Lords Sitting of 5 June 1883

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Gas and Water Provisional Orders * (76); Water Provisional Orders * (77); Stolen Goods * (78); Pawnbrokers * (79).
Second Reading—Cathedral Statutes (58).
Committee—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London) * (31).

CATHEDRAL STATUTES BILL.—(No. 58.)
(The Lord Bishop of Carlisle.)
CATHEDRAL STATUTES BILL.—(No. 58.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Beading read.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that substantially the same Bill, bearing the same title, was passed by their Lordships last Session, but was lost, because the other House had not time to consider it. It was desired to pass it first through the other House this Session; but the Member in charge of it was so unfortunate in the ballot that the attempt had to be abandoned. Therefore, the Royal Commissioners, on whose Report the Bill was founded, acquiesced in the alternative of again introducing the Bill in this House, in the hope that it would be passed by their Lordships, and sent down to the Commons in time for it to be considered and to become law. The Bill had been altered in some respects, in order to make certain points more clear and to obviate objections that were urged on a former occasion in this House. Among the special instructions to the Cathedral Commissioners were these two —that they should devise a convenient method of altering, from time to time, Cathedral Statutes, and that they should make a separate Report upon each Cathedral. It was soon found that each separate Report would consist mainly of a proposed new body of Statutes; and this was stated in the first Report of the Commission presented a year ago. Up to this time three such Reports had been laid before Her Majesty, and by Her Majesty's Command before Parliament; seven more were very nearly ready; four more were well advanced, and would probably be presented before the end of the Session; considerable progress had been made with others; and it would, perhaps, take about 12 months more to get through all. The Dean and a representative Canon of each Cathedral were constituted co-ordinate Commissioners, and had been taken into counsel in dealing separately with each Cathedral. The Cathedrals were so different in their original foundation, geographical situation, and relation to population, that it was impossible to lay down a general rule that would apply to all. It was necessary that some method should be devised for giving legal effect to the bodies of Statutes which the Commissioners had prepared; and that was the object of the Bill. In existing Statutes—at least, in those of the New Foundation—power was reserved to

  1719
  the Queen to alter them from time to time. It was thought that this power should be continued, but that, instead of merely saying it should exist, a definite process of exercising it should be laid down. It was proposed that there should be a Committee of the Privy Council, and that it should have the power of considering Statutes laid before Her Majesty by the Cathedral Commissioners while they existed; and that afterwards it should be in the power of each Dean and Chapter, with the approval of the Visitor, to lay before the Committee of the Privy Council any new Statutes or alterations that might be thought desirable. It could scarcely be urged now, as it was last year, that this Bill was a leap in the dark, because there had been laid before Parliament several Reports which might be taken as samples of the rest. In 1853 Her Majesty issued a Commission to some very notable men, and that Commission presented an exceedingly able Report. It recommended, among other things, that an Executive Commission should issue for the purpose of giving new Statutes to the different Cathedrals in accordance with that Report. The Commission to which he had been referring presented its Report and died; and its Report virtually died with it, because there was nobody to take it up. The present Cathedral Commissioners wanted to make it as sure as they could that there should be some result of the labours in which they had been engaged. They had been working very steadily and diligently for a long time; and they would be exceedingly sorry if, after all, no good result should be achieved. It was for that purpose that they desired to pass the present Bill into law. The Cathedrals of England were in three different conditions. Some had no Statutes at all, and there was a general feeling on the part of the Governing Bodies of those Cathedrals that they ought to have them; and they would be very glad to have some such machinery as was now proposed for the purpose of giving them Statutes. The second class of Cathedrals comprised those of the new foundation, which owed their existence, as Cathedrals, to the action of King Henry VIII. These had Statutes, but they were, to a great extent, antiquated; and there was no practical power of changing those Statutes at the present
  1720
  time and adapting them to present wants. He believed that the Governing Body of this class of Cathedrals almost unanimously accepted the proposal that some machinery should be devised to enable them to amend their Statutes. The third class, to which St. Paul's, London, belonged, consisted of the Cathedrals of the Old Foundation. The Petitioners, whose Petition had just been read, claimed that they had a right at the present time to alter their Statutes with the help of the Bishop of the diocese. That was a legal question on which he would not venture to pass an opinion; but if the Cathedrals of the old foundation really possessed the power they claimed, he maintained that they ought not to have it. It was said that the Dean and Chapter, with the Bishop, had the power of altering their Statutes. This Bill did not propose to take from them that power; but it provided that before a Statute could acquire the force of law it should go before a responsible tribunal, which would give to all persons interested notice of the intended change, and