HL Deb 05 March 1891 vol 351 cc202-21

Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.

*THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

My Lords, in presenting this Bill to your Lordships and requesting you to give it a Second Reading, I have to state that it is in substance the same Bill as your Lordships passed in 1888, and again the same Bill that was read a first time last year and afterwards dropped on account of the pressure of business. It is in substance the same Bill; but since it passed in 1888 it has been very carefully considered by some of the most eminent members of your Lordships' House, and by others learned in the law, and I am happy to be able to say—it is a source of great satisfaction—that although the late lamented Archbishop of York opposed the Second Reading of the Bill in this House in 1888, yet in the shape in which it was presented to your Lordships last time it had his entire concurrence except upon one small point—your Lordships will consider it a small point when it is explained, as it will be, in Committee. In every other respect it received his complete assent, and would have had his hearty support. Since then the drafting has been again criticised by a very capable member of your Lordships' House, and I venture to present it now with much confidence. I think I ought to repeat to some extent what I had the honour of laying before your Lordships when the Bill was first introduced and first passed. I present this Bill to your Lordships as really a matter of necessity and as a matter of right—a thing which we have a right to ask. We of the clergy are appointed with much care and circumstance to serve this nation in things religious and things moral. It is our special duty to advance all the interests and enforce all the teachings of religion, above all things to raise the moral tone of those among whom we are, with so much of anxiety, appointed to work. Among 23,000 clergymen there must be a certain number who by common consent are designated "black sheep." There must, unhappily, be unworthy members in every profession and under all circumstances. But what we do feel, what we are sure of, is that they are but few in comparison with those great numbers. We have, however, to lament the fact that in very many instances the majority of those few are practically secure in their position. The difficulties of removing them, the difficulties even of suspending them for any proper period are so great that we, the clergy, may be regarded as maintaining in the midst of us a certain small, limited number of bad men, who are acting against and undermining the very function which the nation commits to us. We say, then, this is a matter in which we have a right to appear before you to ask you to grant us that we should be relieved from the discredit of such persons working and living in the midst of us. It is not a fair pressure that is put upon our work; it is not a fair discredit. Our enemies them selves being the judges, the thing is not fair. It is not right that it should not be possible to remove immoral men from the ranks of moral teachers; and when we consider the amount of misery that is produced among both their brethren and the laity, the comfort withheld from the sick and the dying, the mischief done to the young, the impossibility of these people accepting the teaching of such persons, and the doubts thrown up in many minds as to whether these men can really believe what they teach, your Lordships will see that the present state of things is very much like the action of the old tyrant King who bound the living to the dead. The close unity in which those, so to speak, "dead men" are placed among us and among the people whom they have to feed with the Bread of Life makes it imperative that we should ask in some way or other to be relieved. It is only right, my Lords, that I should mention what some of the principal hindrances are which make it necessary that the present state of things should be altered by legislation. The very first step in any process for the removal of such men, or for their correction in any adequate way is now beset with difficulties. Their case has first to be examined into by a Commission of persons without legal knowledge and without legal assistance. If those men return that there is a primâ facie case against the man accused, the Bishop) must proceed. When the facts come to the appointed Court, although they may be flagrant and notorious, have been proved and established beyond a doubt in the Civil Courts, those facts have to be proved over again; and after that the man may remove his case from Court to Court by way of appeal, and the facts may still have to be proved over and over again. Then the cause is often heard at a considerable distance from the place of occurrence; and if it is a case of appeal, it must in nine cases out of ten be heard at a considerable distance, so that witnesses are exceedingly inconvenienced, and the expense in reference to them is very great. There is further great delay in carrying through the appeals. I remember well on the former occasion how your Lordships felt it to be, as it is generally felt to be, exceedingly unfair that in a large proportion of cases, even if the Bishop is successful in proving his case, the whole of the costs are thrown upon him, because it is not possible to meet them in any other way; and if he is unsuccessful, the costs may be enormous. Your Lordships probably remember there was one famous case, at no very great distance from the present time, in which a Bishop incurred an expense of £14,000, and his successor in the same case a further expense of £1,400. But it is not only the unsuitableness of such costs being thrown upon the Bishop, but the result—the moral effect—is so extremely bad if he fails to prove his case, as he may, through the operation of a number of technicalities. When so many obstacles have to be avoided, and the Bishop fails, in cases where immorality has unquestionably been committed, the effect upon the community is exceedingly bad. In such cases a Bishop is generally advised that there are so many technicalities, so many hindrances, in the way even of legal evidence, when the cases have been started by men who are not generally supposed to be versed in reviewing evidence, that his success would be more than problematical. Flagrant cases are at times kept back on that account. Then the process is not only slow and cumbersome, but one of the incidents of the procedure is that the sentences are given by precedents, without any regard to the interests of the place, the parish, or the whole Church. Naturally, in the long course of time, the precedents have become milder and milder; and as each case is tried and the sentence passed, the latest and mildest case is the one proceeded upon; so that all the legal authorities are perfectly agreed that the sentences which at present are capable of being inflicted under the system of precedents are quite inadequate. I may be allowed to give your Lordships a recent instance to show what I mean by the absolute futility of the sentences which are passed under this system. A clergy-man was convicted of being drunk in the highway; he was convicted of riotous and disorderly conduct, and was fined by the Magistrates. The case was immediately sent by the Bishop to the Provincial Court; that was in the month of November. In the month of April he was suspended. The whole time from November to April was consumed in procedure, and the sentence passed upon him then was that he be suspended for three months. It had been impossible in the meantime to issue any inhibition, and this man had continued to officiate during the whole time. When the sentence of three months' suspension was pronounced upon him he went abroad; he came back radiant and assured his parishioners of the pleasant holiday he had been enjoying, and he is still in his place. These cases are very few comparatively, but they are very hateful to all. The system of journalism belonging to our times acts like a series of multiplying mirrors. Every case is heard of everywhere, and each several case is doing harm to religion and to morals in every parish, and raising tip a host of enemies to the system under which such a state of things can exist and such scandals be perpetrated with impunity or with no sufficient punishment. If this state of things is carefully reviewed, it will show that we are not living under a proper system of punishment for offences against morality committed by clergy. By your Lordships' permission I will now give a very brief sketch of how this Bill attempts to meet the difficulties. In the first place, the Bill recognises absolutely and acts upon a conviction pronounced in a Civil Court. If a man has been convicted of offences against morality by a Civil Court and punished, the Ecclesiastical Court will, by this Bill, be enabled to proceed, taking the offence to be conclusively proved; and if he has been sentenced to penal servitude, if he has been sentenced to hard labour, if he has been convicted of adultery, if a bastardy order has been granted against him, it is so hopeless that the man should do any more good in that place that, according to this Bill, he will be deprived of his benefice. Supposing the offence or punishment to be less than these, any person may make a complaint to the Bishop, and the Bishop then, unless he is ready to declare in writing that the complaint is too vague or too frivolous to be proceeded upon, will send the complaint to the Court; but the Bill provides, and I think your Lordships will think properly provides, that with the consent of both the complainant and the defendant, or if the case is undefended, the Bishop may pronounce sentence at once without the process of the Court. The Court is not altered by the Bill. We do not propose to make any alteration. We believe that when the Consistory Court as it exists is put in its proper position, it is quite sufficient for what is required. Your Lordships know that the Chancellor acts as the Consistory Court; but the examination into facts by a Commission having been done away with, it is now proposed that where there are facts to be proved