HL Deb 08 June 1874 vol 219 cc1120-51

(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)

Committee (on re-commitment).

House again in Committee (on re-commitment) (according to Order).

Clause 8 (Representation by archdeacon, rural dean, churchwarden, or parishioners).

An Amendment moved, to leave out from ("If,") line 8, to ("shall,") line 12, and insert ("a churchwarden of a church.")—(The Marquess of Bath.)

On Question? Resolved in the Negative.

LORD DYNEVOR

moved to insert after "deanery" the words "or the patron." He proposed to include the patron among those who should be entitled to make representations to the Bishop, because he was of opinion that in regard to the special subjects of complaint enumerated in the clause, better relations between the patron, the incumbent, and the parishioners would be maintained if the patron had a voice in the matter. On the one hand, as the friend of the incumbent the patron could then with more effect advise and remonstrate with him; and, on the other hand, the parishioners would look to him as their friend and protector, and for aid to restrain extravagance in the incumbent. There were many cases in which the parishioners were desirous of complaining but unwilling to do so, and thus the Church suffered. This was no fancied grievance. He had himself seen instances of utter lawlessness and of extreme Romanizing tendencies. He himself witnessed at Easter, ceremonies, dresses, bowings, semi-prostrations, and movings to and fro, a picture of the Virgin Mary with flowers and candles on a shelf below it, incense, a grand procession, headed by a crucifix and three clergymen in gorgeous robes—one of them with a large cross down his back—concluding by a scenic effect, produced by their kneeling before the altar in single file. There were also deacons bearing the Epistle and Gospel to different clergymen, perpetual crossings, and kissing of books. Then in the administration of Holy Communion there were interpolations of hymns and music, and out of a congregation of 500 at least only five or six communicated. Besides this, he and a friend who went with him were shut out from communicating by a notice on the pillar, which repeated an obsolete rubric to the effect that no person must come up to the Holy Table unless he had sent notice the previous day to the incumbent. The object of this was to make the service as much like High Mass as possible. It was impossible to conceive any service more at variance with the letter and spirit of the Book of Common Prayer. It was, in fact, a shocking parody on the Romish High Mass. The tone and dress of the preacher, his manner, gestures, and looks, were most defiant. He stigmatized recent decisions of the Ecclesiastical Courts as "most iniquitous interpretations of the law." He asked "if the Legislature were so foolish as to think they could possibly be influenced by Acts of Parliament." He (Lord Dynevor) knew that patrons who had appointed clergymen thinking they were moderate men, and had been deceived, would be glad to join in some remedial movement such as that intended by this Bill.

An Amendment moved, Clause 8, page 3, line 9, and in line 28 after ("deanery") insert (" or the patron.")—(The Lord Dynevor.)

THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

said, no interest attached to the patron in the matter unless he was a parishioner, and if the patron was a parishioner, he could be one of the three parishioners to whom the Bill gave the power of making such representations. If he was not, it would not be desirable to give him that power.

Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF LIMERICK

proposed that the number of parishioners who would have a right to make a representation to the Bishop should be 10 instead of three as proposed.

An Amendment moved, page 3, line 9, omit ("three") and insert ("ten.")

THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

said, the number three had been adopted after due consideration. The number proposed by the Amendment would be impracticable in small parishes. The number proposed by the Bill was approved by Convocation.

THE MARQUESS OF BATH

said, that as the Bill stood it gave too much power to the Bishops, because the Archdeacon and the rural dean, who were officers of the Bishop, would each have a right to bring a complaint. He had given Notice of an Amendment the object of which was to omit from the clause the Archdeacon and rural dean, which would restrict the power of complaint to the churchwarden only. Their Lordships had heard from the promoters of the Bill that the law as it now existed could not be enforced. But very often the question was not one of law at all. Practices which were, perhaps, within the four corners of the law very often gave much annoyance to the parishioners, and in some respects he would give the real parishioners more power than this Bill would confer upon them. It should also be remembered that as the Archdeacon and rural dean were officers of the Bishop any proceeding instituted by them would have the appearance of official prosecutions. He would support the Amendment of his noble Friend, though he should prefer his own.

EARL NELSON

also supported the Amendment. He must remind the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of York) that when the Lower Houses of the two Convocations referred to three as the number who should have the power to make a representation, they accompanied it with the qualification that the three parishioners should be "communicants." That was a very different proposition from "any three parishioners" not being communicants.

THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH

observed that the noble Earl who spoke last (Earl Nelson) was for giving the power of making a representation to no parishioners who were not communicants; but the noble Marquess who preceded him would give that power exclusively to churchwardens, who need not be communicants nor even Christians. Before the noble Earl and the noble Marquess voted for the Amendment, they ought to reconcile this apparently irreconcilable difference between themselves.

THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOL

proposed some verbal Amendments, the object of which was to protect the incumbent against punishment for the acts of his predecessor in alteration in the fabric or ornaments of the church. As the clause stood, the incumbent might be liable for what he had not done. It must be borne in mind that the incumbent had no right to alter the fabric of the church.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

said, that if the predecessor had done anything wrongfully there would be no punishment—the result would be an order for removal.

EARL NELSON

pointed out that the incumbent might be judged for a matter for which he was not responsible and which was under the jurisdiction of the churchwardens.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

said, in that case the only order would be for a removal of what was objectionable.

THE EARL OF LIMERICK

said, that cathedrals should be brought under the operation of the Bill, and, unless some words were inserted to provide against an alteration in the relations between Bishops and the cathedrals, this Bill would give the right rev. Prelate a greater power as respects those fabrics than they had hitherto possessed.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

said, that it was not intended by a side-wind to make any alteration in the law with regard to cathedrals; and if the clause should be held to include them he would bring up, on the Report, words to prevent the result which the noble Earl apprehended.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

remarked that the single question was as to whether the incumbent was to be held responsible. It was not for their Lordships' House to raise a doubt as to his responsibility.

THE MARQUESS OF BATH

thought that in the case of proprietary and other churches much hardship would result from holding incumbents responsible for what had been done without a faculty, but with the consent and approval of the Bishop. The late Bishop of Salisbury, for instance, sanctioned alterations which, if he had been succeeded by a Bishop of extreme views on the other side, might have caused great trouble to the incumbent. That successor, in case there had been no faculty, might order the removal of those alterations.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

said, that in such a case as that put by the noble Marquess every Bishop had the power under the existing law to order the removal.

THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

said, the most rev. Primate had told their Lordships that what the Episcopal Bench sought was not the power to punish. He wished that appeared a little plainer on the face of the Bill. He thought it desirable that the Bill should plainly appear to be one, not for prosecution, but rather for reference, in whatever way might be thought fit, where there was difference of opinion. The general rule was that these alterations were not made without the consent of the incumbent; but they might be made by the churchwardens without the consent of the incumbent. It seemed rather hard, if the alterations had been made by the churchwardens without the consent of the incumbent, that the Bishop's monition should be addressed to the incumbent, and he should propose that the Bishop should have power to issue his monition to the churchwardens also.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

said, it was the duty of the incumbent at present to see that alterations were not made without a faculty.

THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH

thought the clause would give the Bishop an arbitrary power to move in these matters.

After further conversation,

Amendments negatived.

THE MARQUESS OF BATH

proposed, in page 3, line 14, after "made" to insert "since the passing of this Act." His object was to prevent interference with what had been already done and which had been approved.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

observed that he had a case before his Court at present for an illegal erection of "the stations of the Cross" in one of his churches; the Amendment of the noble Marquess would legalize that erection.

THE MARQUESS OF BATH

said, the Amendment had nothing whatever to do with anything illegal, but merely with what was done without a faculty.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBUEY

said, in the case to which he referred the erection was alleged to be put up without a faculty.

Amendment negatived.

EARL NELSON

suggested to amend the first sub-section so as to provide that any alteration in fabric, ornaments, or furniture made without a faculty should have been made "by the incumbent"—because it would not be fair to an incumbent just appointed to hold him responsible for what he had not assented to and had been done by his predecessor.

THE LORD CHANOELLOR

said, the clause only provided for information of a fact being given to the Bishop, and left it an open question to whom the monition should be addressed.

Amendment negatived.

THE MARQUESS OF BATH

proposed to substitute "caused" for "permitted" in the next sub-section, as to the use of unlawful ornaments by the minister.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

said, the sub-section proceeded on the assumption that the incumbent was responsible in either case.

THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH

said, if the incumbent had not "caused" he could not be accused of having "permitted."

Amendment negatived.

THE LORD CHANOELLOR

suggested the introduction of the words "within the preceding twelve months," as the period within which the alteration complained of should have been made in order to make the incumbent liable.

Amendment made.

THE EARL OF LIMERICK

moved to omit sub-section (2) and insert instead— That the incumbent has failed to observe or cause to be observed within such church or burial ground the directions contained in the Book of Common Prayer relating to the ornaments of the minister of the Church; or His object was that defect in the use of the lawful ornaments should come under the Bill as well as excess. The Purchas Judgment had been declared doubtful, and therefore there was some uncertainty as to what ornaments were legal, but however that might be the Bill should be impartial in its action.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

said, the Amendment was by no means clear, and would be a source of controversy. The sub-section spoke of "unlawful ornaments."

EARL NELSON

said, it was necessary to prevent a clergyman appearing in his great coat, which would be as great an offence against the common sense of the parishioners as putting on no ornaments at all.

THE LORD CHANOELLOR

said, to his mind, it was as clear as possible that the third sub-section did the very thing the noble Earl desired. It defined errors of omission if the incumbent failed to observe the requirements of the Book of Common Prayer.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

proposed to insert the words "or cause to be observed"—his object being to insure obedience, not only on the part of the incumbent, but of any person officiating for him.

Amendment made.

THE MARQUESS OF BATH

moved to insert in page 3, line 22, after "prayer," "so far as such directions have not been modified by lawful authority."

Amendment agreed to.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

moved in page 3, line 27, after "ceremonies," to insert— Or that the incumbent has used such practice of the confessional as is not contemplated in the Book of Common Prayer. He regretted that the most rev. Primate was not disposed to accept the Amendment, and particularly so because unless some mention were made of the confessional it might be implied that their Lordships did not condemn the practice. He should be obliged to state what were the very gross abuses which existed under the name of the confessional. ["Order, order!"] He maintained that he was quite in Order; he was speaking on the Amendment.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

rose to Order. This was a Bill for the regulation of public worship, and he did not know that the noble Lord could show that the practice of confession was a part of public worship.

THE LORD CHANOELLOR

remarked that the Amendment seemed to imply that there was a practice of confession contemplated by the Book of Common Prayer.

THE MARQUESS OF BATH

said, it was rather late for the most rev. Primate to discover that this Bill had nothing to do with the confessional, for he had a most distinct recollection of the solemn phrases which the most rev. Primate employed when speaking on this very point. At the same time, he thought his noble Friend would do well not to proceed with the Amendment.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

said, if he was out of Order he must submit; but when it was considered that the Amendments already brought forward and to be afterwards submitted would change the whole tenor of the Bill, he thought he was justified in the course he proposed. If merely to please a certain party in the Church, they were to omit certain matters to which he and the Marquess of Salisbury, who was not now present had called attention, it would be seen out-of-doors that their Lordships were avoiding things in which the public took the greatest interest, and which most occupied the public mind at the present time. He felt that he was as much in Order as other noble Lords who had proposed Amendments which had changed the whole nature of the Bill. This Bill had been brought in to suppress lawlessness, and the abuse against which his Amendment was directed was one of the most lawless practices in the Church. ["Order!"] If he were obliged to submit, he must submit; but it would be with the strongest protest in his power, that their Lordships were suppressing in his person the right of free discussion and the public opinion which he expressed.

THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH

said, if public opinion expressed itself through the noble Lord, then public opinion ought to speak grammar. The practice of confession he could understand, but "the practice of the confessional" was to him utterly unintelligible. He would respectfully submit that the question before their Lordships was the regulation of public worship, and confession was no part of public worship. The erection of confessionals in churches might, indeed, come under the Bill. It was idle to talk of suppressing the abuses of confession in this off-hand way; it would take another year to legislate on the subject. If the noble Lord desired to suppress abuses of this kind, let him introduce a Bill to suppress them.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

said, if there was no greater objection to his Amendment than a fault in grammar, that was a very little thing. But the reason of the objection of the right rev. Prelate was, that his opinion had considerably varied on the subject. He contended he was in Order, and that his Amendment was strictly within the lines of the Bill.

EARL STANHOPE

rose to Order. He did not think a discussion on the subject of confession was relevant, even in the smallest degree, to the clause. He hoped their Lordships would maintain the Rules of Order, without which no debate was possible.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

said, he wished to argue the point of Order, and he would proceed until the House ruled him wrong. He submitted the Bill would fairly comprehend the Amendment he wished to propose.

EARL STANHOPE

rose again to Order. When two Peers desired to speak, and a question arose as to which of them should address the House, it was usual to make a Motion that one Peer or the other be heard. It would therefore not be departing from precedent if he were now to move that the noble Lord be not heard.

EARL GRANVILLE

hoped the noble Lord would yield to the universal opinion that he had introduced an irrelevant Amendment, and had founded upon it an irrelevant argument.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

concurred in what had fallen from his noble Friend opposite. No doubt, the general opinion was that the noble Lord was endeavouring to bring before their Lordships an irrelevant subject; and though he thought the noble Lord was, strictly speaking, not out of Order, he trusted that he would, in deference to the feeling of the House, withdraw his Amendment.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

said, that after the polite way in which the leaders of the House had spoken he would act upon their advice.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL NELSON

moved an Amendment to the effect that every representation by the archdeacon, rural dean, churchwardens, or parishioners, respecting unlawful ornaments, should be made to the Bishop "within one year after the last occasion of the doing or the leaving undone by the incumbent of anything so represented." After some conversation,

Amendment negatived.

Then it was moved in line 34, after ("representation") to insert— ("And by a bond executed by him or them and by two other substantial persons as sureties in such sum as shall be fixed by the Rules and Orders, and conditioned for the payment of such costs as he or they may be at any time during the progress of the cause ordered to pay to the incumbent.")

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

moved a Proviso— Provided, That no proceedings shall he taken under this Act as regards any alteration in or addition to the fabric of the church, completed five years before the passing of this Act.

Amendment agreed to.

On Question, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?

LORD SELBORNE

said, that the time had now arrived when it was his duty to take the sense of the Committee on the Amendments of which he had given Notice. If they were adopted, the Committee would entirely omit this clause. He thought the whole scheme of this clause, both as it now stood in the Bill, and as it would stand if the Amendments to be afterwards proposed by the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) should be adopted, was open to three great objections; first, that it departed, unnecessarily and, as he thought, to the disadvantage of the Church, from the principle of an executive discretion, subject to law, which was given to the Bishops by the Declaration as to the Service of the Church prefixed to the Prayer Book; a discretion of a quite different kind from any which could be exercised in a litigious or judicial proceeding. Secondly, it introduced, in all these cases, unnecessary elements of disturbance and litigation; accusers and a charge, and a litigious procedure, with its attendant costs; when the practical object might, in his view, be more speedily, cheaply, and better attained without those conditions. Thirdly, it required, in all cases, an investigation into questions of fact, which might be very troublesome and expensive, and which, although unavoidable in criminal cases, when punishment was to follow on proof of the fact, seemed to him irrelevant and superfluous, when the only result was to be a direction as to what should or should not be done for the future. The proposal which he was about to make, whatever might be the objections made to it, would go, at all events, to the root of those evils. He proposed to retrench altogether the first stage of litigation, by saying that there should be no inquiry into any question of fact; that there should be no three parishioners, nor any other accusers, required to set the Bishop in motion; but that the Bishop might, in all cases, on his own responsibility and of his own authority—whether any representation should have been made to him by any other person or not—issue a monition to any incumbent, directing him either to do anything which the Bishop might deem proper to be done according to the Order of the Church appointed by the Prayer Book, or to abstain from doing anything which the Bishop might deem to be contrary to that order. If the incumbent should then desire to raise the question, whether the directions contained in the Bishop's monition were authorized by law, he would, according to these Amendments, be at liberty to do so, by simply signifying to the Bishop in writing—within a limited time after the receipt of the monition—that he conscientiously believed them not to be so authorized; and in that case, they would not be in any way binding upon him, until either the Bishop, or some parishioner, had obtained a decision to that effect upon the mere question of law, so raised; for which purpose he proposed that there should be a simple, summary, and inexpensive, recourse to the Archbishop in his Provincial Court, with an appeal to the Court of Pinal Appeal. On the other hand, if the incumbent did not, within the time allowed him for that purpose, signify to the Bishop any such objection to the legality of the monition, he was to be taken as so far acquiescing in it, as to be bound to act, and justified by law in acting upon it, until it should be declared invalid by competent judicial authority. Six months would still be allowed him, notwithstanding such acquiescence, to apply to the Provincial Court—in the same simple and summary way as, in the first case, would be open to the Bishop or to a parishioner—for its decision—subject to appeal—on the mere question of law, whether all or any of the directions contained in the monition, were authorized by law or not; and the same mode of obtaining a legal decision on that question was also to be open for the same period to any parishioner to whom the Bishop's directions might appear to be against law, even if the incumbent took no steps for that purpose. Provision was also made for the possible contingency of some decision of a com- petent Court being pronounced after the lapse of the six months, in any other case, by which the directions contained in the monition, or some of them, might appear to be illegal; in winch event, the same persons who might have raised the question of the legality of the monition within the six months, would still be at liberty to do so. These were the main provisions of the series of Amendments of which he had given Notice; the rest being either consequential on these, or of minor importance. If the Committee adopted these Amendments they would preserve the discretionary and directory power intended, by the Declaration prefixed to the Prayer Book, to be given to the Bishops in matters of this kind; they would at the same time keep that power within the limits prescribed by the same declaration—namely, that no order was to be made by the Bishop contrary to anything contained in that Book; they would provide cheap and summary means of obtaining legal decisions on controverted points, without litigation about any matters of fact, without attributing to the Bishops judicial functions, and without requiring hostilities to be declared between incumbents and their archdeacons or rural deans, or between incumbents and any persons or parties among their parishioners. He was aware that it had been urged, that this scheme with respect to allowing a monition to issue without inquiry, and even without application, would confer a most alarming power on the Bishop, and would throw upon him a responsibility which the Episcopal Bench desired to disclaim. For his own part, he could not see the proposal in that light. As for the responsibility of the Bishops, he thought the Bishops were bound to do their best to repress unlawful practices in the Church within their dioceses, when they were of opinion not only that the law had been broken, but that it ought to be enforced. As for the power which would be given them, it would be no power at all, more than they at present possessed, unless the incumbent thought fit to acquiesce in the monition; he would have nothing to do, but simply to give notice of his objection within the time limited—a fortnight, according to the present form of the proposal; but, if their Lordships deemed it desirable, he should not object to introduce words into the clause providing that reasonable notice of the intention to issue the monition—say a month—should be given to the clergyman; so that no clergyman could possibly be taken by surprise. If the necessary notice of objection were given, the monition would have no offect whatever, till a competent Court had declared it to be authorized by law; in which respect his proposal would be far less stringent than the present Bill. Even if no notice of objection were given, the acquiescence of the clergyman, though it would bind him temporarily, would not do so permanently, if the question of law were afterwards raised and decided in his favour; and he might himself raise that question, if he thought fit, without any delay. But it had been urged by his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, that an incumbent would feel himself aggrieved if a monition were issued without a previous investigation of facts, resulting in proof that he had done, or omitted to do, those things which the monition prohibited or directed; and that, if no such state of facts existed, there would be an undeserved stigma cast upon him. He (Lord Selborne) could not at all concur in the reasonableness of that view. Suppose that the monition were to the effect that the incumbent should not do some specified unlawful thing. Either he was actually doing it, or intended to do it, or he was not doing it, and did not intend to do it. In the former case, there would be very sufficient reason for issuing the monition; and nothing but vexation, delay, and expense, would have been gained by a preliminary inquiry into the fact. In the latter case, the monition would be in accordance with, and not opposed to, the practice and the intentions of the incumbent; it would really be a support to him, from episcopal authority, in his existing practice, which must be already known to the congregation attending his Church. He would have nothing to do but to inform his parishioners that he had received a direction from the Bishop to persevere in that practice; and how this could be any stigma upon him he (Lord Selborne) was unable to conceive. A third case might, possibly, also be supposed, of some equivocal practice, which different persons might see with different eyes. In that case, as in the first, there would be good reason for issuing the monition; and in no case would it have been a benefit to the clergyman, to have had the intervention of the Bishop's authority preceded by a harassing and perhaps costly litigation. The practical operation of his scheme, in almost every case, would be, that the Bishop, after having his attention drawn to the real or alleged practices of the incumbent by information which he would receive in the ordinary way, would communicate with the clergyman, hear what he had to state, and having done so, would exercise his discretion as to whether he should issue his monition or not. One of the objects which he (Lord Selborne) had in view, that of retaining the present executive power of the Bishops without mixing it up with any judicial function, might, indeed, also be in some measure attained by the Amendments of the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), especially if the Committee modified those Amendments, by leaving to the Bishop a full discretion to refuse to entertain any complaint made to him. So modified, these Amendments would, no doubt, be a considerable improvement on the Bill, as originally introduced. But they would still be open to one serious objection, which his (Lord Selborne's) Amendments would remove. In these Amendments, his main object was to protect the clergy; but he desired also to keep in view the interests of the parishioners. He thought there might be, under the provisions of the Bill, something like what in other Courts was called "a friendly suit." The "three parishioners" might propose something to which the incumbent had no great objection, and the Bishop might possibly agree with them; but other parishioners might find themselves aggrieved. Under his scheme the acquiescence of the incumbent in the monition of the Bishop might lead, possibly with reason, to questions being raised by some of the parishioners; and they ought not to be excluded from the power of raising them. He proposed, therefore, that whether the incumbent objected to the Bishop's monition or acquiesced in it, any parishioner might have six months to obtain, in a summary way, the opinion of the Court on the legality of the monition. That was not provided for, in any way, by the Bill of the mostrev. Primate. Three parishioners might make complaint; the archdeacon, the rural dean, and the incumbent might make complaint, and the Bishop might direct a monition; but, if the incumbent acquiesced, the whole parish would be bound. The noble Earl's Amendment had also lost sight of this point. The noble Earl said if the incumbent, on complaint being made, was willing to leave the matter to the Bishop's decision he might do so; and then, as he understood, the Bishop's decision was to be final. The noble and learned Lord then moved the adoption of the first of the series of clauses he proposed to insert in lieu of the present clauses. The noble and learned Lord concluded by moving the first of his proposed Amendments.

