Lords Sitting of 14 May 1895

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:—

1. Mr. Speaker's Retirement.

2. Grand Juries (Ireland) (No. 2).

3. Documentary Evidence.

4. Lands Clauses (Taxation of Costs).

5. Metropolitan Police (Receiver).

6. London (Boundary Street, Bethnal Green) Provisional Order.

7. Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 2).

8. Metropolitan Outer Circle Railway (Abandonment).

9. New market Gas.

10. Bristol Water.

11. Brecon and Merthyr Railway.

12. Legal and General Life Assurance Society.

13. New Russia Company.

14. Edinburgh Merchant Company Endowments.

15. Felixstowe and Walton Water.

16. St. Leonards-on-Sea and Hollington Parishes.

17. Crystal Palace Company.

18. Heriot's Trust.

19. Wrexham and Ellesmere Railway.

20. British Gas Light Company (Staffordshire Potteries).

21. City and South London Railway.

22. East Indian Railway.

23. North Staffordshire Railway.

24. American Mortgage Company of Scotland.

25. Great Southern and Western Railway.

The Commissioners were:—The Lord Chancellor, Lord Carrington, and Lord Kensington.

EXTRADITION BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Extradition Acts, 1870 and 1873, was presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1a; and to be printed.— [No. 115].
MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

MIDWIVES REGISTRATION BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
*LORD BALFOURsaid, he need hardly assure their Lordships that he approached the performance of the task he had set himself under a deep sense of the responsibility which attached to him, not because he had any doubt or misgiving as to the strength of the case which he had to set forth, or that he had any doubt of the need, the clamant need which existed of reform in this matter; but owing to the feeling that he would not be able to do full justice to the strength of the case, and lest the excellence of the case be lost sight of through his failure adequately to perform his part. He would have preferred to see the Bill introduced by someone whose position arid previous experience and training would have been recognised as giving him a right to speak upon the subject. Personally, he approached the question as a layman and he hoped without prejudice, and unbiassed by any past controversies. In taking it up he endeavoured to ascertain the opinions of those who were entitled to express an opinion from technical knowledge, whether on one side or the other. He consulted, so far as he had the power, persons who held official positions. He had the opportunity of having two interviews with the present President of the General Medical Council, and he had also the advantage of the advice and counsel of many personal friends, members of the profession of Medicine, and well entitled to form an opinion on the subject. The information he had been able to get together led him to the conclusion that a case for this measure, or something like it, could be presented, which, so far as its main outlines were concerned, must carry conviction to every unbiassed mind. He supposed their Lordships would expect anyone who undertook to move the Second Reading of this Bill to prove to the House two things—firstly, that an undoubted evil existed; and secondly, that the remedy proposed proceeded on safe and wise lines, and would not bring in its train evils greater than those which now existed, or even any evils at all. As to the first point, he must rely largely on the evidence of others. Anyone who studied the Returns of the

1131
Registrar General would see that there were every year in this country between 800,000 and 900,000 births, and he thought it would surprise many of their Lordships when he said that more than half of those births were attended by midwives only, without any intervention on the part of a fully qualified medical man. Of course it was the case, but it would not lessen the interest their Lordships took in the matter that the great proportion of those cases must take place amongst the humbler or labouring classes of the community. It was also universally acknowledged that the great majority of the midwives who attended those cases were almost wholly, if not wholly, untrained, and were, in too many instances, lamentably ignorant of the important duties they undertook to discharge. In this country alone, amongst European countries, was no care or supervision exercised over the calling of the midwife. It was actually the fact that at the present time no conduct, however improper or disgraceful, would prevent any woman from undertaking and continuing this calling. Even the fact that a woman who had undertaken it had been convicted upon a criminal charge, would not justify any authority in intervening and preventing her continuing the practice. The state of matters consequent upon this was, by competent medical authorities, proclaimed to be that the mortality amongst mothers of the classes who chiefly employed these women was much greater than it ought to be, and much greater than it might easily be. In addition to that, the reports of the out-patient departments of many of the hospitals which were set apart for the treatment of diseases to which women were more peculiarly liable, were crowded with cases showing most lamentable results which had arisen from incompetent attendance during childbirth. In the case of children it was not too much to say that a very large proportion of the cases of ophthalmia, and of partial, and even in some instances of total, blindness, were due to the same cause. This was no new question. It had a long medical and Parliamentary history. They might search the Transactions of the General Medical Council for nearly a quarter of a century, and they would find constant references to it. That
1132
Council had, over and over again, committed itself to the support of a Bill which would run upon the lines of the one he had the honour to submit. They had resolved—
"(1) That this Council regards the absence of public provision for the education and supervision of midwives as productive of a large amount of grave suffering and fatal disease among the poorer classes, and urges upon the Government the importance of passing into law some measure for the education and registration of midwives. (2) That, if any department of Her Majesty's Government were constituted controlling authority in relation to local arrangements made under statute for the licensing and registration of midwives, the Medical Council would, if the Government Department so wished, be willing to advise as to the general rules of education, examination and discipline, which ought to be established in the matter."
The first of those resolutions was proposed and the second was seconded by Sir Walter Foster, who was now Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board. The College of Physicians had passed resolutions quite as strong. In 1891 they passed the following resolutions:—
"(1) It appears that there are from 10,000 to 15,000 midwives practising in England and Wales, many of them entirely uneducated and incompetent. This must be taken as an existing fact which cannot be ignored. (2) Midwives are under careful State Regulation in all the other principal countries of Europe, and, in the opinion of your Committee, the education, examination, and registration of midwives in Great Britain are urgently required in the interests of the women they attend."
The usual organs of medical opinion had from time to time been equally emphatic. The Lancet had this in its editorial columns:—
"The records of our coroner's court within the last twenty years would furnish material enough to fill many columns of The Lancet with said illustrations of the fatal results caused by the ignorance, and, what is worse, by the persistent recklessness, of these women in refusing to send for medical aid when it is imperative. It is bad enough in large towns and cities, but what must it be in remote villages and hamlets far away from medical aid? Legislation is absolutely necessary to prevent ignorant and incompetent women from practising for gain to the danger of those women who employ them. A drunken old hag could not obtain a situation as nurse to a hospital or workhouse, but there is nothing to prevent her putting a brass plate with 'midwife' under her name on her door. In this simple fact lies the whole question to be solved."