would hear them on the subject. He thought it was manifest that some such tribunal ought to exist, and that it ought not to be in the power of one particular portion of a body to make or alter rules—possibly to the injury of other members of the body—without any publicity being given to the transaction and without bringing the proposal before Her Majesty in Council. He had not great faith in galvanizing dead bodies into life; but he did not believe the Cathedral Bodies were dead. There had, no doubt, been periods of sleepiness and, perhaps, even of suspended animation; but there was great life in the Cathedrals at the present time, and he believed a helping hand, given in a friendly way, as Her Majesty's Commissioners were desirous of giving their hand, would be a very great assistance to them in doing the duty which they were desirous of doing. The Commissioners desired primarily to revise diocesan life. They did not want the extreme parts of a diocese to say that they had nothing to do with the Cathedral. Both with regard to the services and to the sermons preached within it the Cathedral ought to take the lead, and to exhibit the life of the diocese in its best and highest form. A great deal might be done incidentally in

  1721
  this direction. They could not force men by means of new Statutes; but they might indicate what was desired and expected from a Cathedral, and then they could leave public opinion to work. In conclusion, the right rev. Prelate moved the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2." —(The Lord Bishop of Carlisle.)
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH: My Lords, after the earnest labour of my right rev. Brother in the cause of Cathedral reform, it may seem ungracious in me to raise any opposition to this Bill. But I must say I very earnestly wish that my right rev. Brother would not press this Bill to a second reading to-night in this House. The reasons that I have for making this suggestion to my right rev. Brother are not merely, and are not mainly, the objections which I take to certain provisions in the Bill, although I do take very strong objections to some of them, and although I do desire to lay those objections before your Lordships. My objections to the passing of the Bill through this House are of a somewhat larger kind; and they refer rather to the conditions and the circumstances surrounding this Bill, and, indeed, surrounding every attempt made in this House within the last few years at Church legislation and Church reform. In the first instance, we have rather to deal with that than with the details of the Bill itself. I myself entertain objections to any further attempts in this House at Church reform or Church legislation, and I take this opportunity of laying these before your Lordships. Now, my Lords, let us observe the circumstances and conditions under which this Bill appears in this House. In the first place, my right rev. Brother has told you that this Bill is the result of a Royal Commission appointed at the instance of this House. In the next place, he has quite correctly told you that it is a Bill which very largely interferes, in two important particulars, with the powers and Prerogatives of the Crown; by the appointment of a Committee of the Privy Council, and by the proposed quasi-veto of both Houses of Parliament. In these respects the Bill limits the power which the Crown formerly had of dealing with the Statutes of Cathedrals of the New Foundation. In
  1722
  the third place, this Bill deals with very large and very important interests. It deals not only with the internal government of all our Cathedrals, but also with the relations of those Cathedrals with the diocese; and it deals with the dioceses themselves. It exceeds the power given to the Commission. It is a Bill very large in its scope, touching the most important interests of the Church of England, and affecting even the Prerogatives of the Crown. Such a Bill ought not to have been introduced by a private Member of this House, however eminent. A Bill dealing with such a subject, and especially one dealing with the Prerogatives of the Crown, should have been introduced, if at all, upon the responsibility of the Ministers of the Crown. The Bill, if it was to be introduced, should have been a Government measure, or, at least, brought forward with the distinct promise and assurance, not only of the support of the Government in this House, but also in another House, where the fate of Church Bills is not always so prosperous as it is here. I trust I may be pardoned if I claim this at the hands of the Government, not as a matter of favour, but of right. There is still in this country such a thing as the union of Church and State. As to whether or not that union is desirable, different persons have different opinions. No one will deny that as long as that union exists it implies mutual service and aid on both parts. In any matter in which the Church seeks for a reform of her Statutes, she has an established right, arising out of that union, to ask for it from the State. The point at which the restraint and power exercised by the Crown impinge most upon the Church is in this very matter of reform. We have no right to alter a line or letter of our Statutes without the consent of the Crown. Some think that to be an unfair restraint—I am not one of them. If it has restrained the liberty of the Church at large, it greatly protects the liberty of the individual members of the Church. But for such restraint, we might have had the majority turning out the minority more than once in past years. Upon this point of the alteration of the Statutes the State does restrain the Church more than upon others. If my right rev. Brother were to attempt to alter the Statutes of Carlisle, or I those of Peter-

  1723
