop may inhibit him from performing all or any of the said duties. He desired to make a verbal alteration in his Amendment; instead of the words "as so amended," to insert "as amended by the Pluralities Act of 1885."

SIR R. FINLAY

suggested that the verbal alteration should be the insertion after "so amended" of the words "and by this Act."

Agreed to.

* MR. H. S. FOSTER

asked if the clause was to be retrospective.

SIR R. FINLAY

replied that it would not be in any sense retrospective. The only way in which it would apply was this, that if the incumbent continued to neglect his duties, then the Commission would inquire into the matter.

Agreed to.

LORD H. CECIL

moved— Page 5, line 1, after 'Act' insert 'he shall not interfere with or control any curate in the performance of the ecclesiastical duties of the benefice, and.' He said this was a very small Amendment, which he hoped the Government would accept. Its object was to make it quite clear that the incumbent would not be entitled to raise a scandal by interfering with the curate.

MR. EVANS

asked if anybody contended that the incumbent could now interfere with the curate.

SIR R. FINLAY

said the words were certainly very desirable.

Agreed to.

* MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN (Montgomery)

moved— Page 5, line 4, leave out 'archbishop of the province' and insert 'Lord Chancellor.' He said the object of the Amendment, like those which had lately been moved and accepted by the other side, was to remedy a small deficiency in the Bill. The placing of patronage in the hands of the episcopate would not work well. It was desirable that the episcopal bench should be entirely free from even the suspicion of bias or self-interest. It was so in other courts. The most minute protection was thrown round the magistrates of even petty sessions courts to ensure that anyone having any possible partiality should be excluded from the bench. Now, under the Bill, they gave the episcopal bench power which they never had before. All courts should be raised above the suspicion of bias.

SIR R. WEBSTER

opposed the Amendment.

Question put— That the words 'archbishop of the province' stand part of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

* MR. H. S. FOSTER

moved to leave out clause 10, providing that— Every benefice for the cure of souls which at the commencement of this Act is donative shall as from that date be presentive. He did not think the abolition of donatives was altogether necessary, although there might be, in some cases, certain abuses.

MR. EVANS

referred to the origin of donatives, and to the evidence that they were intended to provide a certain exemption from ecclesiastical jurisdiction. It was perfectly clear, he thought, that this must be a valuable species of property vested in the patrons of these livings. He did not object to the clause, but he would point out that it would deprive the patron of his preferment without giving him any compensation at all. At the same time he must refer to the manner in which the House, and particularly the Conservative Members, had dealt with questions affecting the places of worship of the Nonconformists. He had, Session after Session, brought to the Second Reading, and even to further stages, a Bill for enabling the trustees of Nonconformist places of worship to acquire the control of the sites on which their chapels were built, while making full compensation to the owners of the land; yet the promoters of that Bill were not allowed to pass it, because, of course, it was in the interest of the Nonconformists altogether. For his own part, he did not object to the abolition of donatives, but he thought it advisable to point out the difference of action of honourable Members opposite in dealing with affairs touching the Church of England and those which affected the Nonconformists.

MR. MORE (Shropshire, Ludlow)

said he should like the Solicitor General to explain why, if donatives were to be abolished, peculiars were to remain. He thought the House should have much further information upon that point, for he did not believe that many Members of the House understood what donatives were. He was reminded of a remark made by an honourable Member who first heard of Zulus in that House, and who said— I don't know who the Zulus are, but I thank Heaven we have killed 500 of them. Similarly, there would be satisfaction in having discharged 100 donatives by those who did not know what they were. He was an owner of one which had asserted its independence of ecclesiastical control since the reign of Stephen. He summoned the congregation to choose their clerk, and submitted the name to the bishop, who was perfectly satisfied. One of his family served it for nothing for 53 years. The late Archbishop agreed with him that these livings were valuable as standing monuments of the continuity of the Church of England. This was a question controverted in this House, and out of it, and the Conservative Party proposed to abolish the grant, because donatives in some cases had been abused This was a dangerous doctrine. Then had been formerly cases of Welsh bishops neglecting their sees. Would they like the abolition of the episcopacy because one or two instances might be adduced of neglecting duty? He wished to ask the Solicitor General if he would state the difference between a peculiar and a donative, when each had the same exemption from ecclesiastical supervision?

SIR R. FINLAY

quite agreed with his honourable Friend that a change of this sort would not be wanted if the responsibilities of patrons were exercised as he had exercised them, and that no exceptional legislation would be required. But he thought it was well known that donatives had been used in some cases to withdraw delinquent incumbents from beyond the control and jurisdiction of the bishop. He quite agreed that the subject of donatives was interesting from an antiquarian point of view, but Commission after Commission had reported against their retention.

MR. MORE

disputed the contention that frequent cases of maladministration in regard to donatives had been proved before Commissions. In the Report of one Commission the evidence given as to such malpractices was confined to a statement made by the secretary of the bishop that he had heard of it. Before another Commission two or throe cases were brought forward, but he asked whether, if malpractices in one or two cases were to justify the abolition of donatives, why the same principle should not be applied to both bishops and peers?

MR. GEDGE

said he should be in favour of giving compensation to the owners of donatives if they had a pecuniary value, but they could only have such a value in such cases of abuse as had been referred to. He should have a strong feeling in favour of giving compensation where a pecuniary wrong was done, but he thought that here there was nothing more than a sentiment grievance.

Question put— That clause 10 stand part of the Bill.

Agreed to.

Forward to