§ The price to be paid for the said advowson shall be six thousand three hundred and ninety pounds and the fee simple of the advowson when purchased shall be conveyed upon condition that the right of nomination or presentation to the said rectory shall for ever thereafter belong to and be exercisable by a body of trustees consisting of the Bishop of the diocese, wherein the parish of Saint Mary, Prestwich, shall for the time being be situate, the Archdeacon of the Archdeaconry wherein the said parish shall for the time being be situate, the Mayor of Oldham, the chairman of the urban district council of Prestwich, and that one of the churchwardens of the parish of Saint Mary, Prestwich, who shall have been elected churchwarden by the parishioners in vestry assembled (hereinafter referred to as "the trustees") or by the major part in number of the trustees. Provided always that in the case of every lay trustee he shall before joining in the exercise of the right of nomination or presentation make a declaration in writing that he is a member of the Church of England as by law established and that any lay trustee not being a member of the said church may appoint a nominee to act in his place on any such occasion, such nominee being a lay member of the Church of England and making the declaration aforesaid, and provided further that after such conveyance and assurance the said advowson or right of nomination or presentation shall never be sold.
§ Mr. BOOTHI move to leave out Clause 3.
1357 That is the Clause which records the changes made in the Bill since it was before the House last. It may be that if a satisfactory explanation is given on one or two points that I could see my way not to press my objection, but even to support the Bill. The main points that hon. Members will see mentioned in this Clause are the purchase price, which is now £6,390, the district to which it applies, and the selection of the trustees. In the previous Bill there was a provision made for a pension of the present occupant, but that has been withdrawn, and I think I would not be in order in discussing it. That will explain why I am not making any reference to the pension. Taking the other three main points I am pleased to see from this Clause that £2,310 have been saved to the Church of England as the result of this re-arrangement. That is to say the trustees of the Earl of Wilton receive a smaller sum for the advowson by that amount. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset (Mr. King) will be delighted to see that his proposal has been incorporated in the Bill, and three years' purchase substituted for a much larger sum of £8,700, which was primarily in the Bill. It is quite true that in paying that amount for the advowson an evil act in my jugdment is taking place. I do not want anything I say to be interpreted as a withdrawal from my previous position that a transaction of this kind contains an element of immorality and simony, but the position anyway is a difficult one, and we have to choose between perpetuating a system that we do not like and doing an injustice to the living itself and the parishioners, or sanctioning a transaction of this kind, which is repulsive in the extreme.
After all one must make the best of the situation, and I feel inclined just for the time to try to repress the natural indignation I feel at a review of the transaction for the good of the parish. Particularly so when I believe that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners themselves as well as the Rector feel equally strongly about the nature of the transaction. But to accomplish the reform in a matter of this kind it seems to be necessary. If I thought for a moment that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners reveled in a transaction of this kind or thought it was a Christian act my attitude would be very different. But so far as I can see I have no no complaint to make regarding the action of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in this matter. The area to which any benefit 1358 derived from this Act may apply has been confined. I think the representatives of the district felt strongly on this, that there should be no funds taken away from this district to any other portion of the country. That is important because it is almost entirely derived from ground rents. That is to say, the increased value of the living has been produced solely by the growth of the community and it would be a little unfair for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to use the money in a distant place. I am pleased to see that they quite see the appropriateness of confining the benefits derived from this transaction to the neighbourhood where the property exists.
Then I come to the very important matter where we are dealing with the Trustees. It is here that I want a little further enlightenment before I can see my way to ask my friend to support the Bill. Trustees are to have the patronage of this living in future. It is a little inconsistent with the title of the Bill, but I do not raise this technical point of objection against it, because it undoubtedly is a great reform. The object of the Bill, as clearly shown by the title, was to pay this large sum of money to the Earl of Wilton without any condition, except that the patronage was transferred to the Bishop of Manchester. There are many Members on the opposite side of the House, as well as on this, who are entirely opposed to increasing the patronage of the Bishops of the Church of England. We have no objection whatever to the Bishops giving their assistance in the right selection, but we have a very strong objection to the Bishop alone being able to decide presentations to a living in a case like this. The proposal in this Clause is that two clergy and three laymen would be the trustees. The Bishop of Manchester, we are told, most probably would take the chair. There is no objection to that. Then there are the Archdeacon, the Mayor of Oldham, the chairman of the Urban District Council of Prestwich, and the parishioners' warden. I would prefer instead of the archdeacon to bring in the other warden. As far as I can gather, I think there is a good reason against it, but I would like it to be given to us. That is a point upon which I would require a little satisfaction before I can withdraw my opposition.
