HC Deb 03 February 1931 vol 247 cc1775-82
Mr. MIDDLETON (First Church Estates Commissioner)

I beg to move, That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Benefices (Exercise of Rights of Presentation) Measure, 1930, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent. This Motion refers to a Measure which has been promoted by the Church Assembly, and which comes to this House under the Enabling Act. The Measure deals with an almost purely domestic reform in the Church of England, although it is a matter which interests the parishioners of many parishes. The object is the desirable one of extending the powers of the parishioners to have a voice in the selection of an incumbent, and, for the first time, it lays down powers which can be invoked in order to prevent what the parishioners might regard as an improper or undesirable appointment. When a vacancy is created in any parish it will be the duty of the patron to advise the parochial church council of the proposed name that is to be submitted for the appointment, and, if the parochial church council object, they can invoke the powers of this Measure and then the Bishop will have to consult the body of advisers whom it is proposed to elect in the diocese under this Measure. If the Bishop objects, the appointment cannot be made, and everybody who has read the Measure will agree that it lays down a condition of affairs that has long been desired, not only by church people, but by the parishioners generally. It proposes to operate through the churchwardens, and I would remind the House that it is not necessary that Church- wardens should be members of the Church of England, so that in some cases we may have churchwardens acting, not as churchmen, but as parishioners looking after the interests of the parishioners. I hope that hon. Members have acquainted themselves with the proposals of the Measure, and if they have, I am sure they will give it a unanimous passage.

Sir JOHN BIRCHALL

I beg to second the Motion.

Everyone must realise that at the present moment under the old law, a parish has no protection against the action of an inconsiderate or autocratic patron. He is not compelled in any way to consult the parish, and the parish has no powers against a patron. Under the present Measure, a parish is not given the power to elect its own parson, as they do in Scotland, nor is it given a power of vetoing an appointment, but it is given the very mild and moderate power of the right to be consulted by the patron. In the event of the consultation proving unsatisfactory to the parish, the matter goes before the bishop. If he agrees with the objection of the parish, the patron can appeal to the Archbishop. If he also is in agreement with the bishop and the parish, the patron's nominee cannot be appointed. It is a very mild Measure, and one which after nearly 10 years of discussion in the Church Assembly has received almost unanimous consent.

The grievance of the parish to-day has been very much emphasised by a practice which has recently grown up of the purchase of livings by party trusts. Those hon. Members who have read today's "Times" will have noticed the leading article on the subject. Nothing could be more condemnatory than the wording of that article, but if this Measure receives assent, a great deal of the difficulties that have arisen under the practice of the purchase of livings and the over-riding of the will of the parishioners will be met, because in future no party trust which has purchased a living with a view to imposing on the parish a nominee of its own particular colour, will he able to do so if the parish can put up a proper objection. Some Members believe that the clergy are suffering injury under this Measure. I venture to think that the injury is really imaginary, and I will only quote in that connection words used in the Convocation of Clergy upon this very Measure two or three months ago. Those words were: Every provision to which exception is taken in the House was removed from the Measure before it received final assent. The clergy in their own elected House have no objection to this Measure and I hope that this House will agree to its passage.

Mr. KEDWARD

I rise only to draw attention to the fact that this Measure contains no Clause to put an end to an anomaly which has existed for years, and that is that in parishes heavily burdened with tithe-rent charge the people who pay that tithe have no voice whatever in the appointment of the clergy to the living. I received a letter yesterday from a Nonconformist who has let a farm at £100 per year—all he can get for it—and is asked to pay a sum of £85 10s. 7d. as tithe, and yet has no voice whatever in the selection of the clerk in holy orders in that parish. [interruption.] I know some people may be impatient, but when agriculture is paying between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000 in tithes it seems to me it has some rights in the matter. The same people will pay Queen Anne's Bounty, a capital sum of £75,000,000, out of an industry that is burdened and overburdened and cannot pay its way, and yet they have no voice in the appointment of clerks in holy orders. I have no wish to oppose this reform, but I want to call attention to the fact that there is a class of people who are suffering from heavy burdens and who have appealed to this House and to the Church, in vain, for some redress in this matter. They are a long-suffering people, but the question is coming now to an issue, and the time is far overdue when a burden of millions a year which cannot be provided out of the land should be removed or a voice should be given to them in the appointment of these clergy.

Mr. BEAUMONT

Although I do not propose to divide against this Measure to-night I do protest against the time at which such Measures are brought before the House. This is a very important Measure, and it has been eulogised by the Proposer and the Seconder, but I cannot share in that eulogy, because I do not desire this reform. I am one of those who hold that the more people who take part in the choice of anybody the worse that choice is likely to be. [Interruption.] It is hon. Members opposite who are pointing the moral, and not me, because some of their electorate are bigger than mine. This Measure revolutionises one of the practices of the Church, which is, rightly or wrongly, a State institution. And another criticism has been advanced by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Kedward), and yet we have to debate it after 11 o'clock at night, when it is obviously undesirable to have the long discussion which, I contend—and many think with me—a Measure of this sort really requires. If Parliamentary control of such Measures is to be anything more than an utter farce, some other system will have to be adopted. There is a great deal to be said for not having Parliamentary control; but if we have it at least it should be effective, and control is not effective which brings an important Measure of this sort before the House at this hour. We ought to have better opportunities of debate.

