BENEFICES (No. 2) BILL.

HC Deb 07 March 1898 vol 54 cc856-96

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.

, formally moved the Second Reading of the Benefices Bill.

*MR. D. BRYNMOR JONES (Swansea)

moved as an Amendment, That the Bill be read a second time that day six months. He said: I desire to repeat the complaint made by an hon. Member on Thursday that the Government has not allowed us enough time to consider the provisions of the Bill, which the First Lord has laid on the Table of the House; but I think I may go further than my hon. Friend, because I think we have grounds for complaining of the prominence which the Government is giving to this question. I have looked at the Queen's Speech, and I find that there are some very weighty matters referred to, and some important Bills promised. I can hardly understand why it is that the right hon. Gentleman should give one of the most useful Mondays of the whole Session to a Measure of such a subordinate character. I look at the Queen's Speech, and I find mentioned a Bill for the creation of municipalities in the administrative county of London. What has become of that Bill? What about Camberwell? Camberwell, I say on unimpeachable authority, has a very interesting history; Camberwell has its own local pride; and Camberwell has its own celebrities. How long is the Government going to ignore the history of Camberwell, insult its local pride and disappoint the legitimate ambition of its celebrities? I justify my objection to the Bill on three grounds: first, that it abridges the power of patrons of livings without giving compensation or conferring any increased powers on parishioners or congregations; secondly, that it increases the power and jurisdiction of the bishops of the Church of England, a course which, in my opinion, is inexpedient; and, thirdly, that it creates a new appellate court, in which, with the obvious intention of aggrandising the power of the archbishops, the temporal judge is to be subordinate to the spiritual judge. The bishop's powers to refuse a presentee are increased by this Bill, and, therefore, the patron's rights abridged. The grounds on which a bishop may refuse to institute are set forth in Clause two, but the language used is not plain. What is the meaning of the words "unfit for the discharge of the duties of the benefice by reason of physical or mental infirmity or incapacity?" They are so vague as to give a complete discretion to the bishop. Again, take the words "evil life." In regard to many things the question whether a life is or is not evil is matter of opinion. Some of the bishops are total abstainers, and I wish to know whether a bishop is to have the right of refusing to institute a donee to a living who is in the habit of taking a glass of port wine and playing a game of whist? The ambiguous language of the Bill will permit that. By the third clause the right which a patron of a living has to appeal from the bishop to the High Court of Justice in order to force the bishop to make a clear declaration of his objection is done away with. I think that any change of the law ought to have been in the direction of giving greater power, not to the bishop, but to the parishioners or congregations. The Bill is in fact designed to assimilate to a larger degree the organisation of the Church of England to that of the Church of Rome. The Bill manifestly increases the episcopal authority. Our experience in Wales shows that this course is inexpedient, and I am not relying on merely theoretic arguments. I should like to bring before the House the case of the Rev. Mr. Jenkins, Rector of Man-avon, who in 1891, when he was about 61 years of age, was, under circumstances of which he complains—and most justly complains—incarcerated in a lunatic asylum. After being two years there his case was heard before a Master in Lunacy, who declared he was a man of sound mind. He went back to his parish, but was afterwards accused of being drunk and assaulting the police. His case came on before a Court constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Clergy Discipline Act. He objected to the constitution of the Court, because he said that one of the assessors on the Court was appointed by the Bishop of St. Asaph, and two others owed their promotion to the bishop, who was patron of the living, and therefore an interested party. The objections taken by Mr. Jenkins to the constitution of the Court were overruled, and he asked for an adjournment to obtain the services of counsel, or of a solicitor. The adjournment was refused, and Mr. Jenkins left the Court. Upon the evidence of a constable and some one else he was deprived of his freehold at the age of 61 years. I do not say whether that decision was right or wrong, but speaking on behalf of the laity of the Church of England, and on behalf of the rights of property, I say it is not right or fair that a Court constituted in that way should dispose of a man's freehold, and deprive him of the means of livelihood at 61 years of age. Sir, let me now call attention to the exercise of his power by the Bishop of St. Asaph. I will not say what I think of it in my own words, because I find—and upon authority more worthy of attention on the other side of the House than my own—a very pronounced opinion. The Record newspaper has the following observation— The condition of affairs in the diocese of St. Asaph is probably without a parallel. A revolt of the clergy against the use of his patronage by the bishop is a spectacle which compels attention, and cannot be dismissed as a matter of merely local or party concern. A memorial was presented against the conduct of the bishop, signed by 76 out of the 200 beneficed clergymen in the diocese. They said:— We observe with pain that there has been for some time wide and deep dissatisfaction among the clergy of the diocese, mainly on two grounds—namely, in the first place, that a large number of senior and capable men have been overlooked in the exercise of patronage since your Lordship has come to the diocese, while important and valuable preferments have been repeatedly conferred on a few young men of comparatively little experience in this work; in the second place, that clergymen have been promoted to high and important positions in the diocese who are incapable of discharging the duties of their office owing to total ignorance or insufficient knowledge of the Welsh language. This memorial was, as I have already stated, signed by 75 beneficed clergymen, including one archdeacon, the chancellor of the cathedral, four rural deans and one proctor, and the signatories belong to the most important parishes in the diocese. I refer to these matters in order to show why Welshmen distrust any increase of the powers of the bishops. But I will not labour that part of the case further. I come now to my third ground of objection, which is to the creation of this new Court. There can be no doubt that the right of the patron is further abridged by the proposed constitution of a spiritual Court, with a lay element which is to oust the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Judicature. Clause 5 of the sub-section 3 provides that— If in any case to which this section applies, the bishop signifies his refusal in manner provided by this section, no proceeding shall be taken in any other Court in respect of the refusal. I could understand the framers of this Bill taking up the position they had done if the judges were of equal authority. But that is not the case. The judge of the High Court is placed in a subordi- nate position. The intention of the framers of the Bill is to put the civil judge in the position of a jury, and to give the supreme direction to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York. That meant the subordination of a temporal Court to a spiritual Court. It was evidently the idea of the promoters of this Bill to aggrandise the power of the Church at the expense of the State. I do not know that I need delay the House longer, except to make one observation in respect to a remark made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House last Wednesday, which I thought was inaccurate. He said, in speaking of Benefices Bill No. 1, that, so far as he could gather, the only solid foundation for our hostility—

*MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The hon. Member is not in order in referring to what was said on another Bill in the present Session.

MR. C. W. RADCLIFFE COOKE (Hereford)

I rise to a point of order. Is it not the case that there is a ruling to the effect that a subject which has been previously discussed may be referred to in the same Session of Parliament in the discussion of a subject which is exactly identical?

*MR. SPEAKER

There is nothing in the circumstances of this case to prevent the application of the general rule.

*MR. BRYNMOR JONES

I will not ask you to rule further, Sir, but say that if any one alleges that our objection to this Bill is founded on hostility to the Church he is inaccurate. It is right we should take this opportunity of stating our attitude on this subject. We believe in the principle of religious equality, and we say that it is an obvious inference from that principle that it is unfair to confer upon the clergy of any particular denomination of the Christian religion great privileges, and the control of public funds, which have been dealt with over and over again by Parliament. We say that if you consent to Disestablishment and Disendowment you may reform and improve the Church in any way you like. If you do not accept this boon of freedom, we pin you down to the position you have voluntarily taken. We regard the Church as a Church controlled by Acts of Parliament, and by the law of the land, whose highly-paid clergy are paid, for the most part, out of a fund created by Act of Parliament, and who are, except in name, civil servants of the Crown. It is in these circumstances, and not because we are actuated by hostility to the Church of England, that we oppose and criticise Measures like this. We will not play into the hands of a powerful section of the Church, which seeks persistently to set aside, sometimes the letter, and nearly always the spirit, of the Reformation settlement. It is in these circumstances, and for these reasons, that I now beg leave to move "That this Bill be read a second time this day six months."