I think it would have been better to have had four laymen with the assistance of the bishop so that at the Board meetings the 1359 laymen might be the judges of the suitability of the new entrant into the duties of this rectory. But still I do admit that in the main this proposal of three laymen with the bishop and the archdeacon removes a great deal of the objection which we raised. I would like to bring before the House a letter from the rector which was addressed to me. It, more than anything else, has led me to take up the attitude which I have now adopted. For the first time in this letter there is clear evidence as to who is the promoter of this Bill. In the last discussion the House was put to great inconvenience. No one knew who the promoter was, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners themselves were not able to enlighten the House. We broke through that discussion as best we could with the idea that there was a promoter somewhere. I am very pleased that I have found him out. As far as I can judge, this letter shows that he is a person to whom we ought to pay the greatest deference. I do not know that I ever received a letter which gave me a greater feeling of the admirable character and high tone of the writer than did this letter. Instead of making any further speech, I will read a portion of this letter to the House. There is a passage which refers to the way in which the income is got. I have some hesitation in reading it in the presence of the hon. Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood), I am afraid it may disturb him, but if he will undertake to receive it in the proper spirit, I will venture to read it. The letter is from Mr. F. W. Cooper, who, I understand, is the present rector. He writes to me:—
Dear Sir,—I understand that you do not think, as some others seem to have thought, that this is a purely selfish conspiracy on the part of the Bishop and myself. It is I who am the promoter of the Bill, both technically and actually. I have long been uneasy in my position here as a landlord and owner of rents and ground rents of increasing value. It is not a position that a clergyman ought to occupy, and I would have been glad at any time to hand the revenues over to the Commissioners, receiving a fixed stipend of a smaller amount.I say a conscientious man like the rector does seem to me entitled to the utmost admiration. He could not conscientiously take his income in connection with rents of increasing value, and he prefers to give it up for the good of the Church. I am sure I need only say that to insure the support of the hon. Member for New-castle-under-Lyme. The latter goes on:— 1360I had no idea, until Mr. Leach pointed it out, that the Bill would make it possible for me to retire whenever I liked. I have now insisted that the pension clause shall be omitted from the Kill. I told the Commissioners from the first that I did not wish for it. When the proposed changes in the Bill are effected, the only possible objection to it is that which you yourself put so strongly, that the House would be sanctioning the evil of the sale of advowson… If I stay here another ten or twelve years, I shall probably have provided all the purchase money myself; and if I am prepared to do this with entirely disinterested objects, it does not seem right that I should be forbidden to do so…. The purchase of human beings as slaves is abominable, but if I saw a brother of mine in the slave market and there was no other way of releasing him, I would readily pay £8,700 if I could afford it. So, I venture to think, would you. If you can do anything to help in bringing down the high price that is proposed to be paid, I should indeed be thankful, and I trust it may be possible to do so.That is a most honest and straightforward letter, and it has had the effect, with the reforms that have been made in the Bill, of causing me to assume the attitude rather of a sympathiser with this great reform than an opponent.
§ Mr. ROBERT PEARCEMy objection to the Clause is almost entirely to the first two lines, "the price to be paid for the advowson shall be £6,390." The reduction of the amount is very satisfactory. The letter from the rector shows that he-is a high-minded man, and indeed, that was apparent on the last discussion, when it appeared that he was himself giving up part of his income in order that the advowson might be acquired in the way proposed by the Bill. I have nothing but praise for the scheme as it stands, if it were not for the one solitary circumstance that money is to be paid for the cure of souls. That is the whole of my objection. In the various transactions that I have had through my hands, in relation to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, they have, to my knowledge, for very many years transacted the affairs of the church entrusted to them in a way that demands the respect and admiration of all those who know what they have done. I am glad they are represented in this House by a distinguished man, and I am quite sure they would not lend themselves to any transaction which they thought was to be condemned upon any grounds at all serious. But I am opposed to the payment of money for the cure of souls. The history of the growth of advowsons is not a long one. Originally the advowsons were put into the hands of the bishop of the diocese, and he appointed the clerk who had to administer all the parishes of the district. The payments made were divided into four parts. One was charged with the maintenance of the bishops and 1361 for the hospitality to curates and clergy who lived with him in his house. The second was for the repair of the churches in the diocese; the third was for the poor; and the fourth was for those clergy who were appointed to administer particular churches in the diocese. In the earlier centuries appeals were made from time to time to the feudal lords and other wealthy territorial people to assist by tithes and in other ways in the establishment of the parsons, and that was accompanied with the privilege to the lords of nominating or presenting to the bishop the clerk for admission to the living if he should be qualified. In that way the patronage became established, and that system has lasted until practically the present time. In fact, Mammon led them, but Mammon is the least erect spirit that fell from heaven.
Although the general tendency of feeling in regard to this matter has become more and more acute, especially in. the case of advowsons and the purchase of advowsons, there still remains in our law the embodiment of that curious relic of feudal arrangements for the maintenance of the Church. The sale of a cure of souls, arising in that way, I suppose no one would justify, or attempt to argue in favour of it at the present time. It is a thing which is regarded somewhat in the light in which the purchase of commissions in the Army was regarded when it was abolished some years ago. I apprehend that no one now would defend this particular practice. Indeed, in this particular case it is stated in some papers issued by the promoters of the Bill, who, I am glad, are the respected solicitors of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, that arrangements have been made in this Bill in regard to Clause 3 which will prevent the sale or resale of the living, and the appeal is made to us in regard to this transaction that, as it is the last, we ought to consent to it on that ground. But I think, with all deference, and subject to correction, that those who make that statement have forgotten 19 and 20 Vic, Cap. 50, in which it is expressly indicated that the sale or resale of an advowson may be made, when it is vested in trustees for the parishioners, as in this particular instance happens to be the case, on some subsequent dealing with the parish in which the advowson is situated. I do not see anything in the Bill which prevents the re-sale of the advowson. If there is such a provision I shall be glad to be shown it.
§ Mr. STUART-WORTLEYLook at the concluding words of Clause 3.
§ Mr. R. PEARCEYes; "provided that after such conveyance and assurance of the said advowson, or right of nomination or presentation, shall never be sold." I am glad I have that pointed out. It at once removes it from the operation of that particular law. This Clause says that this payment shall be the last payment, and that is perhaps the right way of doing it; but on general grounds in the present state of public feeling I think that even that sale should be postponed until Parliament has had an opportunity of discussing the general question. I had an idea in my mind that when the Parliament Bill was through it would be a wise thing to bring in a short Bill for preventing the purchase of advowsons. I do not mean the sale, because if you can prevent the purchase there will be no seller. It would be like the case of Hudibras, who had only one spur, well knowing that if he could get one side of his beast spurred on the other would not lag behind. If we can stop the sale of advowsons by a general Bill of that sort it would be a good course, although such sales might still be acceptable for the purposes of jockeys and bookmakers who had to buy an advowson to preserve a racecourse, an incident which was not long ago spoken about in the House of Lords. I cannot reconcile to my mind the action of bishops, archdeacons, churchwardens, and other laymen, who are to make a declaration that they are members of the Church of England as by law established, and who lend themselves to sanctioning a Bill to carry through a transaction in the sale of the cure of souls. I appeal to these gentlemen with the more confidence, as the rector, who, so far as he has dealt with the matter, has shown himself a high-minded and spiritually minded man, and has shown the spirit of true religion, feels all that to be incompatible with the transaction to which he is a party and in which he himself practically provides the money for the purchase. I think the sale for the sum of £6,390 should stand over until a general law is passed prohibiting the purchase of livings, and for that reason I second the Motion for the deletion of the Clause.
§ Question proposed, "That the words-proposed to be left out down to the word 'Provided' ["Provided always that in the case"] stand part of the Clause."
1363§ Mr. CHARLES LEACHI think, Sir, if you will allow a fair amount of latitude in this discussion it will save time, because although there are two Bills the discussion practically would be one. I should like to be permitted to say that great changes have been made in the Bill, serious and radical changes, and I cannot help feeling very glad that what was said on the last occasion has led to these great modifications, and I think I may claim that the modifications completely justify all that was said by those who took part against the Bill last time. The most remarkable change in this Bill, to my mind, is that which has been made by the letter of this good clergyman who, it seems now, is the author and the mover in this matter. It is a great pity we did not know that before. The letter he has sent to the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) justifies fully what I said about him in the last debate. I then said:—
I am told he is a very good man, I do not question that for a moment, I have no right to question it."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1911, col. 322.]I think that letter proves he is a very good man. I want to know how it comes to pass that this gentleman did not know that under this Bill he was to draw a pension of £500 until he read it in my speech. It seems a very strange proceeding.
§ Mr. SPEAKER. There is nothing about a pension in this Clause. The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the Clause.