the Chancellor shall have the aid of six assessors if demanded. If there are facts to be proved, and the defendant demands that it shall not rest with the Chancellor alone, the Chancellor is by ballot to appoint six assessors out of a list. When the case comes into Court all questions of law are to remain as now with the Chancellor. The six assessors are to be four clerics and two laymen, making, with the Chancellor, three laymen and four clerics, to hear and inquire into the facts. Those six assessors are to be taken from a list formed for the diocese, consisting of seven clergymen elected in the way described in the Bill, and five laymen being Justices of the Peace, and appointed by the Justices for this diocesan list. The Chancellor will, by ballot, appoint six from the list for each trial upon which facts are to be inquired into. There comes in here a shortening of the process if both parties agree. In that event a case may be decided upon affidavits. Or again, if either party is not satisfied with the Consistory Court as it exists in his own diocese, he is free to appeal at once, and to transfer the cause to the Provincial Court; or he may appeal to the Queen in Council. We have thought it a matter of great importance that the number of appeals which are now possible should cease, and therefore the appellant will be at liberty to decide whether he will appeal to the Provincial Court or to the Queen in Council, but he is not to appeal to both. This point of appeal is a new feature in this particular Bill, and has been introduced since it was last before the House. The last Bill—and this was a point upon which the late Archbishop of York spoke strongly—did not provide that there should be any appeal upon matters of fact; but now, in deference to what he then said, and to what is ascertained to be a general feeling among clergy, an appeal is 'to be made possible by this Bill upon facts as well as upon law; but with this proviso and under this arrangement: not that a man, about the facts of whose case there can be really no possible doubt, shall have the opportunity at his own will of dragging the case before the Appeal Court; but it has been suggested by a noble and learned Lord in this House that the example set in the case of certain proceedings before the Privy Council should be followed, and that whether the man appeals to the Provincial Court or to the Queen in Council, he should obtain from the Appeal Court in the first instance leave to appeal. There would be no hindrance to justice in that, because he will ex parte state the facts upon which he bases his appeal, and if there is a primâ facie case shown the appeal will be allowed; but the Appeal Court is itself to determine whether there is such a primâ facie case as that the man ought to be heard over again upon appeal. Your Lordships will now observe that there is provided for already a very considerable shortening of processes and diminution of expenses in this procedure. I am told that in legal proceedings before the Privy Council there has really been, since the method was adopted of requiring the proposing appellant to obtain leave to appeal from the Appeal Court, an immense saving of expense. Then with regard to sentences: in this Bill there is inserted a provision that in the giving of sentences regard is to be had to the interests of the parish and of the place, and not to precedent alone in the interest of the clerk. The noble Lord is not present in his place who made an admirable observation upon this point. He said— These trials of the clergy in such cases are under their old name trials pro salute animœ." and he said— I think we have had enough of proceedings pro salute animœ; it is time we had some consideration pro salute animarum." Then it is provided that if the man is deprived of his benefice, and the case is very gross, he may also have his Orders taken away. It is again provided that if his sentence is of such a kind as that there is abundant time to expiate it; if there is a sentence of suspension for two or three years, for instance, before he can come back and be re-admitted, he must produce evidence of what his conduct has been in the meantime before re-admission; and there is a provision—it is one of the most important in the whole Bill—that he shall not reside during the period of suspension. There is no describing the fearful scandals occasioned by the residence of such men; and although they promise sometimes that they will not reside, they do not keep their promises, and there is no power to keep them away; the Bishop, it may be, sometimes does not feel sufficient confidence in them to require a promise from them. I can point to a case where a man has been suspended for extreme and shameless debt, but he persists in residing: he is living close to the church in the parsonage house; he insists upon presiding at every vestry; if funerals have to be celebrated, and families have applied duly to the officiating clergyman, the suspended clergyman, unless he has been consulted according to his own satisfaction and wish, will send the people out of the churchyard