HL Deb 29 February 1872 vol 209 cc1141-3

Clause 16 (Jurisdiction of Archbishops).

The clause provided that the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York shall each within his Province be the Chief Judge in his provincial Court in all appeals from the judgments of the diocesan Courts of his Province, and the chief Judge in his diocesan Court.

THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER moved to leave out the clause.

On Question, That the said clause stand part of the Bill? their Lordships divided:—Contents 48; Not-Contents 10: Majority 38.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 17 to 22 agreed to.

Clause 23 (Salary to the Judge appointed under this Act).

EARL BEAUCHAMP

, looking to the practical working of the clause, said, no one would, he thought, contend that the system of issuing marriage licences was likely to continue, and when it ceased there would be a great deficiency in the amount available for the purposes of the Act. That deficiency would have to be made up out of the funds at the disposal of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, which were already appropriated to the relief of spiritual destitution. He should therefore oppose the clause.

THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE

pointed out that under Clause 19 the Judge was, if a Member of the Privy Council, to act as a Member of the Judicial Committee except on ecclesiastical appeals, and objected to the salary of such a Judge being provided from ecclesiastical sources.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

said, there would be sufficient money to pay the whole expenses of the Act independently of the fees received for marriage licences, for there was received a sum of £31,000 per annum over and above those fees. The noble Earl (Earl Beauchamp) said these fees were likely to disappear, and he had no doubt the clergy would come to the same conclusion when they observed the tone of the present debate. Further, when the clergy read the speech of his right rev. Brother (the Bishop of Winchester) they would hail him as their deliverer from the very moderate scale of fees fixed by the Lord Chancellor and the Archbishops of Canterbury and York; but the result of this would be that the fees would fall into the hands of a large number of irresponsible attorneys, and would be considerably increased.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

pointed out that visitations and consecrations were not necessarily events requiring the attendance of attorneys, and expressed a hope that the time would speedily come when these services would be rendered gratuitously by the Bishops.

THE BISHOP OF LONDON

said, the fees referred to by the noble Marquess did not go to enrich the Bishops, and they were not, in his opinion, too large for the services rendered.

LORD DYNEVOR

did not see why marriage licences should be abolished, but thought it clear that the amount received as fees would speedily suffer a heavy reduction.

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

wished it to be understood that the sum paid to the Judges as salary would not be diverted from charitable objects, as £9,000 a-year were now paid to the Chancellors for doing little or nothing. He moved to amend the clause by omitting from it the words which assigned the amount of salary.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Moved, to leave out Clause 23, as amended.—(The Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?" their Lordships divided:—Contents 21; Not-Contents 9: Majority 12.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.