1133
The British Medical Journal had not been behindhand in expressing a similar opinion. Frequent allusions were made to the same matter in the summing-up of coroners and in the finding of coroners' juries. The Home Office were so impressed last year with the importance of this branch of the subject that they sent a communication to the General Medical Council calling their attention to a letter from the Borough Coroner of Bridgwater in which that gentleman said that at an inquest held by him the jury appended the following rider to their verdict:—
"The jury desire strongly to censure Jane Rugg for not calling in medical assistance upon difficulties arising in the deceased giving birth to a child, and are of opinion that the Legislature should interfere to prevent women acting as midwives unless trained and certificated for such purpose."
One more piece of evidence would be found in a recent charge of the Recorder to the Grand Jury at the Old Bailey. The Recorder said:—
"He regretted very much that the registration of midwives was not compulsory. To his mind registration was of the utmost importance, and he hoped that a Bill dealing with this subject, which had for some time been before Parliament, would eventually become law. Such a law was necessary in the interests of the poor, who might then look forward to the fact that if registration of a midwife; was compulsory, there would be some guarantee that she was able to perform her duties. Anyone at present could call herself a midwife, however ignorant she might be of the very first principles of her duties."
The Parliamentary history of the matter was not less striking or important. In 1878 a Bill was introduced into the House of Lords by the Duke of Richmond, then President of the Council, but the part dealing with the Registratration of Midwives did not ultimately receive the Assent of the Legislature. In 1890 another Bill was introduced in the House of Commons, and proceeded as far as the Second Reading, but then fell a victim to a not uncommon practice; and those who opposed it, being unable to defeat it on its merit, had recourse to the device of talking it out. In 1892 and 1893 the House of Commons appointed a Select Committee to consider the question, which sat during two years. In 1892, the Committee reported as follows:—
"This evidence has shown that there is at present serious and unnecessary loss of life and
1134
health, and permanent injury to both mother, and child in the treatment of childbirth, and that some legislative provision for improvement and regulation is desirable."
The Report of 1893 stated:—
"Your Committee are of opinion that a large number of maternal and particularly infant deaths, as well as a serious amount of suffering and permanent injury to women and children, is caused from the inefficiency and want of skill of many of the women practising as midwives, without proper training and qualification."
Nothing, however, had been done, and no one with a candid mind could read the Report of the Committee without seeing that the following points were established beyond all possibility of doubt:—(1) That midwives did attend the women of the humbler classes in great numbers, and without the supervision of qualified medical men; (2) That midwives were a necessary class; (3) That in very large proportion they were quite untrained and uneducated, and therefore not fit for the important duties which they undertook to discharge; (4) That the mortality amongst the women whom they attended was greater than it ought to be, and that other injuries and evils followed from their want of skill; (5) That education and supervision would do much to reduce these evils, although they might not do away with them altogether. At present there was no proper authority exercised, and no proper standard of teaching. Before these could be secured, the Legislature must give the necessary statutory powers. He would quote the testimony of a man, whose name would be received with respect and attention, as one of the highest authorities in the country—Sir John Williams. Writing a few days ago, he said:—
"64, Brook Street, Grosvenor Square,
"May 11.
"Dear Lord Balfour,—In common with a very large number of medical men, I am grateful to you for introducing into the House of Lords a, Bill for the Registration of Midwives. The large number of births attended by midwives alone, and the frequency of serious, and even fatal, results arising from ignorance on the part of midwives of the process of natural labour, make it most desirable that the poorer women of the country, who are unable to obtain the services of a medical man, should be able to secure the help of a midwife who has an elementary knowledge of midwifery. The mortality after childbirth is considerably greater than is generally supposed. This mortality is