An Amendment moved to disagree to the said Clause, and insert the following Clause:—

  1. (A.) (Bishop may issue monition to secure observance of the law of Divine Service.)
  2. (B.) (Incumbents may object; and not objecting, will be bound by monition.)
  3. (C.) (Power to obtain judicial declaration as to the validity or invalidity of monition from the Archbishop's Court or Court of Final Appeal.)
  4. (D).) (How the questions raised before the Archbishop's Court or Court of Appeal are to be heard and determined.)

An Amendment moved to omit Clauses 8, 9, 10,11, and substitute New Clauses.

Clause (A.) It shall be lawful for the bishop of any diocese, if he shall think fit, and whether he shall or shall not have been previously resorted to by any person for his advice or direction concerning any of the matters in question, at any time to issue a monition in writing, under his hand, to any incumbent within his diocese, giving such directions as to such bishop may seem proper to insure the due observance of the order of the Church of England, as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer, or to prohibit the use in the ministrations of such incumbent, or in any church or burial ground within his parish, of any rites, ceremonies, forms, or observances, or of any ornaments of the church, or of any of the ministers thereof, which in the judgment of such bishop are contrary to law. Such monition may be in the form contained in Schedule (B.) to this Act, or in any form similar in effect thereto; and any such monition may be from time to time, or at any time, revoked by such bishop or his successors.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, he entirely recognized the excellent and admirable objects which his noble and learned Friend contemplated in making these proposals; his only doubt was whether his proposition was either practicable in itself or would secure the end he had in view. His first objection was strongly confirmed by what his noble and learned Friend was obliged to admit. They had to start with what—disguise it as they liked, call it if they pleased "a ministerial act"—was to all intents and purposes a judgment—a monition of the Bishop directed to one of his clergy that certain things should be done or should not be done in a particular church. That could not and ought not to be looked upon as other than a determination by the Bishop. Was it possible to conceive that a Bishop would issue a monition or pass a judgment of that kind without hearing parties and without reference to facts upon which such a judgment ought to proceed? As a familiar illustration, suppose a Bishop thought it right to order that a clergyman in a particular parish church should not preach in a surplice, and the clergyman said he never did preach in a surplice—the Amendment would not allow the incumbent to dispute the fact; and he did not want to dispute the law—he must lie under the monition so far as it imputed to him conduct with which both he and his parishioners knew he was not chargeable, and which the Bishop from erroneous information had imputed to him. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Selborne) said that to remain under a monition of that kind would do him no harm. Suppose a monition to abstain from pilfering—would it do no harm to remain under it and only be allowed to dispute the legality of the charge? His next difficulty was this:—Suppose the incumbent did not want to raise any controversy as to fact, but did want to dispute the law of the monition, the proposal was that he should do that by an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal—thus avoiding both litigation and expense. At the outset he entirely demurred to any legislation which would take an original cause to the Court of Final Appeal; for the case in question would not be an appeal at all, inasmuch as there would have been no previous hearing, but simply a ministerial act on the part of the Bishop; and to take it to the Court of Appeal would be as objectionable as it would be to take an original cause now to the House of Lords or the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. But, suppose the incumbent appealed to the Court—whom was he to meet there? who was to be his antagonist? Suppose the parishioners did not take up the case, was the incum- bent to be brought face to face with the Bishop as a litigant—a position in which they could not be placed at present?

LORD SELBORNE

referred to a case in which a Bishop was prosecutor—Williams v. the Bishop of Salisbury.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, under the Church Discipline Act there was power to the Bishop to proceed in the first instance; but, in the ordinary administration of a diocese, it was desirable to make arrangements to prevent the Bishop being involved as a litigant—a position which would impair his usefulness. What filled him with apprehension was that this proposal would restore the very state of things it was desired to avoid by the appointment of one independent Judge of the highest position and ability. He hoped the noble and learned Lord would not imagine that he made these remarks with any other desire than to assist the Committee in arriving at a proper conclusion. He hoped his noble and learned Friend would not press his proposals.

LORD SELBORNE

was understood to say he did not think his Amendment would operate in the way suggested. The monition would not impute to the incumbent that he had done anything wrong; it would neither express nor imply anything as to his past conduct. It would be simply a direction to an incumbent to do or not to do a certain thing; and if the Bishop and he were of one mind he would have pleasure in telling the congregations so.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

said, that knowing how sincerely desirous his noble and learned Friend was to get at the root of the evil, he regretted that he could not accept his Amendments. He did not see how they in any way improved the Bill. Apart from the question of diminishing expense—as to which he was not so sanguine as the noble and learned Lord—it was impossible that a Bishop could, of his own mere motion, have cognizance of all that was occurring in every parish of his diocese; he must have assistance. He was provided with two officers who were called his eyes—namely, his two archdeacons, who were named in the Bill as promoters; in every parish he had his two churchwardens, who were also officers of the Bishop, who were bound to inform him of everything that was going on; and suppose both archdeacons and churchwardens failed in their duty, a certain number of parishioners ought to have the right to go to the Bishop to complain of anything they deemed illegal. So that the Bishop would be set in motion either by archdeacons, churchwardens or parishioners; and that being so, he did not see what would be gained by the first proposal of the noble and learned Lord in lieu of Clause 8. The Bishop must act on the information of others, unless he laid down a rigid code of rules for every parish, and of his own motion followed the breach of them with a monition. The introduction of such a rigid system would be very undesirable, and hardly consonant with the constitution of the Church. In many cases clergymen would conscientiously dissent from a Bishop's view of the law; and if the Bishop did not enforce his monition, he would have made himself ridiculous, and no one would be in any better position than at present. If the monition was to be enforced, there arose the difficult and thorny question who was to be the prosecutor; and if it were said that Bishops were to prosecute, and parishioners were to prosecute, and somebody else was to prosecute, there would be nobody to prosecute. He doubted very much whether this would not in the first place make the Bishop so responsible for everything that went on within the diocese that it would be almost impossible for him to fulfil his duty; secondly, whether it would not place him in a very invidious position; and, thirdly, when he became prosecutor, whether he would not possess powers far beyond those which in their most sanguine moments the Bishops ever desired for the regulation of their dioceses. He was greatly indebted to the noble and learned Lord for the pains he had taken in this matter, but he must concur with the view of the Lord Chancellor on this point.

EARL GREY

said, he did not think that the arrangements suggested for enforcing the law would be found to accomplish all that was wanted. As had been said by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Bath), a great many disputes would arise, involving questions not only of legality or illegality, but of what was expedient or inexpedient. For instance, in large towns, where there were means of having choral services, and where there were other churches to which persons could go who disliked those services, there might be no grievance in allowing them; but in country places there might be a very great hardship in having services to which many of the parishioners might object. It would be only right that there should be some mode of regulating these matters. The Bishop should be empowered to say not merely what was legal or illegal, but what was expedient or inexpedient. Such a mode of arbitration would be most useful, and would prevent a great deal of heartburning. He was, therefore, disposed to support the Bill as it stood.

THE BISHOP OF LONDON

said, he also objected to the noble and learned Lord's proposal. Though the Bishops would not shrink from any responsibility which Parliament might impose on them, yet the working of the Amendments might involve duties which would be very invidious, and which, after all, might do but little good. He was sorry to be obliged to vote against the Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

feared the clause before the House would not attain the object which his noble Friend on the cross-bench (Earl Grey) had in view; but, nevertheless, he thought his noble Friend's remarks were of sufficient importance to be worthy of a little further reference. The subject on which he dwelt was really the most important one of the whole Bill, and his noble Friend had put his finger upon the sore out of which the present legislation had arisen. It was a very serious grievance when the laity of a church were attached to a particular form of worship that a clergyman should have the power of his own will to entirely alter that form of worship, and that no one should be in a position to restrain him. As long, indeed, as the power was discreetly and moderately exercised, it worked very well; but occasionally, though he believed rarely, cases arose where the incumbent disregarded the wishes of his congregation and the direction of his Bishop. Then the hardship became very real and serious, and produced great disaffection towards the Church. He did not think the noble Earl's suggestion that the Bishop should have the power of intervening between the congregation and the clergyman would be workable. The difficulty which met one at every step in legislating for the Church of England was that there was no "communicant" rule, such as had been spoken of with reference to the Church of Scotland; and in many parishes the greatest injustice was obviously caused by those inhabitants who, being Englishmen, were legally members of the Established Church, but who practically had nothing to do with her ministrations, possessing the power to thwart the wishes of those who really belonged to her communion. Therefore, for want of power to define what a "congregation" was in the Church of England, he feared there was no chance of devising legislation to remedy the injustice to which the noble Earl referred. Still, there was one provision which might tend to remedy the evil. There could be no doubt that in all places of tolerable size it would be easy to find congregations for all the various types of worship which the Church of England included; and although a congregation might be divided among themselves into two parties, yet if there were any means of separating them they would both go on happily together—[Laughter]—he meant apart. He believed that some arrangement of that kind, enabling the Bishop to separate those who were unfortunately joined together, might be obtained by simply providing that places of worship not attached to the cure of souls should be outside the operation of the Bill. Thus it would be in the power of the Bishop to relax the rigour of ecclesiastical law in towns and large places where there was sufficient material for congregations of the various types of worship which the Church of England included. The liberty of the Bishop would be very much increased, for he would have the right of saying—"Though I do not think the form of worship in this church ought to be continued where many people may reasonably complain that it is not strictly according to the letter of the rubric, still I think it expedient that this form of worship should be allowed to go on in a church to which no cure of souls is attached:" and the result would be that the Bishop would be able to give satisfaction to the feelings of those who were somewhat eccentric in their tastes without infringing the rights of those who preferred a more sober type of worship. One cause of the great power of the Church in the world was that she had known how to utilize and keep within her own bosom every kind of enthusiasm. His objection to legislation of this kind was that it would shake out all enthusiasm, and leave nothing but a mass of dry bones. If, however, a discretionary power such as he had referred to were given to the Bishop, not only would this legislation be harmless, but it would be the means of keeping in the Church many persons who would otherwise leave it.

THE EARL OF HARROWBY

suggested that no alteration in the form of worship should be made unless the clergyman gave due notice to the congregation, and also obtained the approval of the Bishop.

THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY

said, he was happy to say that the diocese over which he presided was at peace, and needed no Act of Parliament; and he looked with sorrow and sadness at this Bill, and he feared that if it passed there would be an end to peace for the term of human life. The peace of his diocese was not that of stagnation, but the peace of brotherhood, union, good understanding, and consideration for one another; but there was no parish probably in which three persons could not be found perfectly ready to put the whole of the machinery of this Bill into motion. They need not be "communicants," or even "worshippers." "Where was there any parish in which nothing had been done without a faculty? The Ecclesiastical Commissioners never thought of taking out a faculty for anything done under their authority; but the whole Artillery of this Bill was directed against the unfortunate incumbent. He had not voted against the second reading and thereby he had discharged whatever responsibility might be supposed to attach to him in regard to the framing of the Bill; but the Bill itself he heartily and entirely disapproved, because, though it might be necessary that a few dozens of clergymen in their sad and unjustifiable lawlessness should be strongly and promptly repressed, he could not help feeling that thousands of our best clergymen came within its scope. Many of their Lordships evidently shared his regret, and the result was an unheard-of shoal of Amendments. Among these was the scheme of neutralization of certain topics; a scheme which as a temporary truce, designed to lead to a lasting peace might be desirable, but certainly this was not legislation. He should vote for the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord.

LORD HATHERLEY

said, that his noble and learned Friend (Lord Selborne) proposed to omit the 8th clause in order to lay the foundation for his own scheme of legislation, the object of which he said was to promote peace and harmony between the Bishops and their clergy and the clergy and their congregations. If he could suppose that his Amendments would do that, he (Lord Hatherley) would support them. He feared, however, that his noble and learned Friend's scheme was singularly adverse to such a state of peace and harmony. The most rev. Primate proposed by his Bill that the Bishop was not to enter into any litigation whatsoever upon his own mere Motion, but that upon having had his attention called by any of the persons named in the Bill to an irregularity he should carefully inquire into the case. The Bishop would intervene as an arbitrator and adviser, because he had a discretion vested in him to proceed or not proceed upon the complaint which might be brought before him. As far, therefore, as the Bishop was concerned, he came in as a peacemaker. But the monition proposed by the Amendment of his noble and learned Friend was really a legal proceeding, and could not be regarded as anything else. His noble and learned Friend said that his mode of procedure came as nearly as possible to that of the Prayer Book, which suggested that any matter of dispute should be taken to the Bishop to bring about an amicable arrangement; but when they went to legislation that time was past. If they could settle matters in the mode, recommended by the Prayer Book no legislation was necessary. His right rev. Friend (the Bishop of Salisbury) said that in his diocese was perfect peace; his serenity was not ruffled by recalcitrant clergy or aggrieved parishioners; and he desired no Bill. But was that the general case? It was notoriously the reverse, and the Bill was justified on the ground that there were some of the clergy who openly stated that they would obey their Bishops just as far as the solicitor, or as the Privy Council said they must, and no farther. Indeed many would not go so far but insisted, each, on being his own Pope. In such cases what was the course proposed by his noble and learned Friend? The Bishop must make an inquiry; but of whom? It could only be of the archdeacon, the rural dean, the churchwardens, or the principal parishioners—the very persons named in the Bill as entitled to complain. The only difference was that, in his scheme, the complaint was not an open one. The noble and learned Lord said that there was no charge made; but when a clergyman received a monition, surely he must have been charged with something or other. The result of the present proposal would be a private inquiry behind the back of the clergyman, who would know nothing at all of his accuser. It would be far better if the accuser, whether archdeacon, rural dean, or parishioner, came forward openly. If it was to be merely a friendly inquiry and friendly interference, there was no occasion for the Bill at all, inasmuch as legislation was not wanted where there was obedience. In the diocese of Salisbury the Bill was not wanted at all; but still less acceptable even in that diocese would be the scheme of the noble and learned Lord, which in no degree discouraged litigation, but placed its initiation in a secret rather than in an open process. But call it what they might, it would inevitably take the shape of litigation; and should the matter happen to be disputed, the battle would have to be fought by the Bishop, who would thus be placed in a position inconsistent with the true nature of his office. He should therefore vote against the Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF BATH

said, that there was no good ground for the assertion that the clergy would only obey the law in so far as they were compelled. What the clergy required was, that the law should be defined, so that they might be able to obey it.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

rose to Order. The Bill was now in Committee, and they were now discussing a particular clause. It was, therefore, quite out of Order for the noble Marquess to discuss the general principles involved. He was surprised that the noble Marquess was not satisfied with the number of times he had already spoken on the Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

observed that the general principle had been raised by the Amendment which had been proposed by the noble and learned Lord opposite, and therefore the noble Marquess was perfectly in Order in discussing them.

THE MARQUESS OF BATH

did not wish to give any annoyance to the most rev. Prelate, but must say that the discussion had been raised by the noble and learned Lord who had moved the Amendment.

THE BISHOP OF OXFORD

observed that the title of the Bill was the Public Worship Regulation Bill, and the object of the Amendment was to bring it really into that shape.

On Question? Resolved in the Negative.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 (Consideration of the representation by the Bishop).

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

said, he much objected to leaving any discretion with the Bishop as to permit suits to be instituted or not; but he saw the feeling of the Committee was so strong in favour of giving some discretion to the Bishop that he was prepared to withdraw his opposition to the proposal now made, on the condition that the Bishop, when refusing permission to institute a suit, should keep his reasons in writing to the complainant, and the person complained of.

Moved, after Clause 8, to insert the following Clause:— Unless the bishop shall be of opinion that proceedings should not he taken in the representation (in which case he shall state in writing the reason for his opinion), he shall within twenty-one days after receiving the representation transmit the same to the person complained of, and shall require such person, and also the person making the representation, to state in writing within ten days whether they are willing to submit to the directions of the bishop touching the matter of the said representation, without appeal. And, if they shall state their willingness to submit to the directions of the bishop without appeal, the bishop shall forthwith proceed to hear the matter of the representation in such manner as he shall think fit, and shall pronounce such judgment and issue such (if any) monition as he may think proper, and no appeal shall lie from such judgment or monition. Provided that no judgment so pronounced by the bishop shall be considered as finally deciding any question of law so that it may not be again raised by other parties."—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, he had the utmost confidence that the discretion vested in the right rev. Bench would be properly exercised. Perhaps, however, it would be better that this question should be settled at once, and he would therefore propose that the clause should be so amended that provision should be made that, unless the Bishop should be of opinion that proceedings ought to be taken on the representation, he should state in writing that he would, within 21 days after receiving it, transmit it to the person complained of.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

was understood to support the Amendment.

EARL NELSON

suggested that some security would be given for the discretion of the Bishop by inserting, instead of "and shall require," the words "and shall in each case require."