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

In seconding the Motion that the Bill be read a second time this day six months I do not wish to associate myself with all the arguments used by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. After the Debates which have taken place in this House, and after the announcement that the Government intended to bring in a Bill, I had hoped that the effect of that Bill would have been to minimise the differences which separate some of us on this side of the House from the promoters of the former Bill, and that it would have thrown oil on the troubled waters. But the Bill falls so far short of the Bill that was before the House last week that I find myself compelled to associate myself with those who desire to vote against the Second Reading. I wish to point out, however, that Members of this House have very little time to study this Bill, and yet the fact that it is brought in at this time of the Session indicates that it must, in the view of the Government, be an important Measure. It is unusual that a Measure, about which no Minister of the Crown has addressed any remarks from a public platform, and concerning which no explanation has been given to the House, should be, at it were, pitchforked among Members on Friday last, and, by a process of rushing, should be submitted to the House for the Second Reading to-day. This, I submit, is a little unusual, and puts those who are unfamiliar with the details of the Bill at an enormous disadvantage in discussing its merits on the Second Reading. Why am I disappointed with the contents of this Bill, as compared with the Bill submitted last Wednesday to the House? One of the complaints made against the Bill of 1896 was that it put undue power into the hands of the bishops, and made them judges of civil facts, with which, by their training and circumstances, they were in no way fitted to deal. In the Bill of last Wednesday there were strong provisions for securing a proper hearing by the bishop, in accordance with the ordinary rules of evidence. In this Bill the whole of these provisions have entirely disappeared. I find that the Bill creates offences as to which one bishop may have one standard and another Bishop another, and proposes to enlarge the existing powers of the bishop to decide upon a number of very vague and ill-defined offences. The Bill also proposes to enlarge the existing powers of the bishops with regard to rejecting presentees, and gives the presentee only right of appeal upon a matter on which he had not hitherto been heard at all. But there is no provision that there is to be a proper judicial inquiry in the first instance. I confess I was not a little amazed to hear observations coming from the other side of the House about infringements of the rights of property. It is true that, in the 1896 Bill, the proposed interference with the rights of patronage were more severe than those in this Bill, but when I raised my voice against what I thought was a serious infringement of the rights of patronage, I did not, if my recollection serves me right, get very much sympathy or support from the other side of the House in the communication of those views. The only argument was that patronage should be abolished without compensation. The law of England, which has, from the first, treated advowsons as private property, has never relied upon the character of the patron for the character of the presentee. There are cases at present, in which owners of racecourses hold advowsons; nevertheless, very excellent incumbents are again and again instituted. It might be said that the stewards of a racecourse ought not to hold advowsons, but, as I ventured to point out, the character of the presentee is in no way concerned with the character of the patron. The bishop is the person who has the right to institute to a living; the patron has only the right of nominating a fit and proper person. I make no complaint at all about some of the restrictions imposed upon patrons under the Bill. It appears to me that they will not very much, if at all, reduce what I would call the marketable value of the property with which it is proposed to deal. I was, and still am, under the impression that the doctrine of lapse will come in, and in the event of that doctrine of lapse coming in, then the right of patronage will go to the bishop under the existing law. One of my objections is that it will largely increase the episcopal rights of patronage under the doctrine of lapse. I will read an extract from an authority well qualified to speak on the subject, Earl Fortescue, who said— It seems unjust to interfere much with the rights of private patrons, and unreasonable to expect much further benefit from doing so, when the responsibility of refusing to institute unfit clergymen to benefices must rest with the bishop; but it ought to be exercised by him judicially and on publicly justifiable grounds. Episcopal and capitular patronage was, till of late years, largely used for the benefit of relations and personal friends. And if latterly this has been less conspicuously the case, still the largest portion of episcopal patronage has been naturally bestowed upon clergymen who have identified themselves with the same general Church party as the bishop has. I happen to know that one eminent deceased Primate always spoke of private patronage as of great advantage to the Church, and that opinion has been, and is, unquestionably held by many eminent, loyal, and zealous Churchmen, in holy orders, as well as laymen. The variety of authorities in which the patronage of livings has been vested is the great security for the maintenance of that comprehensiveness of the Established Church which has, many of us believe most happily, been one of its characteristics, though the exclusiveness has been threatened from different quarters at different times. I, for one, should greatly regret any Measure that had a tendency to increase episcopal patronage at the expense of private patronage. Well, then, passing from that to the next compartment of the Bill, which deals with unfit presentees, it goes without saying that there is no person in this House who would desire to pass a law which would not prevent such a state of things; there is the possibility of unfit men being put into livings in the Church of England. We all agree upon that. When we come to consider the provisions of the Bill as regards the testing of the standard of unfitness, I find, to my disappointment, that much larger powers are being put into the hands of the bishops than ought to be; the bishop was to be the sole judge, subject to an appeal. He is the judge of the fact that the presentee is unfit. The standard of unfitness will, of necessity, vary in every diocese. In the abstract, no man would say that a man who is really unfit by reason of mental or physical infirmity, ought to be accepted by the parish. I should like to know who is to be the judge of unfitness under the test of "pecuniary embarrassment"—that vague ill-defined offence which is created under the Bill. That is to be a sufficient bar if the bishop so pleases. Assume a case in which a bishop is out of sympathy with a man; the bishop is a Low Churchman, and the presentee is a High Churchman, and it would not be difficult to prove pecuniary embarrassment, particularly in cases where men, serving in curacies for a number of years with large and increasing families, are presented with a good living. When they see some prospect of getting into easier circumstances, this pecuniary embarrassment will be brought up against them. I do not know whether they will be expected to produce a balance-sheet or a certificate that they are solvent, or how on earth the bishop is going to be a judge of pecuniary embarrassment. Then there is "misconduct." What is the definition of that? Who is to be the judge? In one diocese a bishop will call a certain thing misconduct which another bishop will pass over as a very trifling offence. Yet the bishop is to be constituted the judge. I am told that this may be amended in Committee, and, so far as my criticisms go, that will answer my purpose. So far as the Bill is concerned, there is no machinery for the hearing before the bishop. He has to come to his own conclusions, and, having come to a certain conclusion, he has only to notify to the presentee that he proposes to refuse. I do not think the Bill even contains the grounds of refusal. The Bill even does not go so far as the previous Bills which were before the House. It does not require the bishop to state the grounds on which he has refused to institute; the presentee is left to conjecture as to what crime he has been guilty of, and as to what evidence there is to justify the refusal. He may appeal to a tribunal appointed under the Bill, and then it may be proved that he is not guilty of the offence—for which he has not been tried. That seems to me to be an unjust proposal—a proposal that is novel to English jurisprudence, utterly unknown to our ordinary procedure. I marvel that the Government should be responsible for this Bill. Going from that to the third clause of the Bill, which deals with incumbents, I am not sure whether I understand clearly what is intended by the fourth clause, which extends the powers of the bishops under the Pluralities Act Amendment Act. I do not know whether it is intended to create a new offence. [The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: "No."] Perhaps it does not. As I understand the Pluralities Act Amendment Act, in the event of a Commission finding certain facts against a person the bishop has certain powers. In that case it is not intended to create a fresh offence. All that is done is, as I understand, to give power of inhibition. Before I sit down I should like to congratulate my noble Friend behind me (Lord Cranborne), on the fact that, after the work he has done for so many years in the direction of reform of this character, the Government has taken up the question, and brought in this Bill. It is much easier to criticise than to construct, and I desire to tender to him my congratulations for the immense amount of hard work and enthusiasm he has thrown into the subject. I have no doubt that the Bill will reach a Second Reading in this House to-night, and if it goes to a Second Reading I hope the Government will profit by the long discussion we had on this subject in 1896. I hope the Government will receive in a friendly spirit the suggestions and amendments from this side of the House, for the purpose of improving the Bill where it is defective, and making it a measure of justice to all.

*MR. JOHN E. ELLIS (Nottingham, Rushcliffe)

It has struck me in listening to the preceding speeches that the hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded this Motion hardly agreed between themselves as to the opposition to this Bill. The reasons they gave were singularly diverse. We find ourselves discussing a Bill which, if I remember rightly, is put among the ten in the list promised in the Queen's Speech, in regard to which it is intimated to us that we might hardly have time to consider them. I hardly know whether or not to congratulate the Government on the rapidity with which their business has been transacted or the lack of business they have for the House, but I must express my surprise that we should have to deal with this small Bill on a Monday afternoon so early in the Session. It comes with the authority of the Government to rectify an abuse in one of the religious denominations into which the population of these islands is divided. That particular denomination is peculiarly associated with the State. I am one of those who, ever since I have considered these matters, now a good many years ago, have held that association with the State is wrong and hurtful, and ought to be put an end to. I have never receded from that position. All religious denominations should be placed on one level. But I have always tried to consider a number of these Bills, which have come from the Church of England, on their merits, and I have taken up this attitude—that if the promoters of these Bills assure us that they are to remove abuses which exist in the Church of England, I would not take upon myself the responsibility of opposing them. Therefore, when this present Bill comes before me in the way it does, I am not prepared to take the responsibility of opposing it. The only real opposition to the Bill comes from inside the Communion to which it refers. I have received a paper from the Church Association about a terrible attack upon the rights of property. I think that we cannot bear too much in mind the maxim of Thomas Drummond, that "Property has its duties as well as its rights." I do not think that property has any vested rights in the abuses which are referred to. I am told that the power of bishops is going to be considerably increased. But that bugbear does not alarm me. I think there never was a time when the laity of this country were really less under the power of the clergy. Why, even when the Bishop of Rochester, a man of deservedly great influence, threw out last autumn some proposals as to what should take place in the schools, no sooner were the proposals fully explained, and it was seen by the laity what was intended, than they were opposed by his own people, and fell though. I have no fear of the power of the bishops. The people to-day are religiously minded, but they are not, if I may use the expression, denominationally minded. The laity of these islands are as strong now as ever they were against undue influence on the part of the clerics, whether they belong to the Church of England or a Free Church. I am one of those who stand outside the religious communion affected by the Bill, but I am not prepared to take the responsibility of opposing the Second Reading of this Bill.

