HL Deb 21 July 1870 vol 203 cc614-22

Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that it was to all intents and purposes the measure which he introduced last Session, and which was referred, together with a counter Bill proposed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, to a Select Committee. The most rev. Prelate was appointed Chairman; and after some time the Committee reported the Bill to the House; but the lateness of the Session and the press of business prevented his then proceeding with it. Only two or three alterations of any importance were made in the Bill upstairs. In the 32nd clause he had proposed that the Bishop, of his own motion, or, in default of the Bishop, three resident parishioners, members of the Church, might promote the Judge's office—that was to say, institute a suit in the case of any offence against ecclesiastical law. The provisions applied to all offences, whether they related to matters of ceremonial or of doctrine. That clause in the Bill had, however, been amended by the Committee, who limited it, by providing that in cases of doctrine the Bishop alone should have the power of taking the initiative in the institution of a suit, the power of appeal to the Archbishop being given in the event of his refusal. The clauses from 60 to 66 were also struck out by the Committee. They related to the appointment of juries for the purpose of trying issues of fact—in his opinion a very excellent provision, and one which he believed many of the Bishops would be glad to see restored. The 77th clause, in accordance with his proposal, provided that the orders and rules for the conduct of the Courts should be drawn up by a Committee of the Privy Council, including two Archbishops; but it had been altered by the Committee, and now the Archbishops of Canterbury and York were empowered to prepare rules and orders for the regulating the mode of procedure, their officers, records, visitation fees, salaries and other matters. These rules and regulations were to be submitted to the approbation of the Queen in Council. Those were the chief alterations which the Committee upstairs had introduced into the Bill; but it was not his intention, at the present period of the Session, to ask their Lordships to go into Committee on the measure as it now stood. The Bill had been a very considerable time before the House, and he had moved on the 27th of March for certain Returns which he thought would throw light on the whole subject. Of those Returns, some were not presented till a very late period, some had not been presented at all, while others, he believed, had not even begun to be prepared. In consequence of those repeated delays he had been obliged to postpone the question from time to time, and he would now only ask the House to affirm the principle, "Aye" or "No," that in its opinion the state of the Ecclesiastical Courts was such that it required to be remedied. It was in that sense that he now rose to propose the second reading of the Bill. He last year ventured to point out that there were great abuses in those Courts—heavy expenditure, long delays, and a consequent denial of justice. He mentioned that there was a great insufficiency of Judges in legal character and acquirements. That state of things he proposed to remedy by the Bill which he had introduced; but in carrying out that object he had not been by any means so successful as he could wish. He was met at the outset by the objection that the propositions which he made were wholly inadequate in a financial point of view; but, if that were so, so was the whole financial system on which the Ecclesiastical Courts were based at present. He stated that, for the purpose of carrying out his plan, a sum under £30,000 a year would be all that would be required. He had applied to the Registrar General of Births and Marriages, and he found, as he had before mentioned, that on the average of the last 10 years a sum of above £40,000 a year was paid into the hands of the registrars in fees for marriage licences. Other ecclesiastical fees—for ordinations, curates' licences, institutions to livings, and other things, amounted to £20,000 in round numbers, and £60,000 a year, at the very least, therefore, was the money which was paid by the public into the hands of the registrars, for which sum no account whatever was rendered to the public directly or indirectly. These were the figures which resulted from some of the Returns that had been made; but he believed it would be found that the sum actually paid into the hands of the registrars considerably exceeded £60,000. When Lord Cranworth was Lord Chancellor he introduced a scheme for the reformation of the Ecclesiastical Courts which was much more costly than that he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) proposed, and yet he had declared that the sums which were received by the registrars were ample for his purpose, and would even give a large margin. Let their Lordships for a moment consider what a waste of strength and time and money there was in those Courts. On referring the other day to the 58th volume of Judicial Statistics he found that in the year 1868, 15 Judges of the Superior Courts of Common Law had given judgment in 30,451 causes, excluding criminal cases; whereas in the Ecclesiastical Courts, in the same year, 27 Judges had given judgment in only 182 causes, 169 of which were of a most trivial kind. The reform of those Courts had baffled everybody from the time of Lord Bacon to the present day. Lord Cranworth, in introducing his Bill in 1856, used very strong language. He declared that 19 in 20 of the Ecclesiastical Judges were incompetent to perform their duties. He added— A Commission appointed in 1830, reported in 1832, and pointed out, as being in an extremely unsatisfactory state, the jurisdiction of the Courts in a great number of matters, and, amongst others, what they called the purely ecclesiastical jurisdiction. They referred to the exercise of jurisdiction in ecclesiastical matters, as distinguished from temporal matters, as very unsatisfactory."—[3 Hansard, cxli. 1254.] And he denounced the procedure in those Courts as cumbrous, dilatory, and expensive. The Bill of Lord Cranworth went further than his (the Earl of Shaftesbury's), because it would have deprived the Bishops of some part of their patronage, while his did nothing of the kind. Lord Cranworth's Bill was thrown out by a majority of 8 in their Lordships' House, and in the majority there were 16 Bishops, all of whom were English; while the Irish Bishops went the other way, stating that they "felt they ought not to allow a regard for their personal or family interests to stand in the way of a reform demanded by the voice of the country." In 1862, Mr. Seymour, M.P. for Poole, writing to The Times, said— I recently urged the Government to prepare measures for the next Session of Parliament to remedy the acknowledged abuses I have endeavoured to point out. I have received no written answer, but a verbal intimation that the English Bishops are the obstacle in the way of Church reform; and that, until the majority of them agree upon some practicable measure, the Government will not again run the risk of being defeated by them. He might, perhaps, be asked why he had taken up the matter? He was not insensible of the great responsibility of the task; but all he could say was, that he had taken it up in the belief that he might be able to effect some good, and to wipe away from the face of the Church a stain which led to the imputation being cast upon her that she was a Church which admitted of no reform, and that she was without order and discipline. He was now satisfied that the present Bill could not be passed; but a very sweeping change must be effected by any measure that was hereafter proposed. For his own part, he was utterly indifferent to the fate of the Bill, though he was by no means indifferent to the principle that a sweeping reform was necessary to remove the great evils to which he had adverted, and to effect this he had made a sacrifice of his own convictions, and almost of his own principles. A noble Friend of his had used the expression "that the Church never stood so well in the affections of the people." He (the Earl of Shaftesbury) felt that he could not concur in that observation. He was quite sure, and every day was strengthened in the conviction, that the Church must put her house in order, for their Lordships might depend upon it that she had not an hour to lose, or an affection to throw away.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)