1135
due to two classes of cases, one being preventable and the other not preventable. That due to preventable causes forms the larger section, and amounts to two-thirds or three-fourths of the whole. The preventable causes consist of infection and some forms of abnormal development and departure from the natural mechanism; and upon a knowledge of the means for preventing infection and an ability to distinguish abnormality at an early period depends success in preventing or reducing mortality. It cannot be doubted that the mortality of childbed among the poorer classes would be greatly reduced if the women attending them possessed the elementary knowledge to which I have referred. I am, my Lord, yours truly,—JOHN WILLIAMS."
Could anything be more striking? According to this high authority, there was a large mortality due to preventable causes. It meant that this preventable loss of life might fall in the most tragic manner on otherwise happy homes. Let noble Lords think of the labouring man, in the prime of life, with steady and fairly paid work, and healthy children; and imagine the sudden loss, by preventable causes, of a useful life—a loss turning all the happiness and prosperity into misery and despair. He would next turn to the second part of the question—Were the proposals contained in the Bill a well-considered and wise measure of reform? The provisions were short and simple. First, they provided for the registration of midwives, and prohibited those who were not registered from using the title of "Midwife." The Bill did not prohibit unregistered women from practising as midwives; that could not be done. Common humanity would permit anyone to go to the assistance of a fellow-creature in pain or misery, and it was impossible to forbid that assistance being accepted. The Bill in this respect followed the precedent of former legislation. The Medical Act of 1858 prohibited any person from wilfully and falsely pretending to be or take or use the name of a physician, doctor of medicine, &c. The Dentists Act of 1878 provided that a person shall not be entitled to take or use the name or title of "Dentist," &c. Then, there was the Veterinary Surgeons Act of 1881, which provided that no person "other than a person who for the time being is on the register of veterinary surgeons," should "take or use the title of veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner." Parliament had actually taken more care of the animals under
1136
human charge than of women who were attended by midwives. Finally, there was the precedent of the Pharmaceutical Society. The right to use the title "Pharmaceutical Chemist" was restricted to certain persons by the provisions of the Pharmacy Act 1852, and the right to use the title "Chemist and Druggist" was restricted to certain persons by the provisions of the Pharmacy Act 1861. Therefore the Bill proceeded on the sound and well-considered lines of measures already accepted by Parliament. Next, the Bill formed a Board which would keep the register and admit midwives to registration after proper examination. The Board would also make rules for examinations and for the guidance and control of midwives in their calling. In all these matters, the Board would be subject to the control of the General Medical Council, and the Bill in this part differed a little from the original draft published in some of the medical papers, one reason for this was that it had been altered to meet the wishes of the President of the Medical Council himself. Then certain privileges were given to those on the register—such as the use of the title of "Midwife," the right to recover fees by law; and it imposed penalties for fraud and for disobedience of the rules. All those specialists on the diseases of women whom he had consulted, approved of the form in which the Bill was drafted. Some objections had been urged against the Bill, and one very prominently. It was that the Bill introduced a new class of medical practitioners—that it was going to put women on a different footing from men in this matter, because no man was a qualified practitioner until he had qualified in each of the three branches—medicine, surgery, and midwifery. But this was an objection that could not be sustained. The Bill did not turn these women loose without control. It simply provided that they should be so far qualified as to be able to recognise the limits of what they ought to attempt, and to recognise them early enough to call in a qualified medical man. It was impossible to prevent the women from practising, and was it better do what was possible in the way of improving their position, increasing their education, developing their facilities

1137
of training, and putting them under a certain control and supervision? If this Bill did nothing else, it would for the first time give the means and power to the people who employed the midwives of discriminating between those who were qualified to a certain extent and those who were not. There was no means of giving effect to the registration of midwives at present except by the action of a voluntary body, which had not been altogether popular. Another highly technical objection was that it used the expression "natural labour," which could not be defined in an Act of Parliament. The point he wished to impress on these objectors was that while, at the present time, midwives often did not know when labour was going on naturally and when it was not, the amount of attention and training to be given to them would enable them to know when the services of a medical man were necessary. He could fortify himself by an authority which he thought their Lordships would accept on this point. Two years ago, after the Report of the Select Committee was issued, The Lancet had a leading article on the subject. It cast a great amount of ridicule on those who took the objection to which he was referring. These were the words of the article:—
"We have not much sympathy with the remark that it is impossible to define 'natural labour.' We live in a practical world, and it is not impossible to lay down rules of conduct intelligible to women of any training that will enable them to know when to send for medical assistance, and enable those who supervise them to know when they have been culpable in not so sending."
That was the answer which they gave to the objection, and they hoped that it would be regarded as a satisfactory one. There was, however, one objection which had not been raised which he felt bound to refer to for fear of misconstruction. It had not been actually suggested, but it was impossible to be blind to the fact, that it had been hinted that one effect of the Bill would be to take away business from medical men. Their Lordships knew the medical profession well enough, however, to believe that such an objection would not be raised by any large body of it. But if it were raised, it was an objection which Parliament would not listen to for a moment. He thought that their Lordships held the medical
1138
profession in far too high esteem to believe that any large body of doctors would raise a narrow-class interest of that kind against what he believed to be a great reform. So far from the Bill having this effect, however, he believed that the effect of this legislation would be to teach women when to send for medical advice, and the essence of the whole question was prompt and early attendance. This was no question of Party conflict; it was one of domestic reform. He believed it to be one of the greatest importance to a large class who were little able to help themselves. Some measure of this kind was a clamant necessity in the interests of public health, as well as in the interests of common humanity. The Bill would afford at least a chance to those most interested to know whether those they employed were possessed of reasonable knowledge and skill, or whether they were dangerously, and, he might add, criminally ignorant. There were the three proverbial courses before Parliament in this matter. To let the matter alone, a course which he thought no one would be found to defend; to prevent midwives altogether from exercising their calling, which he thought was not possible; or to accept some wise and well-considered reform, such as that which he had endeavoured to explain to their Lordships, and to the Bill enacting which he hoped most earnestly their Lordships would give a Second Reading.
LORD THRINGsaid he took a great interest in this subject. They were all agreed as to the necessity for educating midwives, but there remained behind one consideration to which their Lordships ought to give attention. They ought to do justice to the 8,000 or 10,000 women who were at present engaged in this occupation—admitted to be a necessary one. The women, under this Bill, would not be able to obtain any education at all, be cause the Bill placed education almost out of their way. It raised the standard too much, and no doubt it was a measure which pleased the doctors very well. He did not blame the doctors; naturally they wished to exalt their art to the utmost; but the effect of the Bill would be to refer everything to a Council on which there were no lady doctors or laymen. A strictly professional Council

