HC Deb 27 July 1903 vol 126 cc335-6
MR. BRYNMOR JONES (Swansea District)

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to a service which took place on the morning of the 19th instant in the Church of St. Jude, in Birming ham, and in which there were divers serious breaches of the ecclesiastical law, and to a parish magazine issued by the incumbent of the said church; whether, in view of the fact that the present incumbent was appointed in or about May, 1896, by the Crown upon his recommendation, he is prepared to give assurances to this House that in future the ecclesiastical patronage of the Crown shall be restricted to those clergymen who are prepared to render obedience to the Book of Common Prayer, the Articles of Religion, and the law as determined by the Courts having statutory jurisdiction in matters ecclesiastical.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Mr. Pinchard was appointed upon my recommendation in 1896. His claims were very strongly pressed upon me as an able and energetic parson and an eloquent preacher by men of different schools of theological thought, Low and High Church alike. I was also informed that in his previous experience he got on extremely well with non-Episcopalian denominations of Christians. Mr. Pinchard is known to be a High Churchman, but I am assured by himself and others that he is not a Ritualist. These were the circumstances under which Mr. Pinchard was appointed when the state of the parish was at a very low ebb. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, I have no control over the character of the services in this or in any other parish.

MR. BRYNMOR JONES

I should like to ask whether, if reasonable facts are laid before the right hon. Gentleman, showing that there have been breaches of the law in this parish, the Treasury will pay the expenses of a prosecution under the Act of 1840 by a responsible parishioner.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I have always been one of those who have held that the present practice, under which the cost of a prosecution falls on the Bishop, is preposterous. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman so far, but I do not think I can start now a new precedent with regard to one particular section of the clergy—namely, those who are appointed by the Crown.

MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR

In view of the facts here stated, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will now give facilities for a general amendment of the law which would enable the Courts to determine—

* MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! That does not arise out of the Question.