THE BISHOP OF LONDON

said, he rose to remove a singular misapprehension on the part of the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), who appeared to think that the opposition of the Bishops was the great difficulty in the way of the reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts. On the contrary, he was prepared to thank the noble Earl for his persevering endeavours to cure the evils as to the existence of which all were agreed, and a large portion of the noble Earl's present Bill had been assented to by the Bench of Bishops. It was perfectly true that Lord Cranworth's Bill was objected to by the English Bishops and approved by the Irish Bishops, because it provided a final Court of Appeal, which English Churchmen thought very undesirable, but which Irish Churchmen were willing to accept, because they possessed no Court of Appeal at all. He was sure there was not a member of the Bench of Bishops who would not say that at the present time ecclesiastical discipline and the Ecclesiastical Courts required reform, although they might not, perhaps, be prepared to use such strong language on the subject as the noble Earl. Some of the present defects in Church discipline arose from the provisions of the Church Discipline Act. In the first place, the preliminary inquiry was unsatisfactory, often resulting in a recommendation to the Bishop which carried with it a condemnation which was not deserved. He might here remark, however, that 10 of the Judges in the Consistory Courts were eminent civilians, that five of the offices in those Courts were held by the Queen's Advocate, others by barristers, and only nine by ecclesiastics. No doubt the Ecclesiastical Courts were hampered by many legal difficulties and placed at a great disadvantage, for the reason that, as ecclesiastical cases had during the last 200 years been limited in number, there were very few precedents to guide their decisions; consequently the proceedings were protracted and uncertain, resulting usually in an appeal. He admitted that such a state of things required amendment. Another great defect in the existing system was that it made no provision whatever for the payment of costs. It had twice been his painful duty to prosecute clergymen. In the first instance the witnesses were not believed; and as, of course, the accused person could not be condemned to pay the costs, they had to be defrayed by the Bishop. In the other case the clergyman was condemned and appealed, and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council dismissed his appeal without hearing the Bishop's counsel; but, as the clergyman was a bankrupt, there were no effects out of which to pay the costs. Therefore, whether he won or lost, the same penalty was imposed on the Bishop. All these defects were to a considerable extent removed by the present Bill, which made the proceedings more summary and less technical, and professed to pro- vide funds for paying the salaries of officers and the costs. The noble Earl had stated that he should only require about £30,000 a year to carry out the Bill; but he (the Bishop of London) was inclined to doubt whether this would be sufficient. In the first place, it was proposed to give compensation to all existing officers, who, he presumed, would receive sums almost equal to their present salaries. Then it was intended to appoint Judges with large salaries; whereas the salaries of the present Judges were small. There was also to be a fund raised for defraying costs, and the surplus was to be used for Church purposes. These expenses would swallow up not only all the moneys on which the noble Earl relied, but a very large sum besides. The noble Earl provided, however, that if more money was required, in the first instance application might be made to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Now, it was obvious that the granting of a large sum by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would completely derange all their calculations for some years to come in regard to carrying out the work for which they were appointed by Parliament—namely, the augmentation of small benefices. There were several other points in the Bill which he would not refer to now, but which would require very careful consideration in Committee. One or two were provisions which had been altered for the worse by the Select Committee. One of these related to the mode in which the Bishops were to be put in action. It was provided that three inhabitant householders of a diocese might compel the Bishop to institute proceedings in all cases except those relating to doctrine. In cases of ritual, therefore, he would be obliged to proceed on the requisition of three inhabitants. Cases of doctrine were excepted, he supposed, because there was great uncertainty about them. He regretted that the Select Committee had struck out the clause respecting a jury, which the Bishops had agreed should be composed partly of clergy and partly of laymen. The presence of laymen would not only do away with any ground of suspicion, but would prevent a tendency to severity among the clergy when dealing with one who had disgraced their order.