  borough, we should soon be corrected by the present eminently Constitutional Ministry, which has always sought to keep the Church in her proper place. But if that right exists on the part of the State, then it involves a correlative right on the part of the Church, whenever she desires the alteration of her Statutes to apply to the Government of the time being to effect such alterations. Now, if I may presume to describe the attitude of the present Ministry towards such applications by the Church, I would say that it is an attitude of silent and apparently comtemptuous indifference. I do not say that they are not actuated by an ardent desire for the reform of the Church. But they have not manifested that desire, except in the case of the Burials Bill, in which it so happened that the reform was clamoured for by the enemies of the Church and deprecated by its friends. If, however, the assistance of the Government in this matter may be rightly claimed in this House, infinitely more may it be claimed in the other House of Parliament. In this House it is still, happily, possible for a private Member to bring in and to carry a Bill. This House is the last refuge of more than one remnant of Constitutional liberty. But it is a matter of notoriety that, in the face of the democratic despotism which now dominates the Parliamentary Institutions of this country, no private Member in the other House has a chance of carrying a Bill. Certainly, as regards ecclesiastical legislation, it is absolutely impossible for any private Member to carry a measure seeking reform in the Church. There exists in the other House a considerable number who are united in this one thing, if in nothing else—that no measure, if it be intended for the spiritual and moral efficiency of the Church, shall, I will not say be read a second time, but even allowed a hearing for a second reading. Again and again have Bills of this nature gone down from this House; but they have been prevented from obtaining even a decent hearing. The motives for this course are transparent. One motive is to make the hand of the State as heavy as possible on the Church, and so to disgust Churchmen themselves that they will cry out for separation, it being remembered that when the wife seeks the divorce the husband generally manages to do what he likes
  1724
  with the dower. Then, again, you cannot make a spiritual and moral reform of the Church without strengthening the Establishment. Every abuse is a weakness to the Establishment, and that is why the Church's enemies desire to perpetuate abuses in the Church. When Churchmen ask for the removal of these abuses and the reform of these evils, the champions of them are not Churchmen, but the more earnest Members of Nonconformity in the House of Commons. Their policy was well expressed in the amiable prayer of a well-known Dissenting minister, some years ago, who solemnly and piously prayed that the Church of England might be worse than she is, in order that she might stink in the nostrils of the people. As to the injustice or cynical immorality of such a policy I have nothing to say. But this policy exists, and is being steadily and ably carried out. Whenever the Bill of the right rev. Prelate reaches the other House—if it does reach it—it will encounter the opposition of two classes of persons. One class will ask this one question, and this only—"How may I, by my speech and vote, best injure the Church of England?" The opposition of the other class will be not less earnest; and their question will be—"How, by my vote and speech, may I best injure the Christian religion?" The struggle is perfectly hopeless, in the existing condition of Parliamentary life and Parties, against such an alliance as this, unless such a Bill as this receives the support of the Leaders of the Government in that House. It has not the slightest chance of reaching a second reading, unless the Prime Minister were to rise in his place, and, turning round to his supporters, say—"Gentlemen, whatever may be your opinion as to the merits or advantages of the existing union between Church and State, while that union exists, it ought to be fairly and justly dealt with on both sides. Destroy it if you like, and if you can; but while it exists, deal honestly with it." But the Prime Minister will say nothing of the kind. He will see the Bill strangled by those who call themselves his followers, and over whom he still exercises a considerable amount of Party influence. That being the case, my Lords, it being a positive certainty that the Bill will be thus strangled, it is as well

  1725
  to face plain facts. I have never been able to learn the art of make-believe, and I think it is always better to deal with facts; and it is an undoubted fact that the Church of England is not in Parliament strong in proportion to her decided numerical majority in this country. The Church of England numbers some two-thirds of the population of the country—for the assertion that it number's only one-third is simply ridiculous—and yet this strength is not anything like fairly represented in Parliament. And why? The Church of England in Parliament, and especially in the House of Commons, is politically weak, for a reason which is highly creditable to her—namely, because she is politically neutral. She takes little or no part in Party politics. She tries to do good to the whole nation, and not to a portion of it only; and consequently, in her assemblies, she is not given to pass resolutions in favour of the proceedings of this or that Ministry. The Church of England has not yet earned the dubious and unfortunate compliment from any Prime Minister that she is the great backbone of his Party. She has higher and more noble aims than that, and the consequence is that she cannot bring to the political market her alliance for sale to any one Party. The result is that she is somewhat lightly regarded by one Party, and is not, perhaps, quite so strongly supported by the other as she might be. She suffers somewhat in the same way that a neutral country does which is placed between two contending States, the armies of which overrun it in turn. Her position is this. Because she will not make a bargain and a political compact with either Party, and because she will not offer her alliance solely and exclusively to one Party, she suffers from the armed neutrality of one Party, and derives but little assistance from the cautious and guarded friendship of the other Party in the State. That must continue to be her position, and I should be sorry if she were to exchange it for any other at the cost of her independence and her higher and more noble aims. I wish it to be distinctly understood that I make no imputation whatever upon the motives of the Government in relation to this question. Neither do I make the slightest imputation against the motives of those who are her lukewarm friends. Their action
