§ The Bishoprics Act, 1878 (in this Act referred to as the principal Act), including the repealed portions thereof, shall, subject to the modifications set forth in the First Schedule to this Act, have effect for the purpose of the foundation of new bishoprics of Sheffield, of Chelmsford, and of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich as if the Second Schedule to this Act were substituted for the Schedule to the principal Act and as if the principal Act had become law on the date on which this Act is passed.
§ Mr. KINGI beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
7.0 P.M.
I desire to make a short statement in,order Ito get a pledge from one or two Members, and I will not press the Amendment which I have on the Paper, nor will I press the new Clauses which I have already handed in at, the Table. The cir- 2614 cumstances are sufficiently remarkable to warrant the course which I have taken. This Bill was one of the earliest introduced this Session. No fewer than seven Members gave notice to reject it. Personally, I am not opposed to the creation of more bishoprics, and I do not, therefore, wish to oppose the main object of this Bill. I sympathise very largely with the objects of certain Members not now present, who communicated with me on the subject, that this Bill ought not to be allowed to pass without something being said from their point of view—that bishops are all right when they keep to their proper line, and when they try to do as much good as they can for all without being partisans. Personally, I should like to have moved a Clause that no bishop appointed under an Act should ever sit in the House of Lords, for 1 think that would be a benefit to the bishop, to the lords, and to everybody. I want, however, to appeal very strongly to Members opposite who are interested in this Bill, to give a pledge that in pursuance of an arangement by which these Charity Bills are put through they will permit those which are already introduced, or will be introduced to the number of sixteen altogether, to go through at an early date next Session as unopposed measures. I hope the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil), will see that the request I make is a fair one. But I would remind him that there are hon. Members opposite who are very urgent and insistent champions of what they consider the rights of the Church, and who might perhaps find themselves unable to act with the Noble Lord in any assurance he might give. But I see that there are two Noble Lords opposite. Besides the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University, there is the Noble Lord the Member for the Newton Division (Viscount Wolmer). I am prepared to take their united pledge, which would be binding on the whole of hon. Members on their side, that they will allow the Bills to go through. I hope I shall also get some pledge from the Government that they will use their powers to get the Bill through at an early date next Session. I might point out that those Charity Bills to which I refer are by no means all Nonconformist Bills. There are fourteen Chapel Bills and three Bills relating to the Church, and, if you take the fourteen Chapel Bills against the three Bishoprics Bills, in- 2615 eluding that upon which we are at present engaged, you get one bishop as worth four chapels and two-thirds of a chapel. That is very highly complimentary to both sides; and if one or both of the Noble Lords signify their approval of my proposal, I shall withdraw my Motion to report Progress, and allow the Bill to go through without debate.
§ 7.0 P.M.
§ Lord HUGH CECILThe hon. Membar has made an appeal to me to which I am very glad to respond. The right hon. Gentleman who represents the Charity Commissioners on these matters has shown me a report giving a summary of the Bills, and so far as I am concerned the arrangement suggested seems unobjectionable. So far as my Noble Friend and myself are concerned, if we can facilitate the passage of those Bills next Session we shall certainly do so.
§ Mr. BOOTHI want to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Charity Commissioners to consider a suggestion which I make in regard to these Bills in the future. They are merely taken as public Bills because of the large expense which would be involved, sometimes in cases where they cannot be afforded, if they were introduced as private Bills. The House, therefore, can understand why the Charity Commissioners are obliged to bring them in as public Bills; it is to avoid expense. It does seem to me that some means might be devised to deal with these measures rather than that they should be dealt with in this haphazard way at the end of the Session. I would suggest that some recognised authority might take them in hand at the beginning of the Session and go through with them. I think that would facilitate the necessary legislation. I have no definite proposal in my own mind, but I understand the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Charity Commissioners receives many severe complaints from Nonconformist bodies, who really cannot understand why it is that they cannot get their Bills through. They are always putting pressure upon him, and he has always to get the Bills through in this way towards the end of the Session. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can make some suggestion in regard to the procedure on these Bills.
§ Mr. C. P. ALLENIt is perfectly true we are constantly having to make appeals 2616 in order to get these Bills through at the end of the Session, and it is a serious matter. The suggestion has passed through my mind—I do not know if it is of any value or not—that at the beginning of each Session a Committee of Members should be formed, the Opposition having a majority of Members upon it, in order to facilitate the passage of these Bills. The Second Reading can only be taken after eleven o'clock, and the Bill could then be referred to that Committee. I am quite sure that the Chief Charity Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioners would be only too glad to give any information to that Committee, which would report upon any Bill. The Bill would then come down to the House, and I am quite sure that in 999 cases out of a thousand the Committee of the House would not be kept more than five minutes over any one Bill. To speak candidly, there are cases where I should like to see Bills properly discussed either in Committee upstairs or in some other way I throw out this suggestion, which perhaps will receive consideration.
§ Motion to report Progress, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.