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) seemed to think that the English people took a very anxious interest in this matter; but he (the Marquess of Salisbury) did not think this was really the case. The proof of this was to be found in experience. During the last two years the excitement which had prevailed on the question of ritual excesses had very much diminished. Probably the policy of "masterly inaction" might prove the best; but if the edge of the law were sharpened against them, the new party in the Church would be favoured with a sort of martyrdom, which would excite them to fresh extravagances. He would not, however, dream of opposing the second reading of the Bill, for he held that the amount of expense to which the Bishop was now put in cases of prosecution was a disgrace to the English law. He must, however, join with the rev. Prelate in urging a reconsideration of the provision which enabled three inhabitants of a diocese to set the Bill in motion, to stop something that they might consider a practice contrary to the orders of the English Church. Innovations in the manner of conducting service in a parish church, no doubt, formed a grievance for which there should be a remedy; but no one was aggrieved if a congregation chose to set up a Church to their own liking, however extravagant their ritual, except that the clergyman would be amenable to his Bishop if he departed from the ordinary ritual. To give such extraordinary power to any three members of the Church of England in a diocese would tend to produce religious scandal.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said, that ample opportunity should be given for discussion upon a question so important as that before their Lordships. If this Bill were passed it would cause an enormous demand on the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commission. He deprecated appropriating the fees arising from the sale of marriage licences to pay for the costs, even if they were sufficient for the purpose, which he doubted; and he did not believe Parliament would consent to appropriate funds placed in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the relief of spiritual destitution to put this Bill in working order. He also wished to point out that, although the Bill provided ample means for checking impropriety on the part of the inferior clergy, no provision was made for enforcing the law against Bishops.

THE EARL OF HARROWBY

protested against the assumption of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) that the country was growing indifferent on the subject of Ritualism; and he also objected to his speaking of Ritualists as "a now party" in the Church. Twenty years ago he would not have been understood; they were a growth of late years, avowedly imitating the practices of another Church, and he could not admit the description "a new party in the Church." He hoped that some measure of this kind would pass.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

said, the Bill, in accordance with its professed object, would materially shorten the proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts, and would confer great benefit not merely upon the Bishops, but upon the members of the Church generally. When the time arrived to consider the details of the measure, the machinery it proposed would require to be somewhat narrowly examined—especially in regard to the financial part, which he believed to be quite unsound. While he admitted that the noble Earl had rendered excellent service in applying a practical remedy for the evil complained of, he must decline to accept all the financial arrangements suggested by his noble Friend.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

observed, that it was only due to the noble Earl to state that Her Majesty's Government were anxious that some measure should pass founded on the same principle as that of the noble Earl's, and that therefore they would support the second reading of this Bill; but, at the same time, they wished to guard themselves against being supposed to accept every part of it as it now stood. For instance, 27 Judges would be an inordinate number, and he trusted that the right rev. Bench would be able to propose some plan to render such a superfluity of strength unnecessary. He also thought that the financial part of the measure required material amendment.

LORD ROMILLY

said, he should support the Bill; but he intended to propose certain Amendments in Committee upon the Bill.

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

said, he had omitted to state that the Archbishop of Canterbury had authorized him to declare that the measure met with his approval. As to criminous Bishops, he had omitted them from the Bill in his anxiety to consult the feelings of the right rev. Bench.

Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly.