REPORT OF AMENDMENTS. (Hansard, 9 April 1878)

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY
hoped the Government would not press for the third reading of this Bill before Easter. A Bill of such importance ought not to be hurried in its passage through their Lordships' House, and he understood that several Peers who took an interest in the subject had not had a sufficient opportunity of considering it.

§ EARL BEAUCHAMP
said, the Bill had been before their Lordships' House for a month, and he gave a fortnight's Notice of his intention to introduce it. The noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) had been absent from the House for a reason they could all understand; but there had been ample opportunities for discussion. An Amendment had been moved, on the second reading, which was fully discussed. He could not accede to the noble Earl's request.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY
said, the Bill had great disadvantages. In his opinion, it affected the status of Members of their Lordships' House, and it ought not to be hurried unless there were ample reasons for hurrying it.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
thought it would only be an act of courtesy to accede to the noble Earl's request.

§ EARL BEAUCHAMP
said, he proposed to take the third reading of the Bill on Monday next.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, he was certainly somewhat surprised at such a clause coming from his noble Friend—he should have thought that his noble Friend was about the last person by whom such a proposal would have been made. No one was more careful than the noble Earl in proposing any change without sufficient reason, and he must say that this change, though apparently a small one, appeared to him one of the largest proposed for the purpose of obtaining the smallest benefit. In the first place, it was a complete departure from what had hitherto been the Law of Parliament. In the House of Commons a Member once elected could not resign his seat during that Parliament—recourse was had to a fictitious proceeding to determine his Membership. In their Lordships' House, any hereditary Peer could not resign his seat under any circumstances. An Irish representative Peer once elected was elected for life, and could not resign— a Scotch representative Peer was elected for that Parliament—he might decline to be re-elected, but he could not resign his seat during that Parliament. In neither case had any means been devised by which an elected Peer could divest himself of his duties in Parliament. He did not say whether these things were desirable or not, but certainly the change proposed by his noble Friend's clause was quite as great as if it applied to the representative Peerage. His noble Friend proposed to give this power of resignation to one particular Estate in that House—he proposed that a Bishop should be enabled to resign his seat in Parliament while continuing to hold the see in right of which he had been summoned to Parliament. The Bishops held their seats by virtue of their sees. Provision had been made by which a Bishop incapable of performing the duties of his office was enabled to resign—he resigned his see, and with his see his right of sitting in Parliament. But his noble Friend's proposal would, if agreed to, enable a Bishop to divest himself of his office piecemeal—he might retain his Bishopric 957 and its emoluments, but resign his seat as a Member of their Lordships' House. If it was a right thing for a Bishop to attend the House, he thought it was a very singular step, and one which was open to great objection, to allow him to come before the public and say he could perform part only of his duty, but that he would still retain all the emoluments. A Bishop would then be placed in a very invidious position. The change proposed was, in his opinion, very undesirable, and any tampering with the question would involve the risk of shaking the foundation on which Spiritual Peers held their seats in the House. In such a matter change was undesirable, unless a very clear case could be made out. He hoped his noble Friend would not press his clause.

LORD HOUGHTON
also thought that this was rather an unexpected change to come from the Conservative brain of the noble Earl. Such a clause as that proposed by the noble Earl, if agreed to, and a Bishop were allowed to hold his see and retain his emoluments while he was unfit to discharge his duties in Parliament, would inevitably result in weakening respect for the Clergy, and would have the effect of familiarizing the public mind to the thought that Bishops were better in their dioceses than in the House of Lords.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
confessed that he had not paid much attention to the subject; but, judging from what had been said in the course of this short discussion, it appeared to him that the proposal was not altogether unreasonable. With regard to what had fallen from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, it was true that Irish representative Peers were elected for life, and that a Scotch representative Peer could not resign until the time of a new Election; but, in the House of Commons, it was quite clear that Members could resign by accepting certain offices. The balance of convenience in such an arrangement appeared to be very great. If a Bishop felt that he was no longer able to be an active Member of their Lordships' House, but that he might still be useful in his diocese, there could be no insuperable objection to allowing a younger and more active man to take his place in Parliament. He thought, moreover, it was important that new 958 Bishops should take their seats as early as possible, as that would be a great means of guarding them against the possibility of looking at public matters from a merely ecclesiastical point of view. He had not a strong opinion on the matter; but, as the general view seemed to be against the proposal, he had thought it right to say so much in its favour.

§ THE EARL OF HARROWBY
said, he was not insensible to some of the objections which had been stated by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. Still, he thought that the multiplication of Bishops who would not have seats in that House was a great evil, as it was very important to the country that persons who had such influence over the Clergy should be brought into contact with laymen, and especially with those who had to deal with high affairs of State, and everything ought to be done to prevent the Clergy of this country from becoming a distinct class or caste. Danger would arise if there were a numerous class of Bishops, who would be purely leading Clergymen, and would be, perhaps, invidiously distinguished from the Bishops in that House by being so.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
pointed out that the object of the Bill was the creation of four new Bishoprics, and any general enactment of the character contemplated by the Amendment would be quite foreign to the measure.

§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE
said, he could not see any force in the objections which had been raised to his proposal. After what had been said, however, he would not press the House to a division; but he would ask that the question might be put to the Vote, in order that there might be a record that the proposal had been made.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY
remarked, that the discussion showed how important it was that the Bill should have further consideration. It certainly would be open to grave observation if a Bishop found himself unable to attend in that House, although he was able to attend to his higher and more important duties.