Lord HUGH CECIL

The speech to which we have just listened expresses a feeling which is strong in many people's mind. It is not the fault of the Church Assembly, who have nothing whatever to do with it, or of those who support a particular church measure, that these discussions take place after eleven o'clock. It is due to the immense pressure of Parliamentary time, and if anybody is to alter it, it is the Prime Minister who has control over Parliamentary time. I suppose he would reasonably say that he had other things which had more claim upon his attention and the attention of the House, and thus necessarily they are left until after eleven o'clock. I am very sorry that they are so left. I believe that the case for this Measure is overwhelmingly strong, and if we could discuss it at four o'clock its passage would be much easier than at eleven o'clock.

But it must be remembered that since the House of Commons has not time to do all these comparatively unimportant pieces of business at the proper time, the proper solution is to delegate them to some other body, and that has been done. The Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament, which is the body chosen by the two Houses—by you, Mr. Speaker, in respect of this House, and by the Lord Chancellor in respect of the other House of Parliament—scrutinises with great care the details of all these Measure before they come here. If hon. Members will go to the Vote Office, and ask for the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee, they will find that the Measure has been carefully summarised for the benefit of those who are unable to follow the text of the Measure. That report ends by saying: The Measure does not prejudicially affect any rights, constitutional or other, of any of His Majesty's subjects, except the unfettered right of the patron to present to the vacant benefice, and this only in a negative sense, and with the concurrence of the Bishop, and, in case of an appeal, to the Archbishop. That is the final verdict of the Ecclesiastical Committee after careful and prolonged discussion and scrutiny of the Measure. That is the only possible answer that can be given to the criticisms to which we have just listened. The House has not time to scrutinise these relatively unimportant Measures at an earlier and more convenient time, and that being so it is better to trust to the committee, which has time and does very carefully look into these matters. As to the question of tithe, I cannot pretend that the Measure meets fully the criticism which has been made from that point of view, and which does in some degree help to meet that criticism, because the churchwardens are elected by the whole body of ratepayers, and it is the churchwardens, representing the parochial church council, who have to give their assent before the patron can under this Bill appoint to a benefice. If the churchwardens do not agree, the matter is referred to the bishop, so that there is a real measure of control indirectly through the churchwardens now given to the ratepayers and parishioners, so that if the hon. Member below the Gangway has not got all he wants, at any rate this makes it a little better.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN

My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Kedward), no doubt, hopes that his churchwardens will prove more amenable than the Ecclesiastical Committee. I agree with the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Beaumont) that something ought to be done in the interests both of Church and Parliament to get these Measures discussed at a time when their importance can be really understood. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) has not fully met the criticism. The point at issue that this is a reform and those who are not members of the Church welcome it, but some of us think that it might have gone further and that, if such a Measure had been taken in the broad light of day, when its principles could have been fully debated, that course might have helped to get a wider measure of reform. It may be that a later Measure may be hotly contested, and it may be found that this procedure will not be adequate. Unfortunately, we can only say "Yes" or "No" to these Measures. We have no power to amend them. I plead with the Government to give effect to the wish, expressed in all quarters of the House, that these Measures should not be forced through at this hour.

Mr. BUCHANAN

I agree with the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Kedward), and I could have desired that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Middleton) had been able, in the case of his first Measure since his new appointment, to bring it forward earlier in the evening, as it is a Measure which gives some degree of justice to people who are now suffering injustice. In Scotland we had a disruption on this matter. It rent the Church in twain and aroused great feeling throughout Scotland. We have to a large extent got over the problem, and I should have thought that the Committee might have applied themselves to the task of disestablishing the Church entirely. [Interruption.] I do not agree with the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) as to taking such a Measure at another time. We are pressing for time for great social measures and cannot get it. I object to these Measures being taken at all. There is only one solution, and that is to disestablish the Church and put it on a proper and decent foundation.

Mr. MANDER

I join with those who have said how undesirable it is that these Debates should take place at this hour. I put a question to the Prime Minister a few days ago, asking him whether he would not find it possible to take this Debate at 7.30, when probably it would only take half-an-hour or an hour, as an experiment. There are some hon. Members who are inclined to say that the House has nothing to do with these matters, since the Church Assembly decides them, but so long as the Church remains established by law Parliament is master of the Church, and it is only right that these Measures should be seriously considered. The Noble Lord referred to the Ecclesiastical Committee, but he did not point out that in discussing this Measure they were not unanimous and that one distinguished member, Lord Atkin, is very strenuously opposed to the Measure. There has been considerable correspondence in the "Times" and many people are not satisfied from various points of view and no doubt in another place there will be strenuous opposition. There are some who object because they think it increases the power of the Bishops too much, but I do not take that view. I think the Measure is a good one and a distinct step forward. The Bishop only comes in when the parochial church council has objected, and it does not really increase his powers. It seems to me to be an essentially democratic Measure, giving for the first time to the people in the parish the right to object to a really improper nomination, which they cannot do now, and the arguments are entirely in its favour. I think, however, that the House ought not to allow it to be dealt with sub silentio, but that it ought to be taken, if possible, at a much earlier hour. However, on this occasion I support the Motion before the House.

Commander SOUTHBY

In contradistinction to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Beaumont), I wish to support the Motion, but at the same time I should like to carry the arguments which have been brought forward by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) and the hon. Member for Aylesbury a step further. We have not heard a word from whoever is responsible on the Government bench at all, and I should like to ask whether it would not be possible to have some statement from the Government Bench as to whether, when the next Measure of this kind comes before the House it could be debated at a time which is more reasonable to the House. The very impatience of hon. Members when the Motion was brought forward is proof that it is not a proper time to debate a Motion of such great importance and I would ask whether, on the next occasion when a Motion of this kind comes forward, it would not be possible, perhaps as an experiment, for it to be taken at a time when adequate discussion and the expression of various views can be given.

Resolved, That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Benefices (Exercise of Rights of Presentation) Measure, 1930, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Eighteen Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.