§ Mr. LEACHI shall continue by discussing the committee under this Clause. I am delighted to leave the clergyman, but I only wanted to bear testimony to the very generous way in which he has dealt with the matter. I go on to the committee, or the Trustees, who for the moment I call the committee. I do not think there is very much in the change. He is a poor clergyman who cannot influence three laymen at any time. I say, after an experience of thirty or forty years, that I do not believe I ever found myself with a layman whom I could not influence in my direction. There are two clergymen amongst these trustees, and that practically means that the Bishop of Manchester will have the controlling voice. I should have been glad to have seen more laymen among the trustees, in addition to the churchwarden. It appears that the price of the right of presentation after this Bill is passed is reduced by £2,310. May I ask the representatives of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in this House if that is a genuine reduction? I should like to be 1364 assured of that because I find in the legal agreement in the Schedule on page 12 that the old sum of £8,700 still stands. If I am not mistaken, and I am no lawyer, that is the legal agreement, and if it be passed without that figure being altered there might be some difficulty. May I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the £6,300 in the Bill will be the real figure?. I understand now that is so, and I will say no more about it. But my objection to the principle of this Bill remains unmoved. I am still opposed absolutely to the sale of the cure of souls. I do not think that any man ought to betray his sacred trust in the way that trust is being betrayed. I said on the last occasion, and I repeat it that, as I understand it, the right of presentation is a sacred privilege and ought never to be sold for money. Therefore, my objection to the principle of the Bill is not in the least moved. I still call it irreligious and a piece of bad simony. There is only one ground on which I could be led to abstain from voting against this Bill. Nothing that could be said would lead me to vote for it. Even if it cost me my seat in this House and all I possess, I could never bring myself to vote for the sale of a cure of souls for money. There is only one consideration that will cause me to refrain from voting against this Bill, and that is that if the Bill passes, these livings, at any rate, can never again be sold for money. They will pass into the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners who, I presume, will see that never again is there any scandal. I regret very sincerely that the House of Commons by passing this Bill will give its assent to a transaction which I regard as so very irreligious; but, as the Bill probably will pass, all I can do is to make my protest, which I do in all sincerity and honesty.
§ Sir F. CAWLEYI am glad that all personalities have been kept out of this discussion. As has been pointed out, when this living has been once bought for the Church and put into the hands of a committee it can never be sold again. The present rector is really paying for the living and presenting it to his Church. The price is £6,300. The rector is giving up £630 per annum, which at his age may be taken at a capitalised value of £7,700. The rector, in fact, says: "I do not want to see this living hawked about. It might be purchased for speculation and then sold again. Possibly in the course of the next twenty years it might be sold three or four times over." The present rector does not want that. He does not want anybody to 1365 buy the living or a relative. Above all, looking to the fact that this rectory carries with it the presentation to nine other cures of souls, I think the rector does not want it to get into the hands of any particular branch of the Church who, by buying the presentation to these other livings, might perpetuate their ideas as to how the Church services ought to be conducted. It is quite easy to imagine any particular body in the Church who wish to have a high ritualistic service, and who by buying the living would have the presentation to nine other livings, giving a very good price for it. The rector has removed all danger of that, and I think the House will do well to support him. The very considerable revenue that will accrue after the purchase price is paid off will go to help the daughter churches, which are really in need of assistance. If this Bill fails to pass because somebody has great objection to it, the incumbents of those thirty-four daughter churches, who are poor men, will not be very pleased twenty years hence that the House of Commons opposed the Rill and thereby caused them a loss of income of perhaps £30, £40, or £50 a year. I hope the House will pass the Bill.
§ Mr. CHARLES NICHOLSONEverybody has been much impressed by the letter read by the hon. Member for Pontefract, which, I think, settled the whole question so far as this Bill is concerned. We could not accept the Amendment, because if the Clause were omitted it would practically kill the Bill. We are all glad that we have been able in the course of negotiations to knock off so large a sum from the price to be paid. Nobody dislikes the sale of advowsons more than I do, but this is an opportunity for preventing anything of the kind being done again so far as this particular living is concerned. Some hon. Members may think it a great sin to enter upon a transaction of this kind at all, but, at any rate, it will be the last time it can happen in regard to this particular living. We are also very glad that the surplus funds will be applied for the benefit of the thirty-four daughter churches. I have been asked, in regard to the body of Trustees, why we have taken three lay members and two clerics instead of four laymen and one cleric. The reason is that under the original proposition the majority of the votes would have rested practically with the inhabitants of Prestwich alone, who would have had three representatives on the board of 1366 trustees. We thought it unfair that they should have such a large preponderance in deciding who should be the new vicar; therefore we selected the body now named in the Bill. I think there is very good reason for including the archdeacon, because one of his duties is to visit all the parishes in the archdeaconry, and therefore he is fully cognisant of the needs of the particular parishes. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Leach) asked if the price was really to be £6,390, instead of the price named in the Schedule. That I can assure him is the fact.
§ Mr. LEACHMay I ask how it happens that this clergyman did not know about the transaction to which I referred? It was part of the Bill, and yet he says he did not know about it until he read my speech.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is not relevant to the Amendment before the House.
Mr. KINGWe have had a very delightful little speech from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Doncaster. It was particularly delightful to me, because it was entirely inconsistent with the speech which he made on the Second Reading of this Bill. In fact, the hon. Gentleman has learned a good deal of his duties as an Ecclesiastical Commissioner during the interval, and he has learned it, I am proud to say, from myself. I moved the rejection of this Bill on the Second Reading, and I did so very largely on the ground that the price to be paid was excessive. What did the hon. Gentleman the Member for Doncaster say in reply to that? He told the House, in effect, that he was an Ecclesiastical Commissioner of large experience, and that instead of three years' purchase, which I suggested as the right term, that six-and-a-half years was proper.
§ Mr. C. NICHOLSONFour years.
Mr. KINGNo, no; six-and-a-half years. You will find it in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 26th June. I need not read it, because it would only show the hon. Member up even in a worse light. No sooner does the hon. Member go to the quiet seclusion of the unopposed committee room than he finds that three years is quite sufficient, and he also finds that everybody else is pleased with the reformed price. This opposition that we have led to this Bill, and the result of which has been such very striking reforms in the provisions of the Bill, ought to teach the Ecclesiastical Commissioners that when they want to bring private Bills of this character before the House, there 1367 is someone in the House who is able to meet them. I may point to this fact, that the opposition has not been merely obstructive. It has not been ineffective. Moreover, it was not undertaken in the spirit "that those people were Radicals and refused all ecclesiastical reform." I am in favour of "root and branch" treatment of ecclesiastical questions, but I am also in favour of getting reforms by instalments where possible.
I want to call attention to one aspect of this Bill as it now stands, which I think ought to be replied to by the right hon. Gentleman who is the other Ecclesiastical Commissioner. I mean the fact that the Preamble of the Bill, at the bottom of page 2, says:—
"Whereas it is desirable that the contract for purchase should be confirmed."
9.0 P.M.
The Second Schedule gives this contract to purchase, and gives the terms which have already been agreed upon in this contract. In line 30 of page 12 we find that the price is to be £8,700. Now, if the Preamble states that the contract is to be confirmed, and the contract as recited in the Second Schedule gives the price as £8,700, how is that matter going to be met? Is it effective enough to recite the price here in the Third Clause of this Bill as £6,395? I want it to be made quite clear to the House that the price in the Third Clause will be the price strictly adhered to, and the contract which has already been entered into, and which this Bill definitely says it is going to confirm, will be carried out. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly ready to answer all legal questions of this kind, and I hope he will answer my question so as to satisfy the House that this is a bonâ fide reform which can be carried out and against which no legal objection can be taken. If that is done I shall be very glad to allow the Bill to go through.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley)I think I can satisfy the hon. Member as Chairman of the Unopposed Bill Committee that dealt with this Bill. I gave particular attention to it, and took legal advice upon it. In Clause 2, and in the fifth line of the Clause, it says "subject to the modifications therein made by this Act." These are the operative words. Therefore there is no doubt whatever that the sum is the reduced sum.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. HARWOODI beg to move to leave out the words, "Provided always that in the case of every lay trustee, he shall, before joining in. the exercises of the right of nomination or presentation, make a declaration in writing that he is a member of the Church of England as by law established, and that any lay trustee, not being a member of the said Church, may appoint a nominee to act in his place on any such occasion, such nominee being a lay member of the Church of England, and making the declaration aforesaid, and"— It is certainly in no spirit of putting unnecessary obstacles in the way that I desire to draw attention, and if possible to remove what I consider is a great and servious drawback in the Bill. I am glad that in the previous discussion I was one who objected to the patronage being vested entirely in the hands of the bishop. I acknowledge the handsome way in which that objection has been met, and I am perfectly satisfied on that point. But there is one part of this Clause to which I think the House ought to give very serious attention, because it is introducing a principle than which none is more important, and one which this House should be very careful about sanctioning. I move to omit the words that I have read. I do so because in perfect friendliness to the Bill, I consider this is a most serious drawback, and an impossible principle to admit into any Bill in this House. In the first place it is most retrogade. This practice of requiring a declaration of religious belief has long been exploded. From the time of Charles II. the experience of our country has proved that it was a mistake to insist upon it, and we have gradually given it up. To ask now for a declaration in writing that a man is a member of any particular church or it not a member, is pushing intrusion into the domain of private belief in a way that I think is distinctly dangerous and distinctly improper. Another thing is that it is absolutely useless.