1139
would make regulations for the midwives. There was not a hint in the Bill of the recommendation of the Select Committee of the House of Commons that there should be local examinations, and that the local infirmary and local hospital should be utilised for the purpose of educating those women. Then, again, the Select Committee of the House of Commons recommended that the County Councils should have a controlling power; and they ought to have. It was, indeed, a local question. The whole Bill, however, was a centralised system of education in London of a most expensive character, quite unattainable by those poor women. He could not imagine anything wilder than the way in which that Bill was drawn. The Bill depended on the definition of midwife—
"a woman who undertakes to attend cases of natural labour with the direction and supervision of a medical practitioner."
No such thing; a midwife never "undertakes." in a legal sense, or in any way, with the direction and supervision of a medical practitioner. This was a specimen of the little consideration which had been given to the details of the Bill. He thought that the object of the Bill was most excellent; but he trusted that it would be referred to a Select Committee, and that due care would be taken to see that midwives were properly represented on the Council. Above all, the examinations of midwives should be local, and the expense ought to be reduced to the lowest possible point.
*LORD PLAYFAIRsaid, the Government had no objection to the general principle involved in the Bill, though they considered that, probably, several Amendments might be necessary. If the noble Lord would put himself in communication with the Privy Council he thought that the suggested Amendments would commend themselves to him, as he hoped they would be found useful to the general public. There was certainly a large amount of ignorance among the midwives engaged in cases of natural labour throughout the kingdom; and there wag, undoubtedly, also a great deal of preventible illness which would not occur if more competent midwives were engaged. At the same time, the Government had always found it extremely difficult to
1140
deal with the question on account of the interests involved. This was not the first or the tenth time that this subject had been before Government. It was considered two centuries ago very seriously by the Governments of the day; and during the time that the medical Acts were passing through Parliament in 1878 the Government prepared clauses which were objected to by the Medical Council on the ground that they thought the subject should not be mixed up with medical reform; therefore, the clauses for the protection of women from unskilled midwives fell to the ground. The noble Lord said that he was justified in trying to define what "natural labour" was which midwives, qualified or not, might attend. That was one of the points of weakness in the Bill. He admitted that it was extremely difficult to define. The Bill mentioned that they might attend cases of natural labour, but if it was unnatural that then the medical man should be sent for. He thought that there must be some definition of this kind, but cases of unnatural labour were not frequent. Out of 15,000 cases analysed 983 in the thousand were cases of natural labour, and only for the balance were midwives obliged to send for the medical man. Still it might cause a considerable amount of litigation, and persons would not know their powers under the Bill if it was left as vague as at present. Then there arose a serious question. The Bill provided that no one should call herself a midwife alone or with an adjective unless she had been examined, certified, and registered. Now midwife was one of the oldest words in the English language, and it would be extremely difficult for any Bill to create a monopoly in the use of the word, and to say that persons who were not registered should not call themselves midwives. It was an old Saxon word, which arose from the woman getting mede, a guerdon, or a reward for her services. Their Lordships could not, therefore, monopolise it for one class of persons—an educated class, who were to exercise an art with skill. They might say "registered midwives" or "qualified midwives," but to take the name of midwife, which was the common property of all women, engaged now or in the future in this work, would be exceedingly difficult without some restriction. He called

1141
attention to Clauses 8 to 12 simply because he feared that they enjoined so much and were so elaborate that in practice they would defeat the Bill and prevent its success. They would prove to be so costly in their administration that it would be exceedingly difficult to make the Bill work. He thought that the fee of two guineas for examination and registration was too high for persons of this class. He believed that more money would be obtained if a lower fee was taken and if the examinations were local as well as central. He assured the noble Lord that personally, as well as officially representing the Privy Council, he had much sympathy with the Bill; but he would ask the noble Lord to postpone its further consideration for a little while, so as to enable the Government to consider what Amendments they should put down before the Committee Stage.
*LORD BALFOURsaid, that he cheerfully accepted the suggestion of the noble Lord who had just spoken, not only to confer with the Privy Council as to the details of the Bill, but also to consult him and other noble Lords before putting down the Bill for Committee.
Bill read 2a.

NATURALISATION (RESIDENCE ABROAD) BILL.
Passed through Committee and reported without Amendment.

CHURCH PATRONAGE BILL.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY,in rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill, said: I desire to express, in the first instance, the great sorrow that I feel on account of the death of Lord Selborne, who took the greatest interest in former Bills of this kind. His vast knowledge and labour, the minute diligence with which he investigated matters, and his zeal for the Church's good, make the best friends of the Church feel that the Church has lost in him her very best friend. His last letter to me, written only a few weeks ago, expressed approval of the principles of the present Bill, and his opinion that those principles are well carried out in the various clauses. This
1142
Bill resembles that which was before the House of Commons last year, and also that which was before your Lordships the year before, in this important respect, that it aims, not at being a complete scheme of Church patronage, but simply at meeting some of the worst abuses. It aims at stopping, if possible, and, at any rate, making so difficult as to be almost impossible, those sales of what is considered property in Church patronage—those sales which are incompatible with the highest aspects of a trust, for our law has always considered that the principal aspect of an advowson is that it is a trust of the highest and most sacred character. This Bill is very like those which I have mentioned, but criticism, which has been invited and carefully used has improved it in some important particulars. I need not argue the evil in process amongst us. The evil lies in the ignoring of the trust. The purchase of the right to present to a benefice is one thing; but the purchase of the right to decide as to the purchaser's own fitness, then to present himself, and to take Church and people and Sacraments and sick and dying in hand next week, is a very different thing. The purchase of the next presentation is very different from acquiring property in the advowson. It is so felt, and it contradicts the best religious instincts of the poorest and least educated of our people. It is quite true that good men have purchased livings and presented themselves to them, but even a good man does not get over the taint in the mind of his parishioners, and this feeling is a serious matter, they are apt and sure to say if anything goes wrong—
"What else can you expert, when you know he bought himself into the cure of our souls?"
The evil, whatever it is, is distinctly on the increase, though its area is limited, for it is a singular fact how the same livings get sold over and over again. From want of attention to the evil as it is now, and from want of provisions on the subject, the evil is increasing, and there is a practical reason why it should increase. The value of benefices is going down, and is, in fact, so far reduced that the purchase of an advowson or next presentation is the very best investment that a clergyman can make, as he can obtain a rate of interest immeasurably beyond