*MR. R. PURVIS (Peterborough)

In 1896, I, as representing a cathedral constituency, opposed the then Bill, but as I am now resolved to vote in favour of this Bill, I wish the House to give me an opportunity of making some explanation. I was one of those who opposed the then Bill, because it seemed to me to want some one qualified by training and practice to sift the evidence and find the facts, but only upon appeal, because the introduction of the lawyer at any previous stage would be inconsistent with the parental relation between the bishop and his diocese. In the present Bill I am happy to find that this objection is entirely removed. Clause three, section one, as we have all heard, will enact that where a bishop refuses to institute a presentee, either the person presenting or the presentee may require that the matter may be heard by a court consisting of the archbishop and a judge of the Supreme Court; and section two will enact that the judge shall decide all questions of law and fact, and that the archbishop shall give judgment accordingly. Though I do not consider bishops and archbishops are lawyers, yet I am not squeamish like the hon. Member for Swansea about giving them more power as bishops and archbishops, and I am not squeamish as to the effect of the second clause, which gives the archbishop the last word in the argument. Looking at the practical aspect of the question I cannot think that either the person who presents or the presentee will be the sport of ill-luck to such a degree that he first of all falls into the hands of a bishop, perversely wrong in his facts and the inferences drawn from them, and then, when he goes to appeal, seeking to avoid Scylla he falls into Charybdis, and finds the archbishop ignores the judge, defies the facts, and gives a judgment which turns truth and reason upside down. I am not for Establishment, and therefore I do not suppose that those who are, are likely to take any advice of mine. But I do believe I express the opinion of many hon. Members on both sides of the House when I say that we must remember we are dealing with at least a Christian Church, and might do better than to adopt methods worthy of Machiavelli or Mephistopheles to bring about Disestablishment, by indirectly favouring and fostering the scandal of the conduct of those who bear office in its service.

*MR. ALBERT SPICER (Monmouth Boroughs)

In intervening in this Debate in favour of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Swansea, let me say, at the outset, I do not represent nor do I know those to whom the hon. Member has last referred. At the same time I can fully realise some saying in connection with this Bill, "Why do we Free Churchmen not leave this matter entirely to the consideration of the Churchmen in the House, seeing the Bill before us deals entirely with some of the features of the government of that Church?" In reply I would say for myself that I should be only too glad to leave the Churchmen in the House to deal with this matter if the Church were left to manage her own affairs and had not to come to this House to ask to be allowed to make any alterations in its government. That day, however, has not yet come, and, therefore, I feel, with other Members of the House, a responsibility from which I cannot free myself. I cannot forget that, after all, we Free Churchmen are working alongside the Church of England. By recent figures if has been clearly shown that we are doing a large half of the Christian work of the nation. Therefore, if that is the case, when you are doing good you are influencing us for good; but if you are making mistakes you are influencing us for ill. The fact is, if in any parish the work of the Church of England is real and progressive, it is a stimulus and incentive to us; and the reverse is equally true. I speak the feelings of many Free Churchmen when I say we are not jealous of the Church. In seeking its disestablishment we are not seeking to weaken its spiritual work, but we trustfully desire to assist it in doing higher and better service. I know that if the Church were free from State control we should have a great many difficulties to deal with which we have not to-day. Looking at it, therefore, as a Free Churchman, and also a Member of this House, I ask myself: What is the position I ought to take up with regard to this matter of dealing with the government of the Church of England? And the attitude to which my judgment has brought me is, that I ought to support changes which I believe to be in the best interests of the Church, and that I ought to oppose that which I believe will not be to its interest. In 1896, when there was another Benefices Bill before the House, I had the honour of serving on the Grand Committee for the consideration of that Bill, and I think my fellow committeemen will absolve me from any desire to obstruct the Bill in Committee, and I did what little I could to help the Committee to make the Bill as good as possible, but that Bill failed to pass, and the whole subject is now in a perfectly new position. The Government of the day have taken upon themselves the responsibility of introducing a Measure, and it is therefore no longer a Measure brought in by one section of the House, but has the sanction and authority of the Government. To justify this procedure there ought to be first a popular demand for such a measure, and if there are difficulties and evils to be overcome they should be dealt with in such a way as is likely to lead to real improvement. Now, of the popular demand I have received no evidence whatever. I know, on the other hand, from documents which have come to me, that the Church of England is not united in itself as to the remedies it desires to see carried out. Now, it does seem to me that before the Government of the day take up a Measure of this kind, there should be some degree of unity, and there should be a demand made by the rank and file of the people adhering to the Church of England for such legislation; but I feel still more strongly as to my second proposition, that if there are difficulties and evils to be overcome they should be dealt with in a way that is likely to create real improvement. I do not intend to go into the details of the Bill, which seems to divide itself into two portions: first, there is the alteration of the methods of the sale of advowsons, and there is the giving of the bishops more power. I see in the second part no reason to object, but my opposition is aroused to the first part, the sale of advowsons. In the year 1874, when the present Archbishop of Canterbury was Bishop of Exeter, he gave evidence on the question of the sale of advowsons before the Church Patronage Committee of the House of Lords, and in the course of that evidence he put five points very clearly. He said in connection with— these sales, the worst feature of all was the shock given to the religious feelings of a great number of people. In the second place, there was a very great feeling of demoralisation caused by these sales; in the third place, he thought there was a great public scandal in such sales; in the fourth place, they, to a very great degree, demoralised the patrons; and, lastly, there could be no question at all that it gave very great facilities for abusing these privileges, and he had known instances of very serious abuse. Now, I take it that I cannot, in a matter of this kind, go to higher evidence than the present Archbishop of Canterbury, and if we are confronted with a difficulty of the kind I have named, this Bill does not meet the difficulty, it is a weak and feeble Measure, and does not go to the root of the matter. But it may be said that we cannot do that without going into the question of compensation. If that is the only difficulty, surely, with the great income paid to the Church, the richest of all corporations in this rich county, it ought not to be a difficulty that shall trouble the Government of the day. My contention is that if the Archbishop of Canterbury's evidence is true, and you know far more than I do of that matter, but I take his evidence, and I say if it is true you are not dealing with this matter in the way you should. You ought to get rid of the sale of advowsons for ever. It is because of my difficulty with regard to the sale of advowsons that I heartily support the Amendment.

*MR. S. GEDGE (Walsall)

I will not trouble the House with many remarks, but I wish to explain my position, as my name appears upon the other Bill. At the time my name was put there I had no reason to suppose it had anything to do with patronage, and, once on, it could not be taken off. Neither Bill is exactly what I like, but my desire is that this Bill may be read a second time in order that both Bills may be considered in Committee, and I hope we shall then pass the Bill in such a state that it may prove to be beneficial and sound. It seems to me that the hon. Gentlemen who oppose this Measure have based their opposition on the old maxim that the best is the enemy of the good. When anybody is going as far as he can to do good by a Bill, they say something else is better, and, therefore, the Bill is no good. Now, I put to myself this question: Would I rather this Bill became law, with all its imperfections, or is the Bill to be thrown out, and are we to have that same agitation we had so long ago all over again? And I say I would rather that this Bill passed, because there are very great abuses which it is calculated to remove. I cannot have any sympathy with those hon. Members who say that, because they desire that the Church of England should be disestablished and disendowed, therefore, that so long as she is connected with the State they will do nothing to remove the disabilities which have been imposed on her, not by the Church herself, but by the State. [An HON. MEMBER: Who said so?] That is the position taken up by the hon. and learned Member. The union of the Church and State was the action of the State. It was the only Church at the time, and the State has had the control of it ever since. But the Church of England is not the only body which has come to the State for assistance. If I am correctly informed, the Wesleyan Church are coming this very Session to Parliament in order to enable them to make certain alterations in their foundation deed, which they cannot make without an Act of Parliament; and I only hope that if they show proper cause that Bill will be passed. Then we are told that we ought not to pass this Bill because it deals ineffectually with the sale of advowsons. No doubt we all wish that the sale of advowsons could be put an end to. If we could put an end to the sale of advowsons, without at the same time putting an end to purchasers, I should be very glad. I think it would be better for everybody if, when a living is in the hands of a spendthrift, or bankrupt, who cares nothing about the trust he has, the trust could be passed into the hands of good trustees. But, notwithstanding the scandals, the purchase of advowsons has, on the whole, been of immense benefit to the Church; and I support the Measure, believing that it will do something to remove the scandals, as far as possible. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down spoke about the "rich" Church of England, and declared that, owning, as he represented, an "enormous" revenue, she might use the money to compensate patrons. Is the hon. Member aware that at the present moment the only funds which belong to the Church as a Corporation which could be used for such a purpose are in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and that the resources at their disposal are so small that unless a parish has 6,000 inhabitants they are not able to make any grant whatever to supply additional ministration? I know parish after parish with populations of 4,000 and 5,000 which have at present only one clergyman, who is worked almost to death, and who cannot get aid from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners because there are more pressing claims. There are two Societies—the Church Pastoral Aid Society and the Additional Curates Society—which are at present rendering aid by providing additional curates in parishes with populations of 10,000, 15,000, or 20,000, by voluntary subscriptions. These Societies are continually refusing pressing applications through lack of funds; and yet we are told that the Church of England is so rich that the hon. Member opposite would be prepared to see some of its moneys taken away and handed over to compensate patrons. I think the scandal of doing that would be infinitely greater than any scandal which this Bill is designed to remove. There is one other point which I wish to touch upon in the Bill. An objection has been raised that the bishop has, in the first instance, to hold a court and conduct a legal inquiry, but no rules as to evidence, etc., are prescribed. Well, the intention and object of this Bill is that he should do nothing of the kind. If the bishop is informed that the presentee whom he is asked to institute is unfit, he will send for the man himself, or for the patron, and say, "I have heard this or that; you know whether it is true." In 99 cases out of 100 a guilty man will throw up the sponge. In one respect Bill No. 1 is better than Bill No. 2, According to Bill No. 1 the bishop is made a party to the appeal, and therefore he renders himself liable to costs if he has on insufficient grounds refused to institute a presentee. That seems to me a valuable provision, because a bishop ought not to recklessly refuse to institute. By this means you give him a sufficient stake in the matter to ensure his exercising the utmost care and consideration, and he will not refuse to institute a presentee unless he is satisfied, after hearing all that the man has to say, that grounds exist which justify his attitude in refusing to institute him. When we come to the Court of Appeal the judge is to find the facts and determine the law, and to say whether the presentee has committed an offence under this Act, and if is for the archbishop then to say whether there are any extenuating circumstances on which he can stretch a point and give the presentee a chance. Subject to this the archbishop is bound to pronounce sentence in accordance with the judge's finding. Therefore, the ecclesiastical judge, being put under the civil judge, has very little more power given to him than to carry out the findings of the civil judge. I hope, Sir, that the House will, without a Division, pass the Second Reading of this Bill.

MR. R. WALLACE (Perth)

The hon. Member for Lowestoft has opposed this Bill. It gives me very great pleasure, as a Free Churchman, to cordially and heartily support it. My only regret is that the Government has not seen its way to go farther in the pathway of reforms than it has done. I, Sir, am perfectly unable to understand the position of hostility which so many of my Friends around me are taking over this Bill. The hon. Member for Swansea has complained that too short time had been given by the Government to thoroughly understand the Bill. Sir, I quite agree with him, for it was quite manifest, as far as he was concerned, that time had been largely wasted. I could not recognise the Bill in the description which he gave of the Bill. He spoke as if it were an attack upon Protestantism; as if it were a trampling under foot of the rights of the laity, and the erection of some system of sacerdotal supremacy throughout the land. But, Sir, where did he find it in the Bill? If I believed that Protestantism was in any way threatened, or that my rights as a layman were invaded, or that priestcraft was going to be triumphant throughout the land, because of the passing of the measure introduced by Her Majesty's Government, then, Sir, I should be entirely in opposition to the Bill. But what is the Bill? The Bill proposes, as I understand it, to do two things—to abolish two great evils, evils which are admitted by all. It proposes to do away with the sale of presentations, and if proposes to prevent improper persons from obtaining benefices from the Church of England. Is there anyone who can defend either one of these? Is there any one conscience which is not exercised by the present system? My hon. Friend says that the true remedy is to break the chain which binds Church and State together, and to give the Free Church thus erected the opportunity of abolishing these methods and all the evils incident thereto. Sir, I do not conceal, myself, that I am in accordance with the view of the hon. Member for Swansea, but I should prefer to see the Church having full power to deal in those matters for herself. But we deal with facts as we find them. The Church is established. She is connected with the State, and under the State control. And are we to wait until those of us who believe that it would be a good thing for the Church to sever that connection—are we to wait until we have converted the majority of the people of this country to our view, and in the meantime are these evils and these scandals to continue in the Church of England? That is a question which I have asked myself. As a Free Churchman, I have asked myself the question whether we ought not to give the Church every opportunity to prosecute the great religious work it has undertaken. Now, Sir, I cannot for a moment believe that there is anyone either in this House, and I trust not out of it, who would desire to keep the evils and the scandals which arise from their existence continuing in the Church of England, in order that the anger and the indignation which called those evils into existence should be used, not against the abuses themselves, but against the Church which they have forced themselves into, and continue in. I feel that to use weapons like these in prosecution of what I believe to be a sacred work in itself, in endeavouring to bring about the result I have spoken of, would be absolutely unworthy of any man who desired the true prosperity of the religion of the land. Now, Sir, we all are agreed, as far as I can gather, that the sale of presentations ought to cease. No one has defended it either on that side of the House or on this side. I agree that I wish the Government had been able to go farther. I think the scandal which arises from allowing the right to present any man to a living in the Christian Church, by reason of his acquired wealth, and spending it in financial negotiations through an ecclesiastical broker, must shock everyone. My own feeling is, however, not confined to next presentations, but to the larger question of the sale of advowsons. But because I cannot get that which I desire, because I cannot at present see that the sale of advowsons is all that could be desired, can I refuse my consent to the abolition of, at least, the other evils? As a practical man, and as a man of common sense, I think we ought to prevent the evil on which all are agreed, and then strive to complete the remainder of our work with regard to the second evil also. Well then, Sir, we have a description of the third clause of the Bill, which, I confess, I am amazed at. I was told that this Bill proposed to put a judge in a certain position, but that a bishop is created the judge of the offence, in respect of which the presentee is tried. Has my hon. Friend read the Bill? What does the clause say in regard to the position which the judge of the Supreme Court is to occupy? It says this: "The judge shall decide the question of law and fact." He is to be the supreme judge of the law; he is to be the supreme arbiter as to the facts submitted. All that the bishop has to do, is, after the judge has pronounced the law and found the facts, to be the mouthpiece of the Court to give expression to that which the judge has just decided. I do not know myself why the archbishop is introduced at all. I suppose it is in deference to religious susceptibility, in order that it may not be suggested that this is a pure court of laymen—a secular court and not a spiritual court; but if it satisfies religious susceptibilities that the bishop should only occupy the position of mouthpiece, I, for one, am not going to quarrel with those who insist that the archbishop should be a member of the court. The practical part, from that point of view of the layman, is that the judge is to be the court which decides the facts, and lays down the law. Now, Sir, I have only one other observation to make. I apologise to the House for detaining it so long, but I feel very strongly with many of my friends on the other side with regard to the importance of this Bill. I am most desirous to see this long controversy come to an end. I do not believe that it is helpful to religion, and I am sure it cannot be helpful to the Church, that such controversies should arise continually. I should like to see some more practical definition, if possible, of the offences with which the court will have to deal. It may be that it is impossible to do so, and if it be impossible, why, then, I must accept it as it is. But I should like to see the clause so carefully safeguarded, that, for instance, independence of judgment and free expression of opinion should not, in any case, be ever regarded as an offence which should come before the court, or which might prevent the holder of a particular opinion being presented to a living. With that qualification, I support the Bill. I am quite sure that it will, to some extent, be remodelled in Committee, remodelled so as to meet the objections which have been taken in this House by the friends of the Bill. And then I am convinced of this, that when these scandals are done away with by the abolition of the evils which are dealt with, the Church will be better able to do the great work in which she is engaged in England, so as to bring about the greater good and the higher and more elevated opinion of the people of this country.

MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

I am sure the House on both sides has listened with much interest to the speech which has just been made by the hon. Member opposite. He has done what I think we should all do in these matters. We should not approach these matters in a partisan view, but deal with them as affecting the general advancement of religion throughout the whole country. I need hardly say that I support this Bill, although I agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that it can only be regarded as a step in the right direction. I had the honour to introduce a somewhat similar Bill a few years ago, but that was introduced as a private Measure. We did our best to abolish all sales of benefices in the Church. But, Sir, this Bill, of course, as has been pointed out, is brought in by a very powerful Government, and I am sorry that they do not go a step farther, and do away with what I think must be done away with before long, and that is the absolute sale altogether of advowsons. Now, Sir, I thoroughly agree with many of the advantages which private patronage has given. I think it has extended the life of the Church, and I think it has improved in many ways the working of the Church, and made it more, so to speak, up-to-date, and in many cases benefited both the clergy and the laity. And, also, there is no doubt that it is impossible at present to think of any better plan by which the Church of England system of patronage may be given. But, Sir, when we come to think that at the end of the 19th century there should be any sort of traffic in the sale of advowsons, it does seem to me a most extraordinary position. The speech, which I remember very well, of the present archbishop on the subject, when he gave evidence before a Committee of the House of Lords, has been referred to over and over again in these Debates. Nobody can gainsay that the very mention of the sale of livings is more scandalous to the Church than any other offence of the present time. Even in affairs of life many of us are connected with institutions where small appointments are given away. Why, Sir, if anybody in these positions—even the Clerk at this Table has a certain amount of patronage in this House—had any notion of selling them, the whole system would practically break down at once; and yet, when we come to talk about the cure of souls, we recognise that it is still allowed that there should be some system of purchasing livings going on. Of course the difficulty is got over by arguing that the spiritual part of the appointment is not sold, but only the temporal part. But that is a fallacy altogether. Anyhow, it is so fine a point that the public do not understand it, and I do say that, as a Churchman myself, I am thoroughly ashamed that there is any possible way left now in a system by which advowsons are sold and that scandal continues throughout the country. I am perfectly well aware that to do away with the sale of advowsons altogether would be a very difficult thing, but there are now many difficult things done, and I say that in a Church in the full health of life advowsons must be treated as a trust, and the appointments must be filled up as a trust. I sincerely think that this Bill, good as it is as far as it goes, is but a step—I fully acknowledge it is an important step—which there is no doubt will undermine sales altogether, and I do trust that it will ultimately lead to their abolition. There is only one other point I should like to refer to in connection with this subject, and that is the form of declaration. Now, Sir, I think we ought to be very careful in applying that form of declaration to the clergy, which touches their consciences, and I cannot see how anybody can sign that declaration under many circumstances. It is quite true that it is so worded that a man can get out of it without much difficulty. It talks about a man, to the best of his belief, that nothing has taken place which is simoniacal, and that has a long legal meaning, which can be got over. It says— I have not received the presentation of the said rectory (or vicarage, etc.) from the patron thereof in consideration of any sum of money, reward, gift, profit, or benefit, directly or indirectly, given by me, or by any person, to my knowledge or with my consent, to any person whatsoever. Supposing a father possesses an advowson, and ultimately gives it to his son, I think that son will find it extremely difficult indeed to sign a certificate that that living had been given without any sort of consideration, directly or indirectly, by any person. I agree that I do not think any father ought to buy his son a living. I should be very sorry to do so for my own son, who is a curate, and I do say emphatically that if you allow the law to continue that advowsons are to be sold, you ought not to put in a declaration which will secure that a conscientious man cannot take, and which the man who is not particular what he signs will take. I hope some amendment will be made to that, for I do not think that anybody having a strict conscience should be deprived of any appointment which he might otherwise have. I support this Bill, and I am glad that the Government have introduced it. Perhaps it will do more good than many Bills of greater sounding name, because it has the elements of justice; and the various teachers of religion are working together for the removal of these abuses, which, after all, are for the greater benefit of the country than many other measures which are considered in this House.

MR. R. W. PERKS (Lincolnshire, S.)

I have always spoken in this House in favour of the Measures, which from time to time have been introduced by the noble Lord the Member for Rochester, in support of the removal of clerical abuses in connection with the Established Church in this country, and, Mr. Speaker, I see no reason whatever why I should not heartily support on this occasion the Bill which has been produced by Her Majesty's Government. Possibly there may have been a time when Dissenters in this country—I think, if such were the case, they were very wrongly advised in the matter—used to hold the opinion that it was better that the scandals which unquestionably existed then, and exist now, in the Church of England should be encouraged, rather than retarded by legislation, in order that it might hasten the time when the Church would be disestablished and disendowed in this country. That was a foolish policy, and an un-Christian policy; and I do not believe at the present moment there is a single Nonconformist in the House of Commons who would advocate such a policy. Now, Mr. Speaker, if I were a member of the Church of England I should object to certain clauses of this Bill which, to some extent, seem to me to hand over the rural clergy body and soul to the tender mercies of the Episcopacy; but that is a matter mainly for the laity of the Church of England. If they like to accept the Bill in this form, by all means let them do so. But, Sir, it is impossible in some of the rural parishes in this country to see the grave scandals which really exist without feeling that one would be neglecting one's duty as a Member of this House if one did not at once endeavour to remove them. In the division of Lincolnshire which I represent there is a little village where you can see the rector of that village—or the vicar, I do not quite know which—being led round his own rectory garden by the person who is in charge of him, owing to the unfortunate mental affliction of this good man. That sort of thing is a disgrace to the Church of England, and there ought to be some process by which that gentleman can be superseded. In another village there is, I believe, a very good man, who made the great blunder of buying for himself one of those next presentations, raising money on mortgage to do it. No sooner had he got in that living than he was saddled with a heavy charge for dilapidations in the place which he had just left. Owing to a drop in the rent of the glebe lands, the poor man was hopelessly embarrassed, and he has been sequestrated, and he is now making frantic efforts to get back to his old position. The Bill would prevent and also remedy some of these scandals, and it is because I think that it is our duty to place ourselves alongside of the earnest men of the Church of England who wish to reform the Church, and to make her a more effective instrument for spiritual progress, that I shall certainly support the Second Reading of this Bill.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.

I think the Government and the House, and all who are interested in the question of Church reform, may congratulate themselves on the whole with the reception which the Second Reading of this Bill has had to-night. The excellent speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Perth, and the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, show that even those who do not belong themselves to the communion of the Church of England—who, indeed, take very strong views upon Disestablishment and other questions in which Churchmen are deeply interested—are perfectly ready to join hands with Churchmen in dealing with the abuses of the Church, as far as the powers of Parliament—and the powers of Parliament alone, are fitted to cope with them. Sir, it augurs very well for the future of this Bill, and of any other Bill dealing with the Church of England, that such a spirit should be manifested amongst Gentlemen on the other side of the House. I do not really think that more than a very few words are required from me to-night. The general objections to this Bill, such as they are, seem to me, I confess, to be of a very fantastic description. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Swansea Division, who moved the rejection of the Bill, objected to it as far as I can discover, because he though its objects—or if not its objects, at all events its effect—would be to destroy or imperil the Protestant religion, and to augment to a perilous point the power wielded by the bishops, and to carry the Church of England, and all those who are connected with it, some long distance in a Romeward direction. Sir, all these fears appear to me to belong not to the real world in which we live, but to some fantastic creation of the hon. Gentleman's own brain. He dragged in, I know not how or wherefore, apparently in connection with his attack upon the Episcopacy, a special attack upon the Bishop of St. Asaph, and read out a long protest of the clergy of that diocese against some action—I do not know exactly what it was—in which that bishop had been concerned. Sir, I believe that if the theory be—I am not acquainted exactly with the details—that this Bill is to diminish the legitimate power of the laity, and increase the illegitimate power of the Episcopacy, there could not be a worse example chosen than that which the right hon. Gentleman has selected, because I believe the laity, to a man, support that prelate. I mean Churchmen only, of course; they support the Bishop of St. Asaph and regard him as being what he is, a most able and devoted servant of the Church. Two hon. Members while supporting, and zealously supporting, this Bill complain that it is inadequate, and that they would like to see the whole system of the sale of advowsons absolutely prohibited by law. I am not going to occupy the time of the House in defending what everybody must admit to be a very peculiar and anomalous system, a system to which grave objections undoubtedly may be taken, and which it is impossible to defend in all its aspects; but I would remind those hon. Gentlemen and any others who may agree with them, that a Bill simply abolishing the sale of advowsons is not a Measure which it would be possible to recommend to the House. It could not be presented simpliciter to the House, because by abolishing the sale of presentations you would practically leave for ever the presentation of advowsons in the hands which now exercise it, and the careless, indifferent people who are now quite ready to part with it would then have no motive at all to part with it unless some consideration can be obtained for the advowson for which they have no further interest in keeping themselves. You must accompany a Bill prohibiting the sale of advowsons with a Measure entirely altering the present system of distributing the patronage of the Church. What the new system would be, whether it would be similar to the system which works so successfully at present in Scotland, in which the whole responsibility is in the Church itself, or, whether some other alternative can be designed, it is not for me to suggest. But it is obviously a matter of enormous complexity and difficulty, and, even if public opinion were ripe, which I do not think it is at present, for such a sweeping provision as that of absolutely prohibiting the sale of advowsons, a very heavy task would lie before any Government, or any body of gentlemen who set themselves to carry out the work of reconstructing and determining what shall be the form in which the future patronage of livings shall be vested. Therefore, I think every practical man in this House—and I am sure my hon. Friend does not defend it from that view—everybody must admit that this Bill goes in that respect as far as it is wise for practical statesmen dealing with practical necessities to go, and I am glad to think that, though there are many Members in this House who would like to see a Measure brought forward of a more drastic character, and framed on larger lines, still, even those who take that view are ready to give us their hearty support in a Measure which is less complete, but which, I venture to think, under existing circumstances, is far more practical. I do not know that any more general criticisms were passed on the Bill; the remainder of them were addressed to particular clauses and to particular provisions in it. Some of those, I think, were purely Committee points—points which may be raised and dealt with, with advantage upstairs, but about which it is not necessary, I think, for me to say anything at present. My hon. Friend the Member for the Lowestoft Division was very much exercised, lest the indirect effect of this Bill should be to increase episcopal patronage. [Mr. H. S. FOSTER: At the expense of lay patronage.] Well, of course, it must be in that way. If it is increased at all, it can only be increased at the expense of lay patronage. I am quite ready to examine with my hon. Friend, whether the indirect effect of the Bill will be as he supposes. I can assure him that that is not the object of the framers of the Bill, and, without balancing the respective merits of episcopal patronage on the one side or lay patronage on the other side, I can assure both the House and my hon. Friend that it was not intended by a side wind or by indirect methods to alter that balance either in one direction or in the other. My hon. Friend the Member for the Lowestoft Division also thought it very anomalous that there should be a period for the sale of the advowson as a whole during which the person who should deliver the advowson was the seller or the original owner. Sir, there may be an anomaly in that, but it is an anomaly for which there is precedent in the actual condition of the law. As my hon. Friend knows, if the advowson is sold while the living is vacant, the person who is to present it is not the person who sells it, and it is merely an existing condition of things which we have introduced into our Measure. The only remaining point, I think, which was a subject of any attack from any quarter of the House, had reference to Clause 3 of the Bill, in which the reasons are given why the bishop may refuse to present, and, with respect to which, it was complained, I think, by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft, and some others, that there were certain safeguards in the shape of a public hearing, which were omitted, and which ought to be introduced. As regards the first of these points, I am quite ready, if discussion should show it to be necessary and desirable, to make it as clear as possible on the face of the Bill what are the kind of offences, what are the kind of shortcomings, for which the bishop is to be justified in refusing presentation. But I must remind the House that I do not think Clause 2 really adds much to the reasons which already exist under the common law. It makes the reasons much more precise; but let it be observed that under the common law such an objection as illiteracy is of necessity met. My hon. Friend complains that it is not so precise, so obvious, so well defined, that judgments regarding it must be the same by every bishop in every diocese. I do not think that absolute precision and uniformity can be obtained, and certainly is not obtained by the law as it stands. The bishops are to refuse a man because he is illiterate. Undoubtedly it is possible that there are certain marginal cases with respect to which one bishop would say: "This is a degree of illiteracy which mates the clergyman quite unfit to exercise his duties;" another bishop might say "This is a doubtful case, but, on the whole, I do not feel justified in refusing presentation." That condition of things must always exist; but I am firmly convinced that those who are afraid that the bishops will use their power harshly, and that in a doubtful case they will give a hostile rather than a favourable judgment, entirely mistake the conduct which usually commends itself to the bishops, and certainly are erecting those gentlemen into a species of imaginary tyrants, for which there is no warrant, so far as I know, in historical fact. Then there comes the more vexed question as to whether we should, or should not, have imitated and followed the Bill of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, which provided either directly in form, or indirectly by rule, that the hearing before the bishop should be in the nature of a judicial operation, publicly held, and in which the gentleman whoso case is in question and those who think him unfit should have, as it were, a locus standi before an open court, when the whole question may be threshed out. I quite admit that our Bill does not aim at that object. I quite admit that we do not desire to assimilate the administrative responsibility of the bishop to the action of a court of law, my hon. Friend says, "How novel!" My hon. Friend is wrong. Our process is a process which has been in operation in the Church of England from time immemorial, and it is not we who have introduced a novelty, but my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, who, in his Bill, did pro- pose, rightly or wrongly an entirely new departure. Now, let me say at once, in regard to that matter, that I am conscious there is a considerable weight of authority against the view which the Government have taken. I am quite aware that two Commissions at least have rather suggested that a different course should be adopted, but I believe that, in the interests of the presentee himself, the plan which we have selected is the one which is most likely to do most justice, to work most smoothly, most effectually, and most successfully to avoid unnecessary scandals. If you try to turn the bishop into a judge, sitting in a public court, observe what anomalies necessarily follow. In the first place, the bishop would to expected to make some preliminary inquiry into the case himself—not, I think, a very desirable preliminary on the part of a judge sitting as the judge upon a case. You expect the bishop, in other words, to both prepare the case and sit in judgment upon it. Further, it is contemplated, as I understand, that a public sitting should not absolutely exclude a private conference with the presentee—a conference which the bishop and the presentee might hope would smooth away all difficulties, and lead to a settlement of the question without any further public proceeding. But surely there will arise great inconvenience in asking the bishop not only to make inquiries into the truth or untruth of rumours which may have come to his ears, but also to expect him to ask the accused, if that is the word which may be employed, to come and talk the matter over with him; and then, after all these steps have been gone through, to deliver judgment with regard to the case. And as if those were not a sufficient number of anomalies, I think there is this further anomaly in the alternative plan—the plan we have not adopted—that the man who has first made private inquiry into the case, who has then seen the accused, and who has then sat in judgment upon the accused, has an appeal against him, the result of which appeal might be that he, the judge of the Court of first instance, might be cast in damages. That is an accumulation of anomalies which I should see with reluctance introduced into this Measure. I think our plan of taking the practice as we find it, leaving the bishop to exercise what I may call an administrative responsibility like that which a great official has to exercise when he endorses or rejects some appointment made by a person lower in authority, is the right course. Put every safeguard in your Bill which may prevent the harsh exercise of the responsibility; give a cheap and effective appeal from his decision, as we have done in this Bill, but do not attempt to turn the bishop into a judge in the court of first instance, especially as you throw upon him all these other and inconsistent duties which I have ventured to enumerate to the House. These are very shortly, but not completely, the reasons which have made the Government prefer the form of Bill which we have brought forward, to that Bill which was read without a Division a second time on Wednesday. But let me say that, in our view, this is not an essential part of the Bill. It will be threshed out upstairs, and, if the decision of the Grand Committee is clearly against us, we should be quite ready to adopt the alternative proposal, and, in any case, we should not regard it as vital to the Bill. We have brought the Measure forward in the form which recommends itself to us, but we are perfectly ready to adopt suggestions both in the important matter on which I have addressed the House and also in regard to subordinate questions that may arise. Under these circumstances, I do not only venture to hope that we may now shorten our Debate, and, without a Division, read the Bill a second time, but that its path through the Grand Committee and through its subsequent stages in this House may be as smooth as the Debate this evening gives us every reason to hope and expect it will be.

*LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE (Wilts, Cricklade)

I hope I may be pardoned for saying a few words upon this Measure, because it is one which is of very great interest, I think I may say, in almost every parish in England, and especially in the country districts, one of which I have the honour to represent. It has been said on the other side in the course of this Debate that much interest is not felt in this Bill, and that it has been for that reason unduly hurried on, and without adequate notice. I am inclined to think it would be rather difficult to find adequate grounds for any such contention, because, after all, this subject is a part of Church reform; it has been inquired into, if I am not much mistaken, by more than one Commission and by Committees of this House; and Bills partly founded upon the reports of those Commissions have been from time to time debated in this House and sent to Committees upstairs. That being so, the argument that not sufficient interest is taken in the Bill to justify its introduction is one which I am inclined to think falls to the ground. I go further, and venture to say that the uncertainty that prevails upon the future of the law is one which ought to be terminated as soon as possible, both in the interests of the clergy of the Church of England, of the patrons of livings, and of any possible future presentees. The evils of the unreformed condition of the Church in these matters are patent and notorious to those who live in country districts. My only regret is that this Bill does not go further, but I am unable to see that that can be deemed an adequate ground for refusing to support a Bill which may not go far enough, but which, in any case, is a Measure of Reform. The only question which I think we on this side of the House ought to consider is this: Is this Bill a reform, or is it not? We may be of opinion that the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church of England would be a good thing. I myself in former days have recorded a vote in favour of that Measure, but it does not occur to me that my individual opinion, or that of any Member of this House, upon that question in the least affects the arguments which relate to this Bill. It is, after all, looking into a very dim future to say that we are not to support a moderate Measure of reform of Church Government, because we hope and believe that at some day religious equality will prevail. Then there is the more forcible and practical argument, that this Bill is a weak Bill, because it only deals with next presentations and does not touch the question of advowsons. I entirely agree with that argument. It is a weak Bill; but why should we, because we think, or at any rate some of us may think, that advowsons ought not to be sold, resist a great step in that direction; because, after all, when you once admit the arguments against the sale of next presentations, you have gone, not only halfway, but three-quarters of the way, towards admitting the arguments against the sale of advowsons themselves. I am ready to admit that that is an argument with which the right hon. Gentleman opposite does not entirely agree, but, if you examine the matter, after all that is the true and logical basis of the argument against the sale of next presentations? You will find it to be this—that any dealing in this matter, by sale, with a matter which is the subject of a trust rather than a property, in the ordinary sense of the word, is objectionable, and if it is objectionable in the case of next presentations, it is equally so—still more so—in the case of advowsons. But whether that argument is admitted or not, I entirely agree with those on the opposite side of the House who claim that, so far as this Measure goes, it is a good and useful Measure of reform, and for that reason I venture to plead for it with those upon this side of the House. Again, I must acknowledge that I listened with silent astonishment to the arguments that were based upon some supposed danger to the Protestant religion. I have yet to learn that it is an integral portion of the Protestant religion that lay patronage should exist. I am quite aware that lay patronage is mixed up with the history of the Protestant religion in a certain way, but is it a page of the history of the Protestant religion, is it a page of the history of the Reformation which we can all read with admiration? I always imagine myself that the essential notion of Protestantism, in regard to Church government, was the notion of democratic Church government by the parishioners, or members of the congregation. As a matter of fact, at the time of the Reformation, in a period, I might almost say, of reform and rapine combined, we know that the opinions of the extreme Protestants were pushed aside. They desired to reorganise the Church upon a democratic basis, just as, by others, it was attempted to reorganise it upon an episcopalian basis. After- wards a third party came in, neither the bishop nor the congregation—namely, the patron of the living, who, at the present day, has practically ousted both the congregation and the bishop. There are two essential notions of Church government. You may have an episcopal Church, or a real democratic Church; but the Church of England is an episcopal Church, and we, must take that Church as we find it. It is not for us, who hold, perhaps, rather extreme Protestant and democratic views upon these questions, by a side-wind to try to push our opinions into an organisation which has been based, for a long time, and will continue to be based for a long time, upon episcopacy. It may be possible, and I hope it is so, that we may do something to recognise the rights of the oppressed parishioner. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington had a most useful clause in his Bill, which took only a moderate step in the direction of recognising the rights of the parishioner. We are not debarred, in voting for this Bill, from taking advantage of that clause, because, if I understand the right hon. Gentleman correctly, both these Bills will go to the Standing Committee on Law, and it will be possible to take clauses from one Bill and insert them in the other; or, rather, to take the two Bills together, and out of those two Bills to make a combined Measure. I hope that something of that kind may be done. There was one matter which was dealt with in the Bill of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, which, I think, is not dealt with in this Bill. It is a matter which, I believe, the great majority of this House would desire to see dealt with—namely, that there should be some means of expropriating an unsatisfactory clergyman after he has been inducted into a living. I had these questions very forcibly brought before my mind some time ago by circumstances in my own county. A gentleman was put into a living, who proved to be a very unsatisfactory person, and finally he was indicted at the quarter sessions for organising a prizefight. Fortunately for him, the ways of grand juries being mysterious, the charge was thrown out, probably on the ground that a clergyman who organised a prizefight must be a good fellow. Afterwards the same clergyman was found to have turned the lower-room of his vicarage into something which might be described as a butcher's shop. A short time afterwards he was induced to resign the living, But can hon. Members imagine, in a great Church organisation, a more absurd state of things than this, in which a gentleman of this kind, who acknowledged his own unfitness to perform the duties of his living, should have been able to defy his parishioners and the bishop until he was removed only by a certain amount of friendly good nature on his own part? I look upon this Bill as a useful Measure of Church reform as far as it goes, and must protest against the arguments used against hon. Members on this side of the House, that they desire to keep up the abuses of the Church in order to strengthen the case against it. Sir, I do not think anything was said by any hon. Member on this side of the House to justify that charge being made.

*MR. A. C. HUMPHREYS - OWEN (Montgomeryshire)

I am quite alive to the scandals caused by the system of preferment in the Church of England, but these are comparatively not numerous; they are sporadic, and they do not influence the whole system of the Church of England in the way in which this Bill is likely to do. The Bill is framed upon the idea that greater powers should be given to the bishops, that they should be in the position of the officers of an army, from whom the clergy should take their marching orders. Sir, we know that a wave of sacerdotalism is sweeping over the Church at the present moment. Sacerdotalism is a fashionable doctrine, and there is scarcely a bishop on the bench who does not represent that point of view. That being so, any addition to the powers of the bishops must give rise to a suspicion that that form of doctrine will be unduly favoured at the expense of what is generally called Evangelicalism. That, I think, is a serious and a real fear, and does not deserve the gibes levelled at it by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. It is of the greatest importance that persons subject to any jurisdiction should have confidence in the impartiality of that tribunal. There are bishops and bishops. There are many bishops on the Bench in whose judgment and impartiality and Christian feeling both clergy and laity have the greatest confidence; but, unfortunately, you cannot always guarantee that you will have your beneficent despot. It is said that despotism is the best form of government if you can always ensure the beneficent despot. But it is conceivable that there may be men of hasty temper and keen partisans who would be anything but beneficent despots to any clergyman who was unfortunate enough to come under their displeasure. Reference has been made to the case of the diocese of St. Asaph, and I venture to contradict the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury when he said that the whole of the laity unanimously supported the bishop. There are two conspicuous Churchmen, his own supporters, who did not—the hon. Member for Denbigh and the hon. Member for the Montgomery Boroughs. Sir, I disclaim the charge that we on this side of the House wish to continue the present scandals of the Church with a view to bringing about Disestablishment and Disendowment. I believe Disestablishment and Disendowment would be the best thing for the Church, but I wish to bring it about only by fair arguments. If any suggestion is made that in opposing this Bill I desire to continue clerical scandals with a view to providing myself with arguments against the Establishment, I must utter my protest.