In reply to the Marquess of BATH,

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, the Bishop would have to look to the matter of complaint alleged and say whether it was a subject to be investigated. If it was right to be investigated it should not be stopped—the investigation should go on.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

asked what steps the noble Earl proposed to take to insure that the rest of the parish should know what was going on; what security they would have that the Bishop would not, on the representation of the three, settle a question without the other parishioners ever hearing anything about the matter?

THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH

thought it rather a strange course to propose to give a discretion to the Bishop and then to presume that he would do acts of indiscretion which no sane man could commit. To suppose that three parishioners would go privately to the Bishop of the diocese with some complaint, and that he would settle the matter with them in some hole and corner manner, without taking any step to ascertain the feelings of the parishioners in general, was altogether absurd. If they gave a discretion to the Bishop, it must be on the assumption that he would not invariably act indiscreetly. Some degree of mutual confidence, it was said, was the basis of civilization. Neither the Church nor any other institution could be governed on a basis of universal suspicion.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said, it was all very well to make appeals of that kind, but the Bill was founded on the assumption that there were many aggrieved parishioners, and all he asked was that whatever was done should he done in such a manner that all who were affected should have ample notice, and that three parishioners should not obtain a ruling of the Bishop without due publicity.

LORD SELBORNE

said, so far as he could see, no liberty was given to any parishioners to raise the question whether the decision of the Bishop was a right one. No doubt, when the question had been once heard and decided by the Bishop it should not be opened again in the same parish; but on the other hand no Bishop should have power to decide what was or was not law.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

said, words might be introduced, as in other Acts, requiring the exhibition of the citation on the church door, and he proposed to give an appeal upon points of law to the Court above.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

suggested that the difficulty as to notice might be met by inserting in the Amendment the words "after due notice," in lieu of "forthwith," in the sentence requiring the Bishop to proceed to hear the matter of the representation.

LORD SELBORNE

did not see how other parishioners were to be enabled to become parties to the suit. He saw no alternative but the abandonment of the friendly proceeding if the decision was to bind the rest of the parish for all time.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, that unless a parishioner who suspected collusion had the right to come in, there was no use in giving public notice, and if the area of litigation was thus enlarged, there was an end to the stipulation beforehand with regard to there being no appeal. He would suggest that the clause should be so amended as that a report of all proceedings before the Bishop should be within a certain time transmitted to the Archbishop of the province for him to consider whether there should be an appeal or not.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

trusted the preliminary proceeding would not be abandoned because he was sanguine enough to believe that many disputes would be settled by it. When the first excitement subsided there would be every disposition to trust the Bishops. To take out the arbitration would be to make the Bill provide a system of police inspection, and destroy the character they had endeavoured to maintain for it by attempting to settle these matters by the paternal authority of the Bishop. He believed the great majority of cases would be settled by this arbitration, which he considered to be one of the most important parts of the Bill.

LORD SELBORNE

said, no one wished less than he did to introduce any unnecessary element of litigation; what he desired was to obtain an amicable settlement of these disputes; but the practical object of mediation and amicable settlement might be attained without saying that the parish was to be bound by it; for if the parish was to be bound we should have different laws in different parishes.

THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

said, that after three or four of these cases had been decided by the supreme Judge, people would be willing to abide by the decision of the Bishop, who would learn what the law was from these decisions, and would administer it in a kindly spirit. He was very much mistaken if both clergymen and parishioners would not be willing to submit. He could assure their Lordships, from personal experience, that a vast number of such questions were submitted to Bishops from time to time.

EARL GREY

thought some words should be introduced to prevent other parishioners, when the original complainants had agreed to submit to the Bishop's judgment, from raising the same complaints afterwards.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, it would be impossible to bind other parishioners. If three parishioners complained to the Bishop of something the incumbent had done, and both they and the incumbent consented to abide by his decision, and the Bishop decided against the complainants, his decision was conclusive as far as they were concerned; but the incumbent might be subjected again and again to exactly the same complaints from other parties. That was not a position in which an incumbent ought to be placed. In fact, if they could not trust the Bishops with this discretionary power, they had better take it away altogether, without seeking to restrict or modify it.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

could not consent to give up the arbitration of the Bishop.

THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH

assured their Lordships that complaints of the kind referred to were made nearly every week. This was the course ordinarily taken. The parishioner would go to the incumbent and say what it was that he did not like; the incumbent might reply that he should go on with it; upon which the complainant would say that he should appeal to the Bishop. Then if the clergyman had any party of his own in the parish they would take good care to send a counter memorial. In his diocese he had never had a memorial complaint without its being very quickly followed up by a counter statement. If the House would trust a little to human nature they need not fear that anything could be settled without the parish knowing what was going on.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

remarked that the decision of the Bishop in these cases would not be a decision having the force of law.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, it was not necessary to have an Act of Parliament to enable two parties to submit a question for decision to a third; but if they had to deal with persons who would not submit, an Act of Parliament would be necessary.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

said, the object was to protect incumbents against incessant complaints.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

observed that not a single word was to be said against the proposal of the noble Earl if the words "after due notice" were put in, and it would be easy to insert a clause by which an appeal to a higher Court would be allowed.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

felt very strongly that this was a proposal to do that which all along they had been anxious to avoid—namely, to give to an "unlearned person" the power to say what the law was. He would move, therefore, in line 2, to omit the words ("to the person complained of")—the object being to bring the matter at once before the Judge.

THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

said, it appeared to him that the whole Bill depended upon this clause, and that if the Amendment were carried the measure would be useless.

THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL

earnestly besought their Lordships to retain the clause.

THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH

said, it seemed to have escaped the notice of his right rev. Friends that the discretion placed in their hands as to whether they would proceed or not gave them all the necessary power. A representation would be made to the Bishop, who would call the parties before him, and after hearing them quietly in camerâ in the first instance, would recommend them to follow the course best calculated in his judgment to produce harmony.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

maintained that it would not be satisfactory to place in three or ten parishioners, as the case might be, a positive discretion to bind the whole parish by their agreement that the Bishop should decide the matter.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

said, there was a general understanding on a previous occasion that the Government would support the clauses of the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury).

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

protested against this statement.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

put it to their Lordships whether it was not tolerably clear, after what the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) had stated as to the Amendments of the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), that those Amendments were not unacceptable to Her Majesty's Government. After that statement of the noble and learned Lord, he was a little surprised that one of the most valuable proposals of the noble Earl should be suddenly thrown over.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, that on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, he had expressed an approval of the general principles of the proposal of the noble Earl; but he stated at the same time that there were many objections as to the finality of the decision arrived at by the Bishop.

THE EARL OF SHAPTESBURY

thought it was very natural that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack should have undertaken to support his (the Earl of Shaftesbury's) proposal, because he was a party to a Bill which was sent down to the House of Commons in 1872, and which contained this proposal.

On Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 93; Not-Contents 51: Majority 42.

Resolved in the Affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

CONTENTS.
Canterbury, Archp. Salisbury, Bp.
York, Archp. St. Asaph, Bp.
Winchester, Bp.
Bedford, D.
Devonshire, D. Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)
Manchester, D. [Teller.]
Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)
Bristol, M.
Carysfort, L. (E. Carys-fort.)
Abergavenny, E. [Teller.] Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)
Amherst, E.
Bandon, E. Clermont, L.
Bathurst, E. Clinton, L.
Cawdor, E. Clonbrock, L.
Chichester, E. Colchester, L.
Dartrey, E. Cottesloe, L.
Devon, E. De Mauley, L.
Effingham, E. De Saumarez, L.
Fortescue, E. Dinevor, L.
Grey, E. Egerton, L.
Harewood, E. Ellenborough, L.
Harrowby, E. Ettrick, L. (L. Napier.)
Ilchester, E. Foley, L.
Manvers, E. Greville, L.
Nelson, E. Grinstead, L. (E. Ennis-killen.)
Onslow, E.
Pembroke and Montgomery, E. Gwydir, L.
Hampton, L.
Rosse, E. Inchiquin, L.
Stanhope, E. Lawrence, L.
Tankerville, E. Lisgar, L.
Verulam, E. Londesborough, L.
Waldegrave, E. Lyttelton, L.
Moore, L. (M. Drog-heda.)
Canterbury, V.
Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.) Northwick, L.
Overstone, L.
Eversley, V. Penrhyn, L.
Powerscourt, V. Redesdale, L.
Strathallan, V. Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.)
Templetown, V. Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)
Bath and Wells, Bp. Saltoun, L.
Carlisle, Bp. Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)
Chichester, Bp.
Exeter, Bp. Sondes, L.
Gloucester and Bristol, Bp. Stanley of Alderley, L
Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)
Hereford, Bp.
Llandaff, Bp. Waveney, L.
London, Bp. Wenlock, L.
Oxford, Bp. Winmarleigh, L.
Peterborough, Bp. Wolverton, L.
Ripon, Bp. Wrottesley, L.
Rochester, Bp. Wynford, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Cairns, L. (L. Chancellor.) Richmond, D.
Rutland, D.
Grafton, D. Bath, M.
Lansdowne, M. Belper, L.
Salisbury, M. [Teller.] Bloomfield, L.
Boston, L.
Airlie, E. Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)
Beauchamp, E.
Camperdown, E. Colville of Culross, L.
Carnarvon, F. Delamere, L.
De La Warr, E. De Tabley, L.
Ducie, E. Dunboyne, L.
Eldon, E. Ebury, L.
Ellesmere, E. Eliot, L.
Feversham, E. Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)
Haddington, E.
Kimberley, E. Hammond, L.
Morley, E. Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)
Morton, E.
Powis, E. Hatherley, L.
Shaftesbury, E. [Teller.] Monck, L. (V. Monck.)
Shrewsbury, E. O'Neill, L.
Sommers, E. Plunket, L.
Strathmore and King horn, E. Selborne, L.
Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)
Cardwell, V. Skelmersdale, L.
Doneraile, V. Stewart of Garlies, L (E. Galloway.)
Hawarden, V.
Templemore, L.
Bagot, L.

Then the said Clause was agreed to.

Then it was moved by the Earl of SHAFTESBURY to insert the following Clause:— If the said persons respectively shall not, within the time aforesaid, state their willingness to submit to the directions of the bishop, the bishop shall forthwith transmit the representation in the prescribed mode to the archbishop of the province, and the archbishop shall forthwith require the judge appointed under this Act to hear the matter of the representation either at any place within the archdeanery in which the incumbent holds preferment, or in which he resides, or at any other place within the diocese or province.

Then it was moved by the Earl NELSON, in line 2 of the said clause after the second ("bishop") to insert ("security for costs having been given.")

On Question, "Whether the said words shall be then inserted?" Their Lordships divided:—Contents 71; Not-Contents 58: Majority 13.

Resolved in the Affirmative.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

moved to insert the following clauses:— The judge shall give not less than twenty-one days' notice to the parties of the time and place where he will proceed to hear the matter of the said representation. The person complained of (herein-after called the defendant) shall within fourteen days after such notice transmit to the judge, and hand to the party making the representation (hereinafter called the complainant), a succinct statement of his answer to the representation, and in default of such answer shall be deemed to have denied the truth or relevancy of the representation. In all proceedings before the judge under this Act the evidence shall be given vivâ voce, in open court, and upon oath; and the judge may require and enforce the attendance of witnesses, and the production of evidences, books, or writings, in the like manner as a judge of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice. Unless the parties shall both agree that the evidence shall he taken down by a shorthand writer, and that a special case shall not be stated, the judge shall state the facts proved before him in the form of a special case, similar to a special case stated under The Common Law Procedure Acts, 1852–1854; and he shall transmit to the bishop a copy of such special case, together with the judgment which in his opinion ought to be pronounced on the matter of the representation. The judge shall deliver to the parties, on application, a copy of such special case and report. The complainant and defendant may, at any time after the making of a representation, state any questions arising in such proceedings in a special case, provided it be signed by a a barrister-at-law, and the parties, after signing and transmitting the same to the bishop, may require it to be transmitted to the judge for hearing and report; and the judge shall hear and make his report on the said case in the manner hereinbefore mentioned. The bishop, on receiving the report of the judge, shall proceed to give judgment in accordance with the report, and to issue such monition (if any) as the report shall advise to be issued, and shall make such order as to costs as in the report shall be mentioned. Upon every order or sentence of the bishop made in pursuance of a report of the judge, an appeal shall lie, in the form prescribed by rules and orders, to Her Majesty in Council, and Her Majesty in Council may refer the same to the Imperial Court of Appeal as constituted by the Judicature Acts, 1873, 1874.

Clauses agreed to.

Clauses 9 to 12 struck out.

Clause 13 agreed to.

Clauses 14, 15, and 16 struck out.

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

moved to insert the following clause:— For the purpose of an appeal to Her Majesty in Council under this Act, the special case settled by the judge, or a copy of the shorthand writer's notes, as the case may be, shall be transmitted in the manner prescribed by rules and orders, and no fresh evidence shall be admitted upon appeal except by the permission of the tribunal hearing the appeal.

Clause agreed to.

House resumed; House to be again in Committee (on Re-commitment) To-morrow.

House adjourned at a quarter past Twelve o'clock, 'till Eleven o'clock.