  1726
  is the fault, not of themselves, but of their unhappy political necessities. But, depend upon it, the weight of the Government will not be given in support of the Bill in the other House, because the Government, in the presence of its "great backbone," dreads the spinal irritation which is induced in a man by a perpetual quarrel with that part of his body. The Government will not, dare not, support the Bill. That being so, what I wish to put to my right rev. Brethren is this—What is the use of continually passing in this House well-considered and well-matured measures for the reform of the Church, and in the true interests of the Church, when we know perfectly well that they will be strangled in the other House of Parliament with the cheerful acquiescence of Her Majesty's Government? I submit to my right rev. Brethren that it would be better and wiser for us not to subject the Church of England and this House to the perpetual humiliation of having to go hat in hand to the other House, and praying to be allowed, for pity's sake, to remedy any existing defects in the laws of the Church. Those who are the supporters of the Church of England may well accept the position as it stands, which is by no means an unfavourable one. Politically, we are placed in this position. We are desirous of remedying every real abuse and defect that exists in the Church, while those who are the enemies of the Church are desirous of seeing those abuses perpetuated. Those who are opposed to the reform of the Church are not the Churchmen, but the political Dissenters. If the Church of England continues to neglect Party politics for spiritual objects, she will in, the end, be the gainer, not only spiritually, but politically. The political power of the future in this country will lie with the masses; and the Church of England, which devotes herself to labouring among the masses, without intriguing with political Parties, will, in the end, prove the most powerful. The force that moves nations in the end, and in the long run, is the spiritual force; and in the end, and in the long run, the spiritual Society will prevail over any number of political Clubs. If, therefore, Dissenting religious Bodies choose to transform themselves into political Clubs, the result will be that they will

  1727
  lose that which the Church of England is rapidly gaining—the affection of the masses by whom the fate of the Establishment, and of other political institutions too, will before long have to be decided. Believing, therefore, that it is far wiser for us to accept facts and to face our present position as it is, and not to press on always to meet with humiliation, I earnestly entreat my right rev. Brethren to hold their hands, and not to attempt to force on Church reforms in Parliament, but to try and work within our existing limits. Those limits are not so confined but that we can do great and noble work within them. Let us compare the present position of St. Paul's, and of Westminster Abbey, and of our other great Cathedrals, with that which they occupied 30 or 40 years ago, and we shall see what may be done within her existing limits to gain the affections of the masses. Therefore it is that I press upon my right rev. Brother not too hastily to seek to press this Bill through your Lordships' House. I am afraid, however, that no arguments of mine will induce my right rev. Brother to withdraw his Bill. But I think that if I can succeed in showing to your Lordships that this is a very bad Bill, I may do my right rev. Brother an indirect service by securing for his measure a few votes from among the more earnest and pious political Dissenters of the other House. This Bill really consists of two Bills, entirely different in principle, and entirely different in result. The first part of it proposes to deal with the Cathedrals from above by means of regulations which are to be pressed upon reluctant Bodies. That is a proceeding by way of gift and compulsion. Under it the Commissioners are, to a great extent, pressing upon the Cathedral Bodies certain very large and theoretical and experimental reforms, which will be reluctantly accepted by those Bodies. The second part of the measure provides that the Cathedral Bodies, moving from below, shall have power of themselves to propose new Statutes, and thereby, of course, to repeal the new ones they have just had forced on them by the Commission. Therefore, we are to have reforms descending from above, and counter reforms rising from below. Then the Statutes are to be laid upon the Tables of both Houses for 12 weeks before they become law, and the result will be that
  1728
  your Lordships' time will be occupied in discussing some 26 different little Acts of Parliament in the shape of Cathedral Statutes. That is not a very pleasant prospect; but there is more than this. These Statutes are to lie on the Table of the other House, leaving it open to any Member of that House to move the rejection of any clause, or any line in any clause. We have heard a good deal of "veiled Obstruction." Would your Lordships consider for a moment the infinite possibilities of veiled Obstruction thus presented to any obstructing Members of the other House, if there be any such. It fatigues my imagination even to picture to myself the results of the introduction of these 26 Acts of Parliament, containing about 1,000 clauses, to lie for 12 weeks on the Table of the House of Commons—it being open to any Member of that House to raise a debate on any clause, and on any line. These Bills will be received with a positive shriek of welcome in the Lower House, with their infinite opportunities for Obstruction. I hardly like to use a ludicrous image on such a question; but I can only liken the arrival of these Bills in the House of Commons to the arrival of some poor little boy—some chubby little creature—just escaped from the custody and care of his parents, or sisters, upon the playground of some large school, where all the naughty and rude spirits gather about him to draw his hat over his eyes, to pull his hair, and practise other little schoolboy amenities upon his person. Imagine these Bills brought upon the playground of the House of Commons. Imagine, for one moment, the Leader of that Party, which, it seems to me, is incorrectly and unjustly described as the Irish Party, in that House taking one of these Bills and distributing the clauses among the Members of his Party, much as an experienced stage manager distributes the characters in a play, each favoured actor having his respective part. Suppose the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) taking that part which refers to dress and deportment and vestments; another—let us suppose the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) taking up questions of precedence, which I have seen is in some of these Statutes, between Deans and Archdeacons, on the ground that those nice questions of pre-

  1729
  cedence and personal honour might, perhaps, lead to breaches of the peace. Imagine, further, the Leader of that Party crossing the House of Commons and asking the junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh)—who by that time, perhaps, may have obtained a vote and voice in the House of Commons—to move the rejection of a clause which deals with what he may regard as the too frequent administration of the Holy Communion. I ask nothing about the effect of all this on the feelings of the Church, because the time has long passed when the feelings of the Church are much considered in modern legislation; but I ask you, Members of the Government here present, how you will relish this prospect of infinitely prolonged, absolutely interminable Obstruction to every one of these clauses? That consideration alone seems to me quite conclusive. And, observe, it is entirely unnecessary. The introduction of Parliament into this matter is purely gratuitous. Parliament until now had given to the Crown the power of dealing with the alteration of Cathedral Statutes, and in so doing had amply secured that control of the State which I admit should be exercised over the Church so long as Church and State remain united. But my right rev. Brother is not satisfied with this, but goes out of his way to invite the interference of the House of Commons. The House of Commons is not anxious to meddle with Cathedral Statutes. It knows extremely little about the internal details of Cathedral government; but when he invites the House of Commons to interfere, and asks if they will be kind enough to come and pull our Cathedrals about, I think he will find the House of Commons disposed to take him at his word. When he puts up an invitation to stop and ring the bell, common politeness will induce the House of Commons to stop and do it. He would have done much better if he had not brought in this entirely unnecessary consent of Parliament between the Crown and the Cathedrals. These Statutes, moreover, are much wider in their scope and more far-reaching than appears from the speech of my right rev. Brother. For instance, one deals with the establishment of a Diocesan Council for the discussion of grave matters affecting the welfare of the dioceses, and it proposes that the Bishop should
  1730
  invite to it not only the Deans and Archdeacons, but the Dean of the Cathedral, the Minor Canons, and the Master of the Grammar School. I have great respect for Masters of Grammar Schools; but I cannot see that the presiding over 20 little boys in the Cathedral precincts is to make him a fit person to advise the Bishop as to the government of some remote village in his diocese. I merely mention this, in passing, to show that these reforms are not small, that they are theoretic, that they are experimental, and would lead to most undesirable and almost interminable complications in the internal affairs of the Cathedrals. For these reasons, because I believe this Bill to be too experimental, too theoretic, and too ambitious, as well as unfortunate as regards the time of its introduction; because I believe it will lead to a most undesirable intervention of Parliament between the Crown and the Cathedrals; because of the infinite opportunities for Obstruction in the way of legislation which it presents to certain Members of the other House; and because it will tend to disturb, to confuse, and, therefore, to enfeeble the Church, instead of strengthening and reforming it—I will presume not to move the rejection of the second reading, but to appeal earnestly to my right rev. Brother to consider whether, under the circumstances of the case, it is desirable to press to a second reading and carry through the House a Bill which I firmly believe cannot become law.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, the right rev. Prelate who has just sat down having made an appeal to the Government, I may venture a few words. It does not appear to me to be difficult to meet the appeal. The right rev. Prelate, I understand, opposes this Bill. At the same time, he blames the Government for being themselves unwilling to undertake a Bill which he described as not only unnecessary, but mischievous. And he also urges how undesirable it is to add anything which might interfere with legislation going on in the House of Commons, the success of which, I suppose, therefore, he ardently desires. Although the right rev. Prelate says that he has great difficulty in trying to make believe, I really think he was too modest on this occasion, because it requires some effort to imagine that his speech was intended to convince your Lordships of that which

  1731
  I trust is the case with the Church of England generally, whatever exceptions there may be, that she is starting now on the idea of entirely separating herself from any Party feeling or Party bias. I must say that in the speech to which we have just listened the right rev. Prelate managed not to confine his sneers entirely to the House of Commons or to the Liberal Party; but he administered some counsel, in a milder form, even to the Party so well represented on the opposite side. The right rev. Prelate, however, contradicts himself most completely. He thinks the Bill thoroughly bad, and yet he calls upon me to explain to your Lordships why Her Majesty's Government refrain from supporting it. In the beginning of his speech the right rev. Prelate declared that he would not, if he could, let the Bill pass through this House, because it was certain to be rejected in the other House, and at the end he contented himself with appealing to his right rev. Brother to abandon it, giving as a reason that the Bill was of a character which would tempt the House of Commons to intermeddle in the interests and institutions of the Church.. It is under circumstances like these that the Government are asked to explain why they have not themselves taken up the Bill.
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH: Perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to explain. The noble Earl fails to observe that I said that the Government should take up this Bill if they approved of it. I was not so absurd as to suppose that the Government would do this, whether they approved of it or not. What I did say was, that the Government should condescend to have an opinion on the subject one way or another.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, that as he had had the honour of acting upon the Commission of which the right rev. Prelate was also a Member, and as he had had the advantage also of acting for three years in conj unction with, and under the guidance and superintendence of, the late Archbishop of Canterbury, he thought their Lordships must be surprised at the tone taken with respect to the work of that Commission. He should not occupy much of their time in discussing the Statutes of the Commission. If they came before the House as, indeed, they were now on the Table in respect to some of the Cathedrals, and their Lord-
  1732
  ships thought proper to call attention to them, it would be in their power to do so. The Bill was not founded upon any of the new notions of which the right rev. Prelate who had strongly opposed it had spoken; but it had followed the course which had been taken in reference to the University Statutes under the Commission that inquired into the Universities, and no such obstruction had been met with in the House of Commons on those matters as that which the right rev. Prelate had urged as a reason why their Lordships should not send the Bill to the other House. In fact, the Statutes of the Universities were laid one by one before the Houses of Parliament, and, so far as he was aware, there had been but little discussion on them in either House on any occasion. Therefore, if they could judge by precedent, they might fairly conclude that the same thing would take place with respect to the Cathedrals. No one could be more desirous than he was that the Government should undertake a measure of this description for giving effect to the proceedings of the Royal Commission. Every effort was made that the Bill might be in the hands of the Government. But everybody knew that the Government had been overwhelmed with business both in this Session and in the last, and they did not feel that it was very likely that the Government would take upon themselves the labour of carrying the Bill through. But they gave it their support, in that House, at all events. On no occasion had they voted against it, and it was read a second time last Session, and passed through Committee with their assent. Besides this, he might also state to their Lordships, in reference to the Commission itself, that when two vacancies occurred the Prime Minister added two members to it—Lord Blachford and Sir Walter James. Could it be supposed that the Prime Minister, in adding those names instead of allowing the Commission to die a natural death, was doing that which was a mere farce, and that he had no other purpose than that the Commission should not fulfil its object, or should not have any object at all? He would say this plainly—that he himself would never have sat on the Commission except with the hope that something would be done by and through it, and as nothing could be done without some means of applying to Parlia-

  1733
  ment in order to obtain the necessary powers, the present Bill was introduced. In fact, if they were not to have a Bill of this kind, the labours of the Commission would be thrown away. There were certain Cathedrals that had no Statutes, and to which his right rev. Friend adverted in his opening speech; and, besides, it seemed clear that Cathedrals of the New Foundation had no power to alter their Statutes, unless empowered by Act of Parliament, and he very much doubted whether the old Cathedrals had the power to act as they alleged with due regard to the Prerogative of the Crown and the laws of the country. They had assumed powers, no doubt, but whether they had the power of altering their Statutes to the extent that was claimed was very doubtful. He contended that there were no grounds for the extreme fears which the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough) had expressed in respect to the Bill, either as to the way it would be dealt with in the House of Commons, or as to its character. There was nothing in it of which their Lordships need be at all afraid. It was one which would bring about no great revolution; but one that would enable the Cathedrals to reform their Statutes from time to time, according the necessities of the case; and he trusted that their Lordships would not be led to this conclusion—that although they had found the necessity for reform in this matter, yet, because the Bill might be thrown out in the House of Commons, or because there might be impediments to the discussion of the Bill in that House, they should sit still and do nothing—should refrain from sending their opinions to the House of Commons, and endeavouring to get them enforced there as they had a right to expect.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I hope I may be allowed to say a few words on this Bill. The Cathedrals of the Church of England can be made efficient, and I believe it is the desire of the laity that they should be. Their power for good is great, and greatly hindered. I cannot believe that that desire and that power can be set at naught. I venture to speak on this subject, not because I think your Lordships will be carried away by the eloquent and amusing, but far too ingenious speech of my right rev. Brother (the
  1734
  Bishop of Peterborough), but because I have been for many years a student of Cathedral history and of Cathedral Statutes. I have lived in the heart of a Cathedral, and I have been able to see what desire exists within the Cathedrals themselves, and what is their power to do good even now. But I can bear witness to the fact that that desire and work are very much impeded. There are no details before your Lordships, and there are none likely to come before you. The wisdom of this House will perceive that the minute question to which the most rev. Prelate alluded is a question of convenience, which must be settled one way or another. It surely must be settled on the spot. The real issue seems to me to be a simple one. The Crown is very largely spoken of, in many bodies of Statutes, as having abundance of power to legislate; but it all ends in language, and all that this Bill does is to furnish the instrument by which the Crown can do that which, in the forefront of every body of Statutes, it is said the Crown shall do. Some Chapters do not even know whether they have rules. Some have none. None know whether they can make new rules. London claims to have the power of making them, and has made Statutes which have worked efficiently. Still, it is not known whether they are legal. I may mention—though it is a trivial matter—that in another Cathedral the other day a verger had to be appointed, and a rule was discovered by which the whole Chapter had agreed to appoint vergers in a certain way. A new Canon had been appointed, in the meantime, who objected to that mode of proceeding; and they consulted a learned counsel on the point, and were told that the value of that rule, made 12 years before, was nothing. Again, in 1840, an Act was passed very important to Cathedrals, and that Act is said to have conferred powers upon them; but it only, in very large terms, gives the power of making provisions for Minor Canons. It ought, I think, to be remembered that in 1852 a similar scheme to that now before the House was recommended, which would do for Cathedrals exactly what the body proposed in this Bill would do, and a Commission was appointed; but the results of the labours of that Commission never passed into law. I will not say that in every detail I would accept any single

  1735
  body of Statutes; but I do not feel that I ought to stand upon any difficulty whatever in any of the Statutes when the important thing is to remove mere formal hindrances to efficiency. The Cathedrals should be the centres of good works of all kinds in the dioceses. They can provide in themselves means to be at the service of every parish in the diocese; they can give instruction to the middle classes, and greatly benefit the Clergy—in fact, they have resources for many things which, once the floodgates were lifted, would pass on in a powerful stream of good works. This Bill only asks your Lordships to give the Cathedrals leave to work, for they can devise excellent plans if allowed to do so. The Bill is elastic in every way. It simply provides that work may be done, and also that if, in the future, anything in the scheme is found to work wrongly, it may be rectified by means of the proposed body. I hope very earnestly that this Bill will pass.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, it was only fair to say that three years ago he had had the conduct of a Bill for the regulation of the Church, through the House; and he would say that in no single case had there been the slightest evidence that the House was indisposed to treat the Bill fairly. The mode in which the Business of the Commission had been conducted had been to exclude altogether the Bishop of the diocese. He thought that was greatly to be regretted. The great object of the Commission had been to bring the authorities of the diocese and Cathedral into close relation. Their Lordships had been told that the period of darkness was past, and that they had on the Table three sets of Statutes which would serve to show the manner in which the proceedings would be conducted. But he would like to point out a few points in some of these Statutes. In the Statutes of Truro there was the greatest minuteness as to whore the Bishop should have his chair. But when he turned to the Statutes of St. Paul's he was obliged to remark that they were really not Statutes at all. In them there was a perpetual reference to ancient customs, which sent them to archaeology. That meant litigation. He therefore ventured to express an opinion that it was highly desirable that all the powers should be exactly defined in the Statute. He was
  1736
  extremely anxious to see Cathedrals made more useful. On the whole, he thought there was a great improvement; and even if the Statutes would produce, not a perfect system, but a great improvement, then they ought, he thought, to vote for the Bill as he should do. Surely their Lordships should not timidly refrain from doing what they considered right and proper in the matter because it was thought that some harm might happen to the Bill in "another place."
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONexplained that the Statutes of St. Paul's, which had been before the Commissioners, wore only supplementary Statutes, supplementary to a considerable number of very ancient ones; and the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's bore in mind the fact that for 1,000 years their Statutes had been from time to time modified, enlarged, and amended by the Chapter, with the assistance of the Bishop. Archbishops of the Province had attempted to impose Statutes on St. Paul's, and they were always rejected. Wolsey had provided a set of Statutes for St. Paul's, and they were set aside. At St. Paul's they had, at least, the custom of 1,000 years. He did not himself agree entirely with the prayer of the Petition that he had presented; and he should think the Cathedrals might be well satisfied by the statement of the Chairman of the Royal Commission that they could revise their Statutes if they chose to take the risk, or they could take the safer course, and act upon the new machinery for revising them. For his own part, he thought that the machinery provided by the Bill would enable Cathedrals to become more useful; and he did not fear that the Statutes which would be framed would be interfered with by either House of Parliament.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEwould like, before the Motion was put, to observe that it had been said by the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of York) that there was a little complaint to be made as to the action of the Commissioners. The fact was this. The Commissioners were those named in the Commission, and also the Dean and one selected Canon of each Cathedral, and the Commissioners had no power to call in anybody else with whom to consult; but as soon as they had provisionally

  1737
  arranged the Statutes they sent a copy of them to the Dean and Chapter, and also to the Bishop of the diocese for their consideration; and he thought the Commissioners could not have acted more wisely or properly. As to the speech of his right rev. Brother near him (the Bishop of Peterborough), it professed to deal with facts, though, in reality, it contained few facts, but was full of imagination, and was intended for persons outside that House, as well as those within it. His right rev. Brother had gone into details, but had not dwelt upon the principle of the Bill; and as to the terrors which he had referred to in "another place," he was not going to be frightened by them. He knew the difficulties which the Bill might meet with in the House of Commons as well as his right rev. Brother, but he also knew that the Bill, as it was proposed to be introduced there, had names of Members of both political Parties at the back of it. It was not a Party measure, and he had such a belief in the justice of the House of Commons as to have no fear of the result when the House should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon it. With regard to the difference between the Statutes of various Cathedrals, the observations of the right rev. Prelate supplied the explanation, which was that it was one thing to deal with a new Cathedral, and another to make Statutes for an old one. If the House did not think it desirable that Statutes should be laid on the Table, he would willingly accept such an Amendment. He could not, however, accept the advice of his right rev. Brother to withdraw the Bill, but would tender a piece of advice in return. He wished very much that his right rev. Brother would withdraw his speech, which, while it would not damage the Bill, might do much harm outside the House, and might raise feelings that were more easily excited than allayed.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

STOLEN GOODS BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORasked leave to bring in a Bill to amend the the law respecting the Recovery of Stolen Articles; explaining that it was, with a
  1738
  few Amendments, the measure which had passed their Lordships' House last year, except that the portions relating to pawnbrokers had been withdrawn and incorporated in a separate measure.
  Bill to amend the law respecting the Recovery of Stolen Articles; and for other purposes—Presented (The LORD CHANCELLOR); read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 78.)

  PAWNBROKERS' BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Pawnbrokers' Act, 1872, —Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 79.)
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.