QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS. (Hansard, 26 October 1882)

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
I wish to ask the noble Earl a Question of which I have only been able to give him private Notice. I received a letter on Tuesday from the Archbishop of Canterbury requesting me, on his behalf, to ask the Government their intentions with respect to the imprisonment of Mr. Green, and particularly what measures they propose to take to procure his release? I feel the importance of a request coming from such a high authority; otherwise I should not have thought it a matter in which I should have stood in the way of any Member of the Episcopal Bench who wished to take it up. I need hardly say I have no sympathy with the contra-legal attitude assumed by Mr. Green, nor has the Archbishop. That the existing laws must be obeyed when pronounced upon by a constituted authority seems to me so elementary a principle that I am surprised anyone can doubt it. It may be there are occasions on which conscientious disapproval may prevent a man from obeying the law; but I cannot understand that conscientious disapproval of the law should compel him to remain in an office to which he has been appointed on the distinct understanding that he should obey the law. Though I wish to guard myself against being supposed to sympathize 161 with Mr. Green, so far as his contra-legal position is concerned, and though I do not wish to express any opinion whatever—and, indeed, know very little as to the nature of the controversy which has been going on upon the subject—I imagine there cannot be two opinions in the House that the proper remedy for such an evil as Mr. Green's declaration that he will not obey the law is not his imprisonment; the proper remedy, if he will not fulfil the legal conditions of the office he holds, is that he should cease to hold that office; and that he should be imprisoned for more than a year is not only wrong, but monstrous. I cannot understand why Her Majesty's Government have allowed the matter to proceed so far; I do not think they are sufficiently alive to the danger they are running—not by virtue of the accuracy of Mr. Green's contention, but by the sufferings he is undergoing—of serious schism, in the Church of England. I cannot acquit the Government of responsibility in this matter. Whether it is in the Prerogative of the Crown to interfere I do not know; different opinions are held; but this, at least, is matter of fact. In 1881 and 1882 Bills were sent down from this House which would have the effect of releasing Mr. Green; the Government would only have had to raise a finger and the Bill would have been passed; but in each case the Bills were allowed by the Government to be counted out in a House of Commons in which the Government has such a commanding majority, and when the attendance at the end of the Session depends mainly upon the Government. It cannot be contended for a moment that the Government are free from responsibility for the fact that the repeated efforts of this House to apply a remedy to this great scandal have entirely failed. The Archbishop reminds me that he applied to Mr. Gladstone early in the Recess, and he was assured that the matter would receive consideration; but at the present time, and in the present condition of the legal circumstances of the case, there seems to be no more prospect of the release of Mr. Green than there was many months ago. I say the Government are incurring serious responsibility and are running considerable danger by allowing this matter to drag on. It entirely depends on them to say what should be done. Even now they may allow the 162 last Bill, which is not killed yet, to pass through the House of Commons; but if they allow the continuance of what, apart from all theological opinions, is an admitted scandal, on them the responsibility must rest.

THE EARL OF LIMERICK
said, that very many of the clergy and laity considered that Mr. Green had supported the law of the Church against infringement on the part of the State. The learned Judge who sentenced Mr. Green was appointed solely by Act of Parliament. He was called Dean of the Arches, but he had never been canonically appointed to that office. As one who approved the course Mr. Green had taken, he desired to say that he and those who agreed with him repudiated the idea that the course which had been taken was intentionally in opposition to the law.

EARL GEANVILLE
In reply to the Question of the noble Marquess, I have to state that Her Majesty's Government are advised that the only proper course of dealing with this matter under the present law, and under the present circumstances, is that some person whose application can properly be received should make an application to the Judge with regard to Mr. Green's release. We are further informed that the right rev. Prelate has already taken the proper steps to make application to the Court of Arches with a view of seeing whether the Court can, under the circumstances, order his release. I may remind the noble Marquess that, though, there is to be no legislation during the remainder of this Session, Her Majesty's Government have given a pledge to introduce a Bill which will deal with these questions of contempt of Court in all cases both ecclesiastical and civil.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
And is Mr. Green to remain in prison till that Bill passes?

§ EARL GRANVILLE
I have already stated that measures are being taken at this moment with the object of obtaining Mr. Green's release.

LORD DENMAN
said, that the adjournment of the House of Lords on the Bill of Pains and Penalties was from 9th September till 3rd October; while the House of Commons sat on till 13th September, and then adjourned to 17th October, and on that day was prorogued. Bills which had passed 163 one House of Parliament, like Mr. Green's Imprisonment Bill, as pointed out by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), were not extinct; and if they passed with any amendment by the House of Commons, time should be given for their consideration by this House before the Prorogation.