What has been the experience in regard to all this kind of thing? It is universal that the men who are ready to sign things and accept tests are the men who are quite worthless. The really good men,, whom you want to get, will firstly not submit to a test, and secondly, certainly will not sign a document about belonging to this church or that. I know the kind of men who are 1369 mayors of Oldham and chairman of its district commissioners. I have the honour of knowing several of them in this particular connection, and—I am speaking of Lancashire men—they are the very last men to do anything of the kind. If you go to this class of man and say to him "You must sign a declaration that you are a member of the Church of England before you can exercise this function," he will absolutely refuse to do anything of the kind. They are not in the habit of signing declarations about their religion; they are not in the habit even of asking questions about it; the temper of the public mind is happily against these intrusions into the realms of religious feeling. The consequence is you would be deprived of the services of the very kind of men you want because the kind of men you want are the very men who would never for a moment make such declarations, whether they were members of the Church of England or not. There are thousands of the best supporters of the Church of England who if they were asked to sign a declaration that they were members of the Church of England would not do so. I venture to say it is a new departure to ask for a declaration of this kind. It has been done in days gone by, but it has not been done for a long time. There are some cases where it is required for a particular legal office, but it is never required for an office of this kind, and to put such questions in connection with a parish in a place like Manchester and in a county like Lancashire would be to damage your cause and to bring about angry feeling. Not only is it useless and mischievous, but it is quite unnecessary.
We do not ask for such a declaration from the Prime Minister who makes bishops and dignitaries of the Church. We do not ask him to declare that he is a member of the Church of England; we trust his common-sense and the responsibilities of his office. And if you do not ask the Prime Minister these questions, how ridiculous it is to ask mayors of the boroughs and chairmen of county councils. Not only is it retrograde and unnecessary, but I venture to say it is mean. I speak as a very amateur lawyer, but I want to put the truth about this matter, and it is a question that may concern many Bills that may come up in this House. I think we are all interested to know what exactly is meant when we use the phrase "Church of England." That phrase has no legal meaning whatever. I put the question to one of the most profound lawyers yesterday, and he agreed with me 1370 that legally there is no such thing as "member of the Church of England." How are you going to get at it? Are you going to have tests, and if so, what are the tests of membership of the Church of England to be? Is it baptism? Everybody allows, not only the Church of England but the Catholic Church, that baptism is legal and proper when performed by a layman. Is it confirmation? Nothing of the kind. The phrase member of the Church of England does not occur in the Prayer Book or in any of the formulae of the Church. It is not a phrase used by the Church of England herself, and the Church of England does not use the phrase because the Church of England in its wider and broader days knew the phrase had no meaning whatever, and she absolutely abstained from using it, and it is because we have got a little bit wrong in our ideas of our conception of the Church that we use that phrase. I think we have gone back from what the ideas of our forefathers were. I think the church has allowed herself to get a little too much of the conception of a church which is based upon nonconformity. I am not disputing that conception, but I say it is not the right conception of the Church of England as the national church. The conception of a nonconformish church is that of a private society, the conception of a national church should be that of a great public institution.
The Church of England is not a testing body at all, it never professed to separate the sheep from the goats. The Church of England has never said that she meant to separate the good from the bad. The whole basis of the Church of England is that of an offering church, offering religion freely to all. That is the business of a national church, and that is the only conception of a national church by which you can define it democratically. It is exactly like a public drinking fountain, the water is there for those who require it. A glass of cold water may be refreshing to one man; it may make the next man very ill. He must judge for himself. The Church says: "There it is, for everyone who wants to take it." There is no legal meaning in the term "Church of England," it applies equally to nonconformists. The nonconforming member of the Church of England is the true conception of nonconformity, because a man is a nonconformist who is not fulfilling her rights, but because he does not go to church he does not lose his rights. I belong to one or two clubs 1371 I never frequent, but I can go to them if I like, and I do not cease to be a member because I do not go to them. So with the Church of England. That was John Wesley's idea. I happened to look up his life the other day, and I find in one of his last letters the words:—
I die as I lived—a member of the Church of England.The fact that you choose to go to chapel and join in the service of a private society does not in the eye of the law deprive you of your rights as a British citizen. You can come back at any time. Let me remind the House of what the law is in regard to this matter, and it may shock some people in their rather sacerdotal conception of the church—as far as I understand the position the law gives a man a right to seek the church, not as a favour but as a right. Any man who is a parishioner in a parish can come to the church, and if there is a seat there after the service has begun he has a legal right to take it. The Church of England goes much further—it may shock some people—but I would remind them that the law of the Church of England allows a man to demand, unless there are moral grounds against it, the Communion, even though he professes not the belief. To ask a man, ''Are you a Member of the Church of England?" is a retrograde step. Of course, he is a member of the Church of England. He may not be an active member, he may be a dormant member, but one never knows when he may become an active member, and I protest with all the strength I can command against anything that would take away that right from him. There is another question, and it is this: We hear much of Disestablishment. It is in the air, and perhaps as one—and I believe the only Liberal Member on this side of the House—who declined to vote for Welsh Disestablishment, and who has struggled for thirty years to fight for this conception of a national Church, I recognise that the Church is doomed unless she can adapt herself to the exigencies and the spirit of the times. No institution can live now that does not rest upon a democratic basis. The basis of the Church laid down by our forefathers was truly democratic and of the broadest possible character; that is the basis of British citizenship. Whether you use your right or not is your business, but there it is, and I beg the House not to pass a retrograde narrow Clause like this. I have made many sacrifices for the Church, and I am prepared to 1372 make many more; but I feel certain that the Church will be doomed unless she rises to a conception of her great function. It is the democratic spirit that ought to animate the Church.I oppose this Clause because it is dead against that democratic spirit. You are now asking a new thing. You are asking that a man shall, first of all, make a declaration of his religious belief, and, secondly, that he should make it in writing. My hon. Friend may say that the Nonconformists do not want to take part in the choosing of the clergy. In a matter of this kind may I say to the promoters of this Bill your wisest plan is to trust to the good sense and modesty which marks Englishmen generally in matters of this kind. I once lived in a country parish where the only places of worship were a church and a Unitarian chapel, and by an amicable arrangement it was agreed that one of the churchwardens had always to-be a member of the Unitarian chapel. The Unitarians, as well as the other members of the Church, voted in the choice of the clergyman, and there never was a parish where there were better people. Three successive vicars were most admirable men, and the whole spirit of that parish is a model to any religious community. As a Churchman who knows nearly all the churches concerned in this Bill pretty well, I do ask hon. Members not to put in a Clause of this kind.