*COLONEL T. M. SANDYS (Lancashire, S.W., Bootle)

There are two Bills before the House on the subject of Benefices, and it seems to me that the Government Measure does not altogether embody the views of the Church of England as a whole. There is a section of the Church of England in whose view the present Bill is objectionable; first, because it is a Measure for giving increased power to the bishops—and the bishops, in certain directions, have too much power already—and secondly, because there is no provision in the Bill for the ecclesiastical supremacy of the Crown as the head of the Church in this country. I shall endeavour to point out the reason why these two points appear to be objectionable. Clergymen who have been condemned by a bishop are given the right of appeal to the archbishop, instead of to the Crown, as would be done under the Clergy Discipline Act of 1892. That Act has already been most beneficial in getting rid of objectionable men, whom it was advisable to eliminate from the Church; but why should not the machinery of that Act have been placed in the Measure now before the House, instead of creating an entirely new Court, consisting practically of the archbishop? Another matter, which seems to me to be of very great importance in this Bill, I would venture to point out for the consideration of the House. One of the reasons why a bishop may object to institute a clergyman is for his misconduct. What is misconduct? Is it anything the bishop chooses to define as misconduct? And is the bishop's definition of misconduct in 1898 to be the same in 1900? Sir, this Bill places powers almost of life and death in the hands of the bishop. He is to be the judge, and is to define the offence under

which his unfortunate subordinate clergy are to suffer. Parliament is asked to create penalties for offences which the bishop is to define from time to time, and to confer upon him the powers of enforcing them. This is a serious objection to the present Bill. I do not know how far the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury is prepared to proceed in this matter, but I think the two points I have mentioned should receive attention in any comprehensive Measure laid before the House intended to protect the clergy of the Church of England from the power of the bishops being exercised too harshly against them, and from which they have not power to protect themselves.

Question put— That the Bill be now read a second time.

The House divided:—Ayes 243; Noes 57.

AYES.
Allen, Wm. (Newc.-under-L.)	Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.
Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden	Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)	Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Mncr.)
Allison, Robert Andrew	Cawley, Frederick	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Ascroft, Robert	Cayzer, Sir Chas. William	Firbank, Joseph Thomas
Asher, Alexander	Cecil, Lord Hugh	Fisher, William Hayes
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry	Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.	Fison, Frederick William
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)	FitzGerald, Sir R. U. Penrose
Baden-Powell, Sir Geo. Smyth	Chamberlain, J. Austin (Worc'r)	Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond
Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy	Charrington, Spencer	Flannery, Fortescue
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Clare, Octavius Leigh	Fletcher, Sir Henry
Baillie, Jas. E. B. (Inverness)	Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.	Forster, Henry William
Baird, John Geo. Alexander	Coghill, Douglas Harry	Galloway, Wm. Johnson
Balcarres, Lord	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Garfit, William
Baldwin, Alfred	Colomb, Sir Jno. Chas. Ready	Gedge, Sydney
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r.)	Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (C. of Lond.)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. Grld W. (Leeds)	Compton, Lord Alwyne	Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)
Banbury, Frederick George	Cook, Fred Lucas (Lambeth)	Giles, Charles Tyrrell
Barnes, Frederic Gorell	Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd.)	Gold, Charles
Barry, Francis Tress (Windsor)	Cox, Robert	Gordon, Hon. John Edward
Bartley, George C. T.	Cozens-Hardy, Herbt. Hardy	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon
Barton, Dunbar Plunket	Cranborne, Viscount	Goschen, George J. (Sussex)
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.	Cripps, Charles Alfred	Goulding, Edward Alfred
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristl.)	Cubitt, Hon. Henry	Graham, Henry Robert
Begg, Ferdinand Faithful	Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lanc. S. W.)	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe	Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.)	Green, Walford D. (Wednesbry.)
Bigwood, James	Dalbiac, Col. Philip Hugh	Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)
Bill, Charles	Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Greville, Captain
Billson, Alfred	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Gull, Sir Cameron
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon	Gunter, Colonel
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Dorington, Sir John Edward	Hall, Sir Charles
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Midsx.)	Douglas, Rt. Hon A. Akers-	Halsey, Thomas Frederick
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Drage, Geoffrey	Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George
Brookfield, A. Montagu	Duckworth, James	Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Rbt. Wm.
Brown, Alexander H.	Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.	Hanson, Sir Reginald
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Edwards, Gen. Sir Jas. Bevan	Hardy, Laurence
Bucknill, Thos. Townsend	Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)	Hare, Thomas Leigh
Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-	Fardell, Sir T. George	Harwood, George
Hermon-Hodge, Rbt. Trotter	M'Ewan, William	Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)
Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord Arth. (Down)	Malcolm, Ian	Simeon, Sir Barrington
Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstd.)	Maple, Sir John Blundell	Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.)
Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)	Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe	Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Houston, R. P.	Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.	Smith, Abel (Herts)
Howard, Joseph	Mellor, Col. (Lancashire)	Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)
Howell, William Tudor	Melville, Beresford Valentine	Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)
Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil	Milward, Colonel Victor	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn	Monckton, Edward Philip	Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)
Hudson, George Bickersteth	Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)	Stevenson, Francis S.
Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)	Moon, Edward Robert Pacey	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick	More, Robert Jasper	Strauss, Arthur
Jessel, Capt. Herbt. Merton	Morrell, George Herbert	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Johnston, William (Belfast)	Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptf'd.)	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)	Mount, William George	Talbot, Rt. Hn J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.)
Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn. Sir U.	Muntz, Philip A.	Tennant, Harold John
Kearley, Hudson E.	Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Grhm (Bute	Thornton, Percy M.
Kenyon, James	Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Kimber, Henry	Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)	Tritton, Charles Ernest
King, Sir Henry Seymour	Nicol, Donald Ninian	Valentia, Viscount
Kitson, Sir James	Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford	Verney, Hon. Richard Greville
Knowles, Lees	Nussey, Thomas Willans	Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Lafone, Alfred	Perks, Robert William	Wallace, Robt. (Edinburgh)
Laurie, Lieut.-General	Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Wallace, Robert (Perth)
Lawrence, Sir Edw. (Cornwall)	Pollock, Harry Frederick	Walton, Jno. Lawson (Leeds, S.)
Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)	Priestley, Sir W. Over'nd (Edin.)	Wanklyn, James Leslie
Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Pryce-Jones, Edward	Wayman, Thomas
Leighton, Stanley	Purvis, Robert	Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)
Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swnsea)	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne	Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.	Reid, Sir Robert T.	Wharton, Rt. Hn. Jno. Lloyd
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Rickett, J. Compton	Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)	Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.	Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)
Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Lpl.)	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Lopes, Hy. Yarde Buller	Robson, Wm. Snowdon	Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm.)
Lowe, Francis William	Roche, Hon. Jas. (East Kerry)	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Lowles, John	Rothschild, Baron F. Jas. de	Wills, Sir William Henry
Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Round, James	Wilson, John (Govan)
Lucas-Shadwell, William	Royds, Clement Molyneux	Wodehouse, Edmd. R. (Bath)
Luttrell, Hugh Fownes	Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)	Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudrsfld)
Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred	Savory, Sir Joseph	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Macartney, W. G. Ellison	Schwann, Charles E.	Younger, William
Macdona, John Cumming	Seely, Charles Hilton
Maclean, James Mackenzie	Seton-Karr, Henry	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Sharpe, William Edward T.	Sir William Walrond and
M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)	Mr. Anstruther.
NOES.
Allan, William (Gateshead)	Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley	Priestley, Brigg (Yorks.)
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)	Holburn, J. G.	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Bainbridge, Emerson	Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Baker, Sir John	Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)	Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles
Barlow, John Emmott	Leuty, Thomas Richmond	Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)
Bayley, Thos. (Derbyshire)	Lewis, John Herbert	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Lough, Thomas	Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)
Brigg, John	Lyell, Sir Leonard	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Broadhurst, Henry	MacAleese, Daniel	Thomas, Alf. (Glamorgan, E.)
Burt, Thomas	M'Kenna, Reginald	Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.
Caldwell, James	M'Laren, Chas. Benjamin	Wedderburn, Sir William
Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-shre)	M'Leod, John	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Clough, Walter Owen	Maddison, Fred.	Wilson, Jos. H. (Middl'sbrough)
Doogan, P. C.
Dunn, Sir William	Morton, Edw. J. C. (Dvnpt.)	Woodall, William
Ellis, Thos. Ed. (Merionethsh.)	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Woods, Samuel
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorg'n)	Oldroyd, Mark	Yoxall, James Henry
Fenwick, Charles	Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)	Pickersgill, Edward Hare	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	Pinkerton, John	Mr. Brynmor Jones and Mr. Spicer.
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Price, Robert John

Bill read a Second time, and, on the motion of the First Lord of the Treasury, referred to the Grand Committee of Law.