1143
what he can get in any other way; and if he can leave it behind him as property it is property which yields an immense rate of interest. As the value of livings goes down, the sales of livings increase. This is a matter of fact. For instance, there were 83 advertisements of advowsons in the advertising columns of The Times during the months of January and February 1895, against 37 in the two corresponding months of 1894. Again one single firm in its list offered 82 livings in the single month of January, 1895, with immediate possession. I have before now quoted to your Lordships shameless advertisements, but I should like to read two or three selected from advertisements actually in circulation now, simply to show the House that, while the language has become rather less barefaced, their description and character show that they are intended for a class of persons very unlike that spiritual pastor whom your Lordships would most wish to see in livings of your own, in love with his work and with his people. The advertisements run in this strain:—
"This preferment is only suited to a clergyman who is prepared to give a, fair price for a really desirable county benefice." "This is an unusually desirable gentleman's property."
Then comes a description of a house and grounds, concluding:—
"This is a very compact gentleman's property, in perfect repair."
The descriptions are interlarded with announcements that the benefices are near good towns or convenient railway stations, that yachts or fishing are to be had, and, what speaks for itself, "first-class society." There are also even more serious defects appearing in the advertisements. One is, that "there are no schools." This would attract the kind of man who wants no trouble with the children of his parish. Another is, that the income of the benefice is derived from tithe rent-charge and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. That means actually that where a living with very poor means has been lately augmented by this body and brought up to, say, £300, this is used, as an instrument to make a large sum out of the sale of the benefice. The amount even of charities bestowed on a parish is held out as showing that there will be no
1144
demands made on the pastor. These descriptions are also, in some cases, coloured with such nauseous statements as that an "Evangelical" or a "Catholic" clergyman is required by such salesmen. The list of advertisements put out by some advertising firms is very large, and one of the leading agents told the Royal Commission who examined him on the subject that three-quarters of his transactions were illegal. But there are many people who never come near an agent at all, so that this by no means reveals the amount of the evil that is going on. A firm of agents sent me a circular the other day stating that—
"owing to their being University men, their relations with their clients had always been pleasant;"
and no wonder, when they add that as they commanded the assistance of a firm of lawyers, they could "assure the patron of every safeguard with regard to simony." Violation of the law was never asserted in a more determined way than this. But what is the kind of men who are being introduced into the Church in the meantime, and what is the kind of training which all this exercises upon the men? A clergyman the other day was offered a preferment of large value, and he was prepared to give between £10,000 and £20,000 for it. While the transaction was being completed the incumbent died. The patrons, however, proceeded, and thought the purchaser would in honour complete the bargain; but as soon as he was placed in possession he turned round and declined to give the original sum, because, whereas when he entered on the purchase there was an aged incumbent in the living, now there was a young incumbent, himself, and therefore the living was of much less value, and he declined to pay. Is such a man as that the kind of pastor the English Church creates? Is it decent that a system which encourages and makes possible such a class of men, and such a state of morals should continue? It is exercising a pernicious effect upon the Church. The aim of this Bill then is simply to make the present law effective. We have no desire to alter the law. We have no wish to interfere with any person's rights, but those rights must be regarded in view of the law as it exists, and all we

1145
aim at is to make the law a reality. The law has always spoken most decidedly against the sale of vacant livings; but the practice which has arisen now is the effort to evade the law and to make easy the sale of practically vacant livings. What we desire to interfere with is the evasion of the law, these tricks against the law, not to alter the spirit of the law. There is a new form of advertisement, offering immediate "legal" possession. "Legal" possession! That is done by actually turning the law as to resignation itself into a instrument of fraud. All these elusions are calculated to introduce into the Church a class of men whom good Churchmen, I am sure, do not desire to have ministering to them. For the existing state of things is a scandal and stumbling-block to the very best of our people. I cannot help saying that it is like the buying and selling in the Temple, and while I hold that private patronage is most serviceable both to the nation and to the Church, I am quite sure that if these abuses are not corrected private patronage will be abolished with them. But I am persuaded that these abuses can be prevented, and that private patronage can be protected; and it is with the view of making the law effective for this purpose that the Bill has been introduced. I might be asked what the great body of the clergy think of the Bill, and whether they are prepared to accept it. I can only say that it has been subjected to their criticism, has been improved by that criticism, and that it is now acceptable to the great mass of the clergy. The Bill has been approved by the clergy in Convocation and by the Houses of Laymen in both Provinces. Sion College, a vigilant guardian of their interests, the London Diocesan Conference, and the Church Congress have approved the Bill. Certain objections which were at first entertained by those whom I may term honest purchasers of advowsons—who are as anxious as any people to see the law made real—have been met, as well as those of others, by omitting the clauses as to compulsory resignation and sequestrations. Efforts have also been successfully made to meet the objections of certain bodies of trustees, whom we have bought under the list of public patrons—bodies of trustees without powers of sale—and their rights
1146
are safeguarded by the Bill. There is a class of objectors whom we have not tried to meet. An association largely composed of those who have bought their livings, and are still in the interest of the agents. You send to the chambers which are called their office, and you are referred for their papers to a notorious firm of agents. How is the Bill to act? The main idea of this Bill is to provide efficient means to render illegal purchases unsafe without trenching on recognised rights of property. It is proposed to effect this by enacting that whenever a benefice is transferred from patron to patron, or transmitted, except by devise, death, or action of law, the transferee shall not present to any vacancy occurring within a year. The principle is the same as it is in the case of a gift of real property; a man making a gift to a charity must by law, in order as far as possible to prevent heirs from being defrauded, live a year afterwards, or his transfer of property takes no effect. In bankruptcy, to prevent fraud, an assignment of property must be made, I think, ten years before the bankruptcy. So here the hope is to prevent simony by providing that when a living is purchased the new owner shall not present to it within 12 months. A longer period has been proposed, but I believe one year would be quite sufficient, simply because these people do not trust one another; a common practice is to deposit the money in the hands of a third person, simply because there is no trust. They know the transaction in which they are engaged is illegal, and that if a man takes advantage of the law in one respect they will in another. I am assured by those who have had a great deal to do with transactions of this kind that one year is quite sufficient to discourage simoniacal transactions. I will now return to the question of the protection of the honest person. By the Bill of last year a vacancy which occurred within two years was not to be filled up by the new owner, and the presentation to the living was to go to the Bishop. Difficulties were felt in regard to that, and it is now provided in this Bill that the lapse shall be to the Crown, with this provision—that the Crown is not to take advantage of the lapse if it receives a certificate from