Mr. KINGI desire to second this Amendment, although I do so on different lines to the hon. Member for Bolton, who, in his very sensible and sincere speech, must have touched the whole House. At the present time there is no legal objection to a Nonconformist, that is to say a Presbyterian or a Wesleyan and so forth exercising the patronage to a living, although there is a statutory objection against the Roman Catholic. Why should you in this Bill cast a slight on Nonconformists? Why should you set an objection against the Wesleyans, the Congregationalists, or the Baptists which does not exist in law? I think it is most unsuitable that a Bill like this, which I hope will go through with the assent of all parties, should contain a slight upon Nonconformists. They can perform the action of appointment to livings, and why should they be debarred by this Clause. The hon. Member for Norfolk, who is a well-known Nonconformist, told me that he is sorry he is not able to be here to support this Amendment. He was some time back the Mayor for the City of Norwich, and in 1373 that capacity he exercised the right of presentation to a living. Legal opinion was taken up at the time, and his right was established, and he tells me that no objection or difficulty was ever raised against the appointment which he made.
§ Mr. FLETCHERI agree with the hon. Member opposite who said that the only possible means of preserving the Church is that its door should be left wide open for all those who desire to return to it. In the parish of Hampstead, which I represent, one of the churchwardens is a Nonconformist, and I believe that is one of the reasons, and perhaps a very considerable reason, why there is such a happy and friendly feeling between the ministers of the Church of England and other denominations in Hampstead. If Nonconformists were allowed to exercise and fulfil the position of trustees and take part in the nomination of ministers I am certain they would display commonsense and would be as earnest in desiring to obtain the best possible man for the post as any Churchman could be. The argument which the hon. Member opposite has used about the patronage exercised by the Prime Minister should be a sufficient argument in favour of the Amendment, which have great pleasure in supporting.
§ Mr. STUART-WORTLEYWe all admire the views of the hon. Member for Bolton, but. I hope the House will not be led to follow him in the discriminations he has sought to draw in this case. These words are not a new departure. What we have adopted is a well-known form of words embodied in Acts of Parliament which have been followed for many years, which have been acted upon for a long time in the history of the Church, and have never been challenged in any court of law. More than that, this particular form of words has been copied into many patronage trust deeds constituting a patronage trust, such as we are constituting under this Bill. Under these circumstances I hope the House will allow these words to stand. Taking the hon. Member's own test, he says he does not wish to cast a slur upon Nonconformists. May I point out to the House that but for the words in this Bill the rights of the trustee might be exercised not only by a person who need not be a Protestant, but by a person who need not be even a Christian. I think, without going too far back into history, or without inquiring too far into the question how far the Church of England, as a corporate body, is recog- 1374 nised by our law, if there is a kind of general feeling in such a case as that, it would be desirable that persons so named in the Bill should appoint some nominee to act for him. I welcome one thing said by the hon. Member most heartily. I feel perfectly certain no man who could rise to the position of chairman to the district council of a great city like Oldham would act otherwise than conscientiously in a trust like this, and, if his conscience prevented him signing this declaration, he would find the right man to act for him. The hon. Gentleman wishes to see the Church of England rest on a democratic basis. That is the very basis which is satisfied by this Bill. Your mayor or chairman of the district council is a man who cannot discharge the duties of trustee unless he has gone through the fire and proved himself qualified, by the confidence of his fellow citizens, to rise to that distinguished and representative position we wish to see. At the bottom of our proposal in this Bill is the desire to get for the exercise of this high duty someone who has that knowledge of the district which will prevent him placing as vicar of Prest-wich someone unsuited to the position. Whenever I have had a chance of intervening in these Debates about Church patronage, I have always said you want some solution by which you will not have a square man put in a round parish, or a High Churchman in a low parish, and we believe we have in this case secured that local knowledge which is essential to the choice of a man fit to discharge the duties.
