COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 23 April 1883)

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE
said, that, as far as he understood the clause, it agreed with two Bills which their Lordships passed during the last two Sessions, but which did not pass the other House. The clause was inserted in the Bill for the purpose of compelling clergymen to obey the law; and if they did not do so they would be punished for contempt, and be deprived 887 of their livings. He should like to know the reasons why the noble and learned Earl (the Lord Chancellor) now considered it wise to withdraw the clause. If it was withdrawn, a contumacious clergyman—a clergyman who had been suspended, or whose living had been sequestered, might set the law at defiance. It was perfectly absurd to think that a great institution such as the Church of England could long exist if they left the law in such a state that a clergyman might set himself above it —that was to say, they would be able to break the law, and go without punishment, and he could not conceive that any true friend of the Church would wish it to be placed in so false a position. Every day almost they heard of cases of brawling; but he thought that a clergyman who persisted in performing service, though suspended by the authorities of the Church from doing so, was equally a brawler, and for the sake of the Church itself this difficulty should be met. The omission of this clause would make some churches purely congregational, each teaching such doctrines and using such ceremonies as were agreeable to the incumbent; and, by so doing, they would cease to be a part of the Church of England. He hoped, therefore, the noble and learned Earl would give some good reasons for withdrawing it.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, he agreed that the disorders which had taken place in certain churches should be prevented, and that some means should be found for effectually putting an end to them. On the second reading he had stated reasons for withdrawing this clause from the Bill. One reason was that the Bill was for limiting, and not for extending, the penalties of contempt. It limited the maximum fine which could be inflicted to £500; and it seemed inconsistent, merely as a punishment for that offence, to go further, and also deprive the offender of his whole livelihood. If clergymen or others persisted in a course of contumacy, and did things which were inconsistent with their duty, they might, in any proper case, be deprived, but not by summary proceeding. The clause did not apply to ecclesiastical offences alone. The whole question of the best means of securing obedience in the Church was now under the consideration of a Royal 888 Commission; and it was thought better, as at no distant date the Commission would make their Report, to leave this breach of that general subject to be dealt with when the Government and Parliament would have all the materials which might result from the inquiries of the Commission before them.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, he wished to point out that the course which had been taken by the noble and learned Earl was somewhat inconsistent, as ho at first intimated that the necessity for this Bill was caused by the Rev. S. F. Green's case. When that case was mentioned last year it was said that legislation of this character was in contemplation; but now it was proposed to omit the clause which would have prevented such a scandal. He did not blame the noble and learned Earl for omitting the clause, for he thought the provisions of that particular clause were exposed to very serious objections; but he doubted if the noble and learned Earl was taking a wise course, for, in his (the Marquess of Salisbury's) opinion, some protection should be provided in the Bill against the recurrence of such evils. They were told that a Royal Commission was sitting in the Ecclesiastical Courts, and that it was fitting to wait for the Report of that Commission. No doubt, theoretically, that would be quite correct, and it would be proper to wait till they could consider the Report; but the noble and learned Earl appeared to have forgotten the slow pace at which Parliament proceeded with legislation in these matters. He thought it quite possible that new acts of imprisonment of clergymen, which would create much heartburning, might arise, and might very easily result in a schism in the Church; but they might have to wait for years and years before Parliament might find itself sufficiently disengaged to address itself to the necessary reform in ecclesiastical jurisdiction. He could not imagine that such a question could come before them without its creating a formidable controversy both in that and the other House' of Parliament. This was not a question in which any Government would be likely to feel an intense interest, so as to induce it to use its influence as a Government to push forward a measure dealing with this subject. He did not rise to express any dissent from the course proposed by the 889 noble and learned Earl, but he felt that they were running considerable risk in hanging up this question; and he hoped that if such an untoward event as the imprisonment of another clergyman again took place, the Government would be prepared at once to deal with the question.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE
said, he could not see, however great a contempt a clergyman committed, that it would now be possible to imprison him.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, that a clergyman could, at all events, be imprisoned for successive periods of three months, as often as he repeated his offence.