1147
proper persons who investigate the matter, armed with powers to investigate, that the transaction was honestly meant and accomplished. A man who has just bought a large property may wish to buy the advowson of the neighbouring church, because it is to him a matter of the highest interest that there should always be a fit person presented to the living, and it would be very hard on such a man if, after having bought the advowson, the clergyman should die, or be promoted, within 12 months, so that he would not again have an opportunity of presenting to the Church for perhaps 40 years. The right person to inquire whether the advowson has been bought honestly is the Bishop—the Bishop and his officers, who are in the habit of considering the propriety of institution. The new arrangement relieves the Bishop also of the possible odium of the living lapsing to him; he can have no kind of interest in it. I believe that the people will trust the Bishops to act in the most thorough spirit of investigation. It has been said that the Bishops were hungry for Church patronage; but from my experience, and from that of all other Bishops, I can say that of all duties they have to perform, the patronage of the livings is one of the most difficult and delicate; it is open to perpetual criticism. Their object is not to possess themselves of livings, but to find the right man to fill them. I believe then that this interposition of a year will prevent subterfuge, and will make the spirit and letter of the law agree, and by this simple method we hope to alter this great scandal and make it thoroughly unsafe to purchase livings with dishonest intent. The Bill deals with other matters which can be more fully explained in Committee. One of them is, that it gives the power of remonstrance, or representation, to the parish before appointment. I believe there is a great deal of feeling on this subject, and also that strength will be given to a new incoming incumbent through his name having been submitted to the parish in that way. Then, again, the Bill proposes to strengthen the administrative right of the Bishop to refuse vicious and incapable men; it is not left entirely in the hands of the Bishop, as judicial proceedings are also provided afterwards, and the Bishop may be called upon to justify
1148
his refusal. Proper power is therefore given to investigate the case. At present the Bishop may be put to great expense, even if he succeed in proving his point. The Bill also proposes to abolish donatives, which are really the most potent instrument that these simoniacal dealers have at present. Finally, the Bill will prevent clergymen henceforth from presenting themselves, which I believe to have been always the intention of our Statutes. The cap. 11 of the Act passed in the 13th year of Queen Anne begins:—
"Whereas some of the clergy have procured preferments for themselves by buying ecclesiastical livings, and others have thereby been discouraged:"
and it then proceeds to forbid the sale of next presentations. I cannot interpret that in any other way than that at that time the sale of advowsons was very rare, and that the only sale of livings was by purchase of next presentations. I repeat then that the aim of this Bill is not to construct an ideal system of patronage; it recognises the present state of things, but attempts to remove the evils. The construction of a complete system of patronage is too great an undertaking to be done at once, and for the present I am content if I can, as I hope by this Bill to do, effectually remove the shameful scandals by which patronage is defiled.
*LORD GRIMTHORPEacknowledged willingly that this was the best Bill on this subject which he had seen. Some of the objections he had made to former Bills of the kind, though they were rather sneered at then, have been gradually admitted. The first, of 1887, was entirely remodelled, both in form and substance. The proposal of 1893 not to allow a resale of patronage for the monstrous period of 21 years had been reduced to one, and that with a qualification to protect the owner from suffering by a purely accidental cause, which was probably sufficient. He believed that a Bill removing some of the most objectionable features of the exercise of Church patronage might have been passed many a time, and certainly in 1887, without the slightest difficulty; but people had been allowed to ride their hobbies too hard, with the result that the Bills introduced had always been injudiciously encumbered. He thought that in one or two points