who have to dig the graves; he will open the church and show it to people (it is an interesting place); and tell them he is not above receiving gratuities from visitors. He has appointed his own half imbecile son parish clerk, who will go and touch on the arm and demand fees from the mourners at funerals; he interferes with the excellent school, and through some slight legal flaw in the election or appointment of the managers he insists upon ruling that school alone; he is gradually getting rid of all the scholars little by little, and is getting rid of an excellent master and promising pupil-teachers. No tyranny can be conceived more miserable and injurious than the tyranny which that man has been able to inflict upon an important parish owing to the fact that there is no power to prevent his residing during his period of suspension; and the only remedy that the law gives us is that perhaps with regard to the school we can get assistance from the Charity Commissioners. I think it will be admitted there is a very large gap in our procedure in the way of dealing with some of the most important interests which this country knows. Finally, then, the Bill makes arrangements by which some disgraceful scenes of defiance of sentences shall not be reenacted, when a man under sentence forces himself into the church, takes possession of the churchyard, and insists upon performing services there. If this Bill passes such scenes will be scenes of the past. It will prevent such scandals by providing that the Sheriff shall be in possession of the church, chapel, or mission room, and shall place the right persons in possession for using them. Supplementary to this, there is another provision which one would have supposed not to be necessary, but it is—namely, that, if there is a grievous scandal about a case, the Bishop shall be able to prevent the man's officiating during the proceedings. Nevertheless, your Lordships will not find, I think, that this Bill is a hard Bill. Everything that is reasonable towards offenders has been considered in preparing it. The rule about convictions being conclusive is not to apply if they have been summary convictions without opportunity of appeal. Again, we have considered that the clergyman accused ought to be heard if he is able to advance mitigating circumstances. Provision is also made for his replacement in his benefice if he receives the Queen's pardon; or for re-trial; or, supposing judgment has gone by default from his nonappearance, and he is subsequently able to explain that non-appearance, in such case he may be restored. Also a proper limit of time is fixed, beyond which it will not be possible for people to be proceeded against. All those points are to be submitted to your Lordships; but I think it is desirable I should point out that, in the first instance, the Bill is not meant for inflicting wounds in all directions. We desire that wherever it is thought any reasonable deductions ought to be made they should be made. And now, with your Lordships' permission, I will just sum up the gains which are secured by this Bill. We shall have the assistance of the Chancellor in considering the facts of the case, and I think that a very important point; the convenience of witnesses will be consulted by the trials being held in places where they are able to attend without excessive cost; the door is closed against the many evasions which are now possible in consequence of the fact that the man now belongs to some different diocese or that the parties to the case reside hero or there, or that the offence, or part of it, was committed in another diocese. Then, it is a matter of great importance I believe, and quite applicable in many of these cases, that the trials should be heard upon affidavits. A primâ facie case is required to be shown before an appeal is heard at all. This is one of the principal items, and a very great item, indeed as regards the expensiveness of these proceedings. It is required also that security for costs should be given wherever the Court thinks it necessary. Non-residence in suspension, as I have explained at length, and the non-officiating of the accused while his trial is still pending, are provided for; and it is also sufficiently provided that there shall be no defiance of the law when the sentence has been passed. I will not detain your Lordships longer. I do plead most earnestly that we ought not to be mere suitors for remedies like these for criminalities not only great, but so extremely offensive in their nature, and so destructive of the very reason for which our office exists. We cannot plead in formâ pauperis for this remedial measure. We believe that you will generously own that it is as a matter of right that the Church or any other Religious Body should come before you and claim from you the assistance which you only can give, to deliver a religious and moral institution of the highest importance to the welfare of the people from plague spots which at present it is unable effectually to remove.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Archbishop of Canterbury.)

*THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

My Lords, the words in which the most rev. Prelate who has brought this Bill before you on Second Reading has referred to my eminent predecessor compel me to say, with your Lordships' permission, a few words to explain to you why I earnestly welcome and desire to support the Bill. I have always had a deep interest in this question. It was a matter of very great regret to me to find, something like a year and a half ago, that an ecclesiastical lawyer so justly eminent and distinguished as my predecessor took very serious objections to some parts of this Bill; and it is a matter of proportionate satisfaction to me to find that at the last those objections had been almost entirely removed by modifications of this Bill, and that he gave it in all its main features, and I think, indeed, if I rightly understand the most rev. Prelate, he gave it with the exception of one only, which is not a main feature, his support then and would have given it his support now if he had been spared to address your Lordships upon the subject. Measuring the importance of his opposition as I did measure it at the time, I think it may be to your Lordships a very great proof of the value of this Bill and of its freedom from objectionable matter in its altered form that at the last so able, so earnest, so conscientious, and so learned an opponent should have supported, instead of opposing, the Bill. I would venture to say a word or two, not as regards those details which have been so lucidly put before your Lordships by the most rev. Prelate, but as to the principles of the Bill which are my reasons for supporting it. This Bill appears to me to be based upon two principles, both of which will, I think, commend themselves to your Lordships' approval, and, I trust, to the approval of the country. The first is a very simple one. It is, that the incumbent exists for the sake of the parish and not the parish for the sake of the incumbent. To read the old processes of the Canon Law and the early processes of the Church Discipline Act one would imagine that there were no such persons in existence as 'parishioners: the whole proceedings were framed in salutem animœ, for the good of the soul of the delinquent clergyman alone, and they in no way concerned the manner in which he had discharged his duty to his parishioners. I cannot imagine a position of greater nicety and difficulty in which to place the President of a Criminal Court than to tell him he is to judge an offender and to inflict the penalty, not according to the heinousness or mischievousness of the offences charged against him, but according to the spiritual condition in which that offender may happen to be at the moment he is convicted. Obviously sentences may, on such a principle as this, vary ad infinitum from the greatest severity to the greatest lenity—even to the extreme of extending to the convicted offender free forgiveness, with a gentle remonstrance on the gravity of his offence. To permit such a state of things is to totally ignore the rights of parishioners. If a Judge in a Criminal Court were to act upon such a principle as that, it would lead to the strongest laxity in the administration of the Criminal Law. The most rev. Prelate has laid before you what the rights of parishioners are; but I venture to add this: that parishioners in the Church of England have a special right to have their complaints and grievances redressed for this reason, that they have not selected nor appointed the incumbent who has shocked their moral sense by his conduct. He is imposed upon them, and is practically irremovable by them. Surely they have a right to come to us, who have given him the cure and guardianship of their souls, and say to us, "This man has proved himself utterly unfit for his trust; he is doing mischief instead of good where you have sent him to do good, and we call upon you to remove him from our midst." What is the answer we give to the parishioners in such a case under the existing law? The answer is, "We will try this man' for the good of his soul,' and we will send him away from his benefice for two or three months or for two or throe years according as his soul may seem to require it, and then at the expiration of that period he will come back into the midst of you to the place where he has disgraced himself and you, to that place where he is practically useless we send him back." What, let me ask, would be the state of discipline in the Navy if a captain who was found drunk on his quarter-deck were to be simply told that he must leave his ship for a short time that the First Lieutenant would discharge his duty for him (at a very moderate salary) in the interim, and that at the expiration of that short period he should be permitted to come back with a certificate of good character, and take command of his ship again? I can see no difference between the two cases, except that the one is a far more sacred and important trust and office than the other. Such a state of things has much more serious consequences than if it existed in the Army or the Navy. No doubt it seems cruelly hard sometimes that when a man has been overtaken in a fault he should lose such a position as that of incumbent of a parish; and the case becomes painfully sad when we think not of the offender himself, but the innocent wife and children who are to suffer for his fault, but still the "good of the service," if I may be pardoned for adapting a term from military affairs, the very safety of the Church require that sympathy of that kind for the innocent shall not be allowed to prevail where the spiritual welfare of the parish is concerned, and that the punishment shall not be relaxed against the offender. This, then, is the first principle of the Bill; that the rights of parishioners are to be considered. The second principle is this: that in dealing with a criminous cleric you should as closely as possible assimilate the proceedings to those followed in the case of criminous laymen. I see no reason why they should widely differ as they have hitherto done in. cases of criminous clergymen. If a layman is tried it is in a Criminal Court which is reasonably accessible, the processes of which are simplified largely and cheapened largely—as much cheapened as is consistent with a fair trial, and, of course, with a modest maintenance, which I hope will always be provided for members of the Bar—but those things being cared for a layman obtains a speedy decision of his case. Again; a clergyman who is tried before a Temporal Court for an offence against the law ecclesiastical, but which is also temporal, has his case cheaply, reasonably, and speedily dealt with. But bring the same man into an Ecclesiastical Court for the same offence, and the processes of trial and subsequent appeals are what your Lordships have heard