§ Mr. R. PEARCEI should like to ask the hon. Member representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners whether he would be willing to put in words to make it a declaration in writing that he is a Protestant Christian member of the Church of England? That would carry out exactly what he described to be the kind of man he desires to have a voice in the nomination of the incumbent of this living. I have to say, with reference to nonconformity in the Church of England, that every Englishman, as I understand the. law—and I have had to consider the matter on various occasions and advise upon it—is a member of the Church of England, though he may be a nonconforming member. This declaration, therefore, is of no use at all, because every Nonconformist and every Catholic and every Hebrew may declare in writing that he is a member of the Church of England by law established. It is, therefore, serving no 1375 useful purpose, and leaves the suspicion that there is a tinge of intolerance in this Bill. I should like to see the Clause struck out, because it does bring into the mind of the parishioner that there is a kind of limitation not known in our law at all. There is no church, national or otherwise, as an entity or corporation which interferes with the right of every parishioner, be his religious opinions what they may, to have a voice in this particular matter. Although you have chosen trustees who are not described as parishioners, I understand it is because the parish of Prestwich so in
§ cludes the areas of the urban district council and of Oldham as to make them practically parishioners of St. Mary of Prestwich. I have no objection to that part of the Clause on that account. I entirely agree with the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Harwood) that this particular proviso should be struck out as the last little symptom or tinge of intolerance in relation to this matter.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 73; Noes, 78.
1375| Division No. 294.] | AYES. | [9.32 p.m. |
| Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud) | Dawes, J. A. | Paget, Almeric Hugh |
| Ashley, W. W. | Duke, Henry Edward | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Eyres-Monsell, Bolton, M. | Peto, Basil Edward |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Fell, Arthur | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs.) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Ferens, T. R. | |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Beale, W. P | Goldsmith, Frank | Samuel, J. (Stockton) |
| Beauchamp. Sir Edward | Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) | Shortt, Edward |
| Benn, W. (T. Hamlets, S. George) | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton) |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Grant, J. A. | Spear, Sir John Ward |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Stewart, Gershom |
| Boyton, J. | Gulland, John William | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Carlile, sir Edward Hildred | Hunt, Rowland | Valentia, Viscount |
| Cautley, H. S. | Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Cave, George | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter | White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport) |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) | Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) | Whitley, Rt. Hon. J. H. |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.) | Williamson, Sir Archibald |
| Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. | M'Micking, Major Gilbert | |
| Cripps, Sir C. A. | Molteno, Percy Alport | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Stuart-Wortley and Mr. C. Nicholson. |
| Crooks, William | Needham, Christopher T. | |
| Dalziel, D. (Brixton) | Neville, Reginald J. N. |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Hayward, Evan | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Adamson, William | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Higham, John Sharp | Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | Hinds, John | Pointer, Joseph |
| Chancellor, H. G. | Houston, Robert Paterson | Radford, G. H. |
| Chapple, Dr. W. A. | Hudson, Walter | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Clough, William | Hughes, S. L. | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Illingworth, Percy H. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Cotton, William Francis | Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh) | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.) |
| Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) | John, Edward Thomas | Roche, John (Galway, E.) |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) | Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby) |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook |
| Doris, William | Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney) | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Duffy, William J. | King, J. (Somerset, N.) | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness) | Kyffin-Taylor, G. | Sutton, John E. |
| Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Wadsworth, John |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Esslemont, George Birnle | Macpherson, James Ian | Watt, Henry A. |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Martin, Joseph | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Mond, Sir Alfred M. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Goldstone, Frank | Morrell, Philip | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Hackett, J. | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Yoxali, Sir James Henry |
| Hancock, J. G. | Nolan, Joseph | |
| Hardie, J. Keir | Nuttall, Harry | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Harwood and Mr. Fletcher. |
| Haslam, James (Derbyshire, N.E.) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | |
| Hayden, John Patrick |
§ Mr. BOOTHWill the promoters of the next Bill (St. Mary, Radcliffe, Rectory Bill) give an undertaking to insert a similar reform to that decided upon in the case of this Bill?
§ Mr. STUART-WORTLEYYes, the alteration decided upon in the case of the Prestwich Bill before it came before the House this evening will also be introduced into the Radcliffe Bill.
§ Bill to be read the third time.