THIRD READING. (Hansard, 20 March 1891)

*THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

My Lords, before proceeding to move the Third Reading of this Bill, I would ask your Lordships' permission to make a short statement for the purpose of removing a misapprehension which I believe exists in some quarters that a new principle is introduced in this Bill by its enacting the deprivation of a clergyman upon conviction of treason, felony, or grave misdemeanour. It is supposed by some that the sentence of a Civil Court has not hitherto taken effect in that way, and that this is, therefore, a new principle introduced into ecclesiastical legislation. With your Lordships' permission I desire to say a few words-merely in order to remove that entirely erroneous opinion. The state of the case really is this: that down to the year 1870 a conviction for felony involved forfeiture of the felon's property, and consequently a clergyman convicted of felony forfeited his benefice. In 1870 the Felony Act which is chap. 23 of the 33 & 34 Vict, was passed abolishing the old forfeiture; but it provided that a person convicted of felony should forfeit public offices which are mentioned in the Schedule. Amongst others an ecclesiastical benefice is forfeited ipso facto upon a conviction. The section expressly declared that the benefice held by a clergyman convicted of felony should forthwith become vacant, unless the convict received a free pardon within two months of his conviction, and before the living had been filled up. It was further provided that a clergyman so 1521 convicted should remain incapable of holding an ecclesiastical benefice afterwards. The present Act repeals the earlier Act, but it re-enacts the provisions as to forfeiture in the cases specified. What it does is simply to extend them to certain very grave and gross misdemeanours, of so bad a character that the person convicted is sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour. Now, hard labour can only be given for certain classes of offences defined by Statute, and cannot be given for any trivial offence upon indictment. Then the Bill contains a similar provision in reference to any clergyman upon whom a bastardy order has been made, or who has been found guilty in the Divorce Court of adultery. It will only carry out the general conviction and belief that a man who has incurred either of those consequences is not a fit person to go on holding a benefice and administering to the spiritual wants of the people. I wish to point out that in other respects the Bill relaxes the stringency of the Act of 1870, because it prevents a conviction from operating until the time mentioned has passed, and then by Clause 16 the incapacity for holding future preferment is not absolute, but is made conditional on the assent of the Bishop of the diocese and Archbishop of the Province being obtained to holding another preferment; that is in cases where a free pardon is not given by the Crown within two months after conviction. The provision in Clause 3 of the Bill by which a conviction in a Temporal Court is made conclusive in the Ecclesiastical Court is little more than re-enacting the existing law; and in some cases Clause 3 relaxes the existing law if it is a summary conviction which cannot be appealed against. With this explanation, trusting that it will remove any misconception upon those points, I beg leave to move the Third Beading of the Bill.