described by the most rev. Prelate. Everything that can facilitate the trial of the cleric, as in the case of the trial of a layman, it is fair should be allowed not only to the accuser, the person who prosecutes, but to the offender, the accused himself. I confess I look with the greatest satisfaction upon the provision that when certain offences are committed entailing imprisonment they should be followed by deprivation. I am sure the most rev. Prelate is as reluctant as myself to stand up in this House and, as it is called, "tell tales out of school"; but we must, in support of a Bill of this kind, furnish one or two cases to your Lordships, thankfully acknowledging at the same time that they are very few, in illustration of what we say. Let me give your Lordships one case which occurred in my own diocese as regards this matter—of a clergyman being actually imprisoned for an offence and afterwards returning to his benefice. It will, I think, throw considerable light upon the necessity for this Bill. This was the case of a clergyman who was found guilty of an attempt to commit a very heinous offence which, had it been completed, would have been a felony. Not having, however, been found guilty of the felony, but only of misdemeanour, he was sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months. But that did not in the least vacate his benefice. All I could have done in the matter would have been to try him over again for that offence, and thus poison the Church and Society with a recapitulation of all the horrible details which would have been involved in his trial, not being sure, even then, by any means of depriving him in the end; possibly, "for the good of his soul," he might have had three years' suspension, but on the expiration of that term he would have come back again. Seeing, therefore, that after his imprisonment this clergyman would be at liberty to return to his parish, and thus become a centre of contamination, I was obliged to resort to the device which I will state to your Lordships. I sent word to him that though I could not compel him to resign his benefice he was bound by law to reside within it and not to absent himself for 12 months continuously, and that if he did then remain absent his benefice would become ipso facto vacated. As I am happy to say his imprisonment imposed a material barrier to his so residing, I was able by threat of deprivation to obtain his resignation. But I was only able to do it in that way. This is, of course, ludicrous; but it is very horrible to think that if the man had only been imprisoned for nine months he might have insisted upon going back to his parish and have there remained for years a shame, a misery, and a disgrace to the parishioners. That alone, my Lords, is, I think, an amply sufficient illustration of the need there is for this Bill. There is, however, if I may venture to say so, with all respect to the most rev. Prelate, one defect in this Bill, but it is a defect which I fear is incurable, and that is that it makes no provision for the costs of the prosecutor—really none. One thing is quite certain under this Bill: the only person who will ever prosecute a clergyman under it will be the Bishop. Your Lordships may be perfectly certain that no parishioner will do it. Men may be found who will form themselves into associations (and upon such associations I desire to be understood as pronouncing no opinion; I only take them as having actually been formed) for the purpose of prosecuting or defending clergymen who may conduct services in ways which they either approve or dislike; but, as far as I know, the Association of Laymen has yet to be formed for prosecuting clergymen who may be found intoxicated when performing any service. There is, I am afraid, all the difference in the world in these matters between party spirit and public spirit; and it requires a great deal of public spirit for a parishioner to come forward and prosecute his clergyman. Your Lordships may be perfectly assured that the only prosecutor will be the Bishop. I go further and say that he is the only proper prosecutor. I have no belief in Bishops not doing that which they vow to do at their consecration; that is, to punish all "disquiet and criminous" persons. It is a mere quibble that Bishops are the fathers of the clergy, and, therefore, may not prosecute them; on the contrary, I hold that the correction of sons is one of the duties of fathers. At any rate, it is clearly on the Bishops that these prosecutions will devolve. If that is the case, it does not seem right to me that a Bishop should be the only public prosecutor who should not have his costs provided for and who is to be, in fact, heavily fined for performing the duties of his office. But that is the case, for he is heavily fined in the shape of costs. Unfortunately, when very large Episcopal revenues were given up to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners no lien was placed on those revenues as it might very well have been, either for the police duties of the Church or for the augmentation of the Episcopate. Had that been done both would have been in a very different position now as regards the true interests of the Church. That fact it is impossible now to pass by, but I only refer to it for this reason: that if there are any clergymen who are, as I think, quite unnecessarily dreading that Bishops will be impatient to use this Bill as an instrument of oppression, or coercion, or spite, they may take comfort from the fact that the Bishop is bound over in heavy recognisances not to proceed unduly or hastily against clergymen under this Act, because in almost every case he will have to pay heavy costs. Either he loses or wins the suit, and the more heinous the offence charged the heavier the costs for the prosecutor. The mere fact of conviction for the offence of course entails deprivation of the benefice, and he cannot, therefore, come upon the benefice, because it has ceased to belong to the convicted clergyman; he cannot, therefore, get anything from him; and even if he could, I doubt whether there is a single Bishop on the Bench who would add to the pain and misery of that man and his family by seeking to enforce the payment of costs even if he had power to do so. Upon the Bishop, then, must fall the costs. I think, then, on behalf of the Church, and even on behalf of the overburdened and overtaxed Bishop, the process by which an offender is brought to justice should be as easy, as cheap, and as efficient as is consistent with perfect and scrupulous fairness to the accused. Believing that the Bill does make those provisions, and that it carries out those two principles which I have endeavoured to submit to your Lordships for your approval, I do most heartily and cordially support the most rev. Prelate's Bill, and I earnestly trust that it may speedily become law.

*LORD GRIMTHORPE

Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to add one or two remarks to the explanations of the two most rev. Prelates, for I think it is desirable that the public should be made fully acquainted with cases which show the necessity for the Bill, and its reasonableness in its present form. The principle of the legislation which is being attempted now is not new; it is only extending a little what was done some 30 years ago in an Act which is cited at the end of this Bill, where it is provided that So much of an Act to abolish forfeitures for treason and felony and to otherwise amend the law relating thereto (that is, chap. 23 of 33 & 34 Vict.) as relates to a forfeiture by a clergyman of any benefice is hereby repealed. That Act is only repealed because it is extended so as to embrace not merely treasons and felonies, but certain offences which, for all moral purposes, are just as bad and as noxious to a parish. I may be allowed to say with regard to the 1st clause of this Bill, which was at first drawn by me, that I took an existing clause in that Act and extended it by amendment. That is not very material, but it is material that the public should know that we are introducing no new principle by enforcing ipso facto deprivation. Of course, there is also the question of costs, upon which the most rev. Prelates have touched, but that is a difficulty which it is very hard to get over. There is just one point I must criticise, and which I do not understand, as there has been an alteration made in the Bill since the meeting at Lambeth, which substantially settled the Bill. A clergyman is to be allowed, after being convicted in a Civil Court of something which does not amount to ipso facto deprivation, to "show mitigating circumstances." I confess I do not quite understand what that means. The former Bill of 1888 had a clause providing that he might urge whatever he could "in mitigation of punishment." I understand it is supposed that there is some difference between the two phrases. But what is there to be mitigated except the punishment? The late Archbishop of York and I objected to the former phrase, and it was altogether omitted. I do not think the present one is satisfactory. The result of it is this: if a clergyman is guilty of an offence charged against him, and knows he is guilty, he may prove mitigating circumstances. But, on the other hand, if he is found guilty, but knows he is not guilty and is quite confident he could prove it if allowed, he cannot prove anything that will do him any good, because mitigation implies guilt. It is quite clear some alteration is required there, though this is not the time to point out what it ought to be, if it is desirable to keep that phrase in at all. Your Lordships may think, as I stated my own opinion to be at the meeting at Lambeth, that there are cases in which it would be fair to allow the clergyman accused to make out that he was not guilty at all; and I mentioned the memorable case of Mr. Hatch, who was convicted on the evidence of two girls, who afterwards admitted that they had committed perjury. What could Mr. Hatch have done under this Bill? Would he have been able to come to the Court and say, "I am not allowed to prove that I did not commit the offence which I am charged with, but I can prove mitigating circumstances?" Mitigating what? If he was innocent, of course there would be nothing to mitigate; and if, on the other hand, he was guilty, nothing could have been worse than such an offence, and how therefore, could it be mitigated? I hope, before we go into Committee on the Bill, some attention will be paid to this matter by some other noble and learned Lord who wants to make the measure as perfect as it can be. With regard to the matter of costs, that seems to me to be an incurable difficulty, except by the means which were pointed out by the most rev. Prelate who spoke last with whom I entirely agree. Moreover, the worse the defendant's case is the worse it will be for the Bishop; for if he is only suspended there will he some thing to pay costs with, but if he is deprived, nothing. That seems to be a monstrous injustice which does not, I believe, prevail in any other class of cases in England. At the same time, I believe it would be very difficult in these days to get anything out of the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for such a purpose, though I think it will be admitted that this is a far more important matter than even the extension of the Cathedral of Truro, for which they and the Government quietly allow the Common Fund to be invaded. I am very glad to find that there is not, as far as I can judge, any appearance of dissatisfaction with the Bill, and I am happy to think, after attending the two large meetings at Lambeth, and seeing the universal agreement at such meetings, which included two strong opponents of the Bill of 1888, I think there is a presumption that the present Bill is, on the whole, a good and fair one.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)

My Lords, if this Bill is passed in your Lordships' House you will hardly be surprised to find that the Government, so far from offering any opposition to it, will heartily support it, agreeing in its principle, but without, of course, committing themselves to details. I think your Lordships will agree that the Bill has been well threshed out in preparation, when the noble Lord behind me (Lord Grimthorpe) has only been able to find in it a very few words to mitigate the effect of his eulogy of the measure as a whole. That being the case, I think we may accept him as—I will not say advocatus diaboli——

*LORD GRIMTHORPE

Only of the clergy.

VISCOUNT CRANBROOK

Well, at all events, the noble Lord, having accepted the Bill as a whole, will not be surprised that the Government should do the same.

LORD HERSCHELL

My Lords, I only desire to say a word or two upon this Bill. I have on previous occasions expressed my approval of similar Bills, and having expressed my approval of them, have said that I desired to see them passed into law. This is not a matter which concerns merely the discipline of the Church, but it is one of large public interest. Clergymen who conduct themselves as those clergymen do who are intended to be dealt with under this Bill bring discredit not merely on the Church, whose ministers they are, but they bring scandal and discredit upon religion itself. Therefore, it seems to me that a measure which seems to provide the means of speedily and successfully dealing with their offences is one which all who are concerned in the interests of religion must regard with sympathy and approval, and which all must desire to see carried into effect. I do not propose to trouble your Lordships now with any observations, except to say a word in reference to the point to which attention has been called by the noble and learned Lord opposite upon the details of the Bill; but I do desire to put before your Lordships the grounds upon which it seems to me the Bill may claim the support and approval even of those who do not regard themselves as members of the Church, and who would not support it merely as a measure for improving the discipline of the Church. With reference to the point which has been alluded to by my noble and learned Friend, it is, no doubt, a matter of difficulty. The scheme of that part of the Bill is, as far as possible, to make the findings of the Temporal Courts conclusive, and to avoid the necessity of trying the same facts over again. Of course, if you allow a person who is convicted in a Temporal Court to go into the question of his guilt or innocence again when the matter is hoard before the Ecclesiastical Court, you add enormously to the expense of the proceedings. The extent to which that finding should be conclusive may, no doubt, be a matter giving rise to difference of opinion; but, upon the whole, I think one may very well be content that, where the Temporal Court has decided against a man who has committed that which is an ecclesiastical offence, the Ecclesiastical Court should be permitted, without the necessity of re-trying the case, to act upon the judgment of the Temporal Court. No doubt you may have hard cases in which a mistake has been made by the Temporal Court where you would not desire to see the person dealt with as guilty; but it is impossible to deal with matters of this description except as a whole; and, looking at the matter very broadly, when you so deal with it, it is necessary for furthering the ends of justice that you should shut your eyes to the possibility of the hard cases that may arise. But I quite agree with my noble and learned Friend that any provision of that description requires careful scrutiny and attention, and I think the most rev. Prelate would desire any necessary assistance in order to take care that the provision shall be made as satisfactory as possible.

On Question, agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.