1149
this Bill went rather too far, and in one it did not so far enough. He thought the right to devise, as well as to transfer, advowsons to public bodies ought to be allowed. Indeed, it seemed to have been omitted by mistake, as the 1893 Bill contained it, and nobody objected. The most serious defect still was the mode of dealing with objections to institution or collation. Sub-section 4 of Clause 6 provided that a month's notice was to be given to the parishioners before a clergyman was instituted to a benefice, and that representations in writing objecting to the institution might be lodged by any parishioner. He agreed with the expediency of giving notice to the parishioners before any presentation was made. But there, was no limit of time in regard to the misconduct that might be alleged against the clergyman. Was a clergyman to be called upon to face charges of this kind ranging over all his life? Something done in his college days, for instance, might be raked up against him. Under the old Clergy Discipline Act two years was the limit. He had thought the period too short, and in 1892 it was extended to five years. But under this Bill there was no limit whatever. Any old story of a clergyman's life might be sent to the Bishop by any person, and the clergyman would be obliged to meet it. To fix no limit to the period was against the principle of English law, except in the case of actual crime; and even in the case of actual crime no such indefinite time was allowed in the Clergy Discipline Act. Moreover, the less the time was limited, the greater facility and temptation were offered to blackmailers as well as informers for mere spite, especially with such a mode of trial was was now proposed. For the clergyman, was to be tried for any alleged misconduct by his Bishop in camera. There was nothing to show how the trial was to be conducted; there were no prescribed rules of evidence. To deal with cases of that kind they should have competent judges, free from all suspicion of prejudice. Did anybody imagine that a Bishop, who had offered to collate a man to a living or a canonry, would be regarded as standing in the same relation to him as to one presented by a stranger, and both of them perhaps notoriously differing from the theological views of the Bishop? In 1873, during
1150
the progress of the Judicature Bill in the House of Lords, Lord Salisbury moved that all appeals from Ecclesiastical Courts (including ecclesiastical appeals) should be heard by a lay judge. Bishop Wilberforce supported the Amendment and said—
"I do not think that judgments in ecclesiastical cases by Bishops are likely to be as just, or if they were, to appear as just, as judgments pronounced by judges who are not ecclesiastics."
That, too, was the ultimate opinion of Parliament. Indeed, if he were a Bishop he would say that he could not properly try those charges, unless both parties consented. One thing he was quite certain of, and that was—that the first time a clergyman was kept out of a benefice under this Bill, by a Bishop who was opposed to him in ecclesiastical views, there would be a strong feeling that he had not got justice. The Bishop was, of course, bound to assign reasons for rejecting the clergyman; but these might be excuses and not reasons. He must be a poor Bishop indeed, who could not make reasons that would hold water. At least he could, and many of the Bishops were as clever as he was in that way. That was a position in which the Bishops would not like to find themselves, but they were put into it by the Bill. It was a matter that would require more careful and quiet consideration than it had received yet. They were told there was an appeal to the Archbishop, and that the Archbishops always sat with an assessor in hearing similar appeals now. But that was not a real trial. He would not "assess" an Archbishop on those terms He would say: No; if you mean me to act as a judge, either with or without what may be called a jury, I will do so; but if you mean that I am to sit merely to keep you straight on legal matters, I will not. But, further than that, there was no obligation in the Bill that the Archbishop, or a Bishop, should sit with an assessor. In a paper which had been circulated regarding the Bill it was said:—
"The secretary of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Mr. Lee, a lawyer of long experience, testified in the Poole case what the Archbishop's 'hearing' under 1 and 2 Viet. c. 106, customarily was. In his affidavits he said: His Grace did not at such hearing sit as a Court, but as the Archbishop in person, in camerâ suâ. That there

1151
were no minutes, pleadings, or acts in court made, entered, or brought in previous to the hearing of the appeal. That there were no witnesses examined on the hearing of the appeal with reference thereto, or the acts which formed the subject-matter thereof or otherwise. That His Grace, under the advice of his assessor had refused the evidence of witnesses tendered at the appeal on behalf of the appellant, and excepting the statement of the appellant himself, and of three persons, not purporting to be taken on oath, there were not any documents in the nature of depositions or affidavits read or used. That during the time the deponent had been secretary of the Archbishop all appeals had, under the provisions of the Statute 1 and 2 Vict. c. 106, been made in writing, pursuant to the 111th section of the Act, and decided by His Grace upon such written documents; and that no appellant or respondent had eves been heard virâ voce, or by oral testimony of the witnesses, or by counsel or agent.'"
He was quite willing to believe that the present Archbishop of Canterbury did always sit with an assessor; whether the other Archbishop did he did not know, but he concluded not, as he had never been asked to sit with him. It was further said in the paper—
"So much for the 'historic continuity' of the practice actually adopted. The Queen's Bench, indeed, held that the Archbishop, though bound to 'hear' the accused, was left perfectly free as to the details of the 'hearing.' Lord Campbell said: 'As to the mode of hearing we give no opinion.' Lord Justice Compton said: 'Whether it would be a hearing to say "you shall put all in writing" would be another question; it is not necessary for us to give an opinion on that. He must hear. And if, in the course of the argument, counsel or parties wish to introduce important matter, that is a question for the Judge presiding over the argument, whether he does or does not want to hear such matters as may be inconvenient for him to hear.' "
He rather gathered that was in 1873— [The Archbishop of CANTERBURY: "I think it was 50 years ago."] The Poole case? ["Yes."] That may have been so, but there was no evidence of any change of practice, and certainly there was no legal obligation. Even if it were provided by the Bill, that the Archbishop should always sit with an assessor, he did not think that was the way a clergyman ought to be tried. The question of expense was, of course, given as a reason for such a summary and injudicial way of ruining a clergyman who was prepared to face the cost rather than lose everything. And if the expense to the Bishop was a serious thing what was it to a poor clergyman? It was a monstrous thing
1152
that at this time of day in England, a clergyman should be told:—
"You shall not have a trial by any kind of jury; you shall only go before the Bishop and his assessor, and if you can satisfy them well and good, but if not you will be condemned for life."
Some of their Lordships would remember the care that was taken, both at the Lambeth meeting, which the most rev. Prelate fully described in 1890, and in that House afterwards, which agreed with it, to secure a full trial of charges under the Clergy Discipline Act; and he could not conceive why Incumbents were less entitled to it at the beginning of their career than at any other time. He could not help thinking a great deal of good might be done by cutting down this Bill, he did not mean permanently, but by having some further consideration about matters of that kind. He thought a great improvement might take place if this part of the Bill were postponed, especially when they remembered how matters had progressed in consequence of the delays which had taken place hitherto.
*THE BISHOP OF LONDON: was very glad the noble Lord who had just addressed them had come to the position of being favourable on the whole to this Bill. He had on previous occasions, been rather hostile—[Lord GRIMTHORPE: "To other Bills."]—to other Bills of a similar character. He was glad they had succeded in satisfying his Lordship so far, and with regard to the particular provisions on which he had spent his time, that he only implied that the Bill ought not to pass as long as Clauses 6 and 7 were in it. There was a good deal to be said in answer, but anyhow this was a kind of objection which could be more properly dealt with in Committee than upon the Second Reading, because it did not really touch the principle of the Bill at all. The analogy followed in the Bill was that of the ordinary dealing with a licensed curate. A licensed curate, as everyone knew was liable to have his licence revoked by the Bishop of the diocese on such grounds as satisfied the Bishop that it was no longer proper he should continue to hold his licence. This was the sort of judicial duty which no Bishop could escape from discharging. He supposed every Bishop who had been on the

1153
Bench for more than six months must have, in some way or other, some experience of the working of that procedure. What happened was, that the Bishop sent for the Curate to appear before him and to show cause "why his licence should not be revoked." He did not know of any Bishop who would call upon a man to answer a charge and at the same time not take care to produce the evidence upon which the proposal to revoke was grounded. He had revoked licences, but the Curate had always had the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses and of putting forward his defence. He had never known a Bishop refuse to allow a Curate to bring witnesses on his own side. It might be said:—
"Why not have a regular open court for the judging of such questions? Why leave it in the Bishop's hands at all?"
His experience was, that, as a general rule, the person to be tried proposed that nothing should be said about the matter, that it should be kept as private as possible, because, in the view of some people, it was a slur to be tried at all. If the decision were contested, an appeal was made to the Archbishop, and he always heard the cases in open court. It was a very long time indeed since any Archbishop had heard a case of this kind without some legal assessor with him. In three cases there had been appeals against his (the Bishop of London's) decisions. The Vicar General had always been there as the Archbishop's assessor, and the Vicar General had taken the position which a lawyer in such cases invariably took. In theory, when the Archbishop or Bishop called in an assessor, he was supposed to decide the question himself, and the assessor simply stood by and took care the Bishop or Archbishop did not make any legal mistake; but he did not think it was ever so in practice. When Bishop of Exeter, he, in the case of Philpotts v. Boyd, asked an assessor to sit with him. It never occurred to him he should sit there and conduct the trial, and let his assessor simply advise him here and there where he thought a blunder was being made. He asked the assessor to conduct the trial for him. As
1154
a matter of fact, the matter was entirely in the hands of Mr. Justice Keating, for it was he who was good enough to come down an act as assessor. If it were desirable to make things more clear and definite, in the direction which the noble Lord had indicated, he did not see any reason why they should not consider the matter in Committee. But he deprecated a postponement of the Bill altogether simply because the noble Lord was not prepared with any Amendments which he thought were necessary. Reference had been made to previous Bills. Those Bills had passed through their Lordships' House, and they had not been rejected in the Lower House. They had not been passed in the House of Commons for lack of time to consider them. It certainly could not be said that the objections had been pushed to such a length as to interfere with the acceptance of the Bills. He therefore, hoped their Lordships would give the Bill a Second Reading, and if there were Amendments which it was right to introduce, he should be very ready to take his part in considering them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, he entirely sympathised with the most reverend Prelate's desire to put an end to the scandals to which he had referred. His only complaint against the Bill was that it did not go nearly far enough. It prevented the sale of livings or any right of patronage by public auction; but he should like to see a measure which would prevent the sale of livings at all. The notion that a living or a presentation to a living was a thing to be bought and sold was descended from evil times, when men did not realise their duties, but regarded as a right of property what they should have regarded as a sacred trust. The idea of a man selling the presentation to a living would never be countenanced nowadays. It had come down by tradition, and he admitted the difficulty of getting rid of it altogether; but to prevent, the sale by public auction merely would not get rid of much of the scandal to which reference had been made. Many of the advertisements which had been quoted had no reference to sale by public auction; and they would continue

1155
to appear if sale by private contract were allowed. Public opinion of late years had been very much changing in the direction which he had indicated; and nowadays it would not be felt to be an unjustifiable attack on property, as would have been the case many years ago, if the right of buying and selling livings were much more limited than the Bill proposed. He recognised the difficulty of dealing with the question, and that if too much were attempted the attempt might fail altogether, but he doubted whether much was done by forbidding sale by public auction. Perhaps such sale was more scandalous than sale by private contract, but the result of this prohibition was to appear to give a fresh sanction to all those sales which were not conducted by public auction. He thought it would be better to omit that provision altogether, and simply deal with the question of presentations. No one could deny that Lord Grimthorpe had touched upon a very serious question. Everyone would agree that it was desirable to extend the power of the Bishop to deal with the cases of presentees whose past conduct had been such as to make their occupation of the new living, however much to their own advantage, a great detriment to the parishioners. But, of course, it was a very serious matter to refuse on such grounds the institution of a man who had been presented. It must ruin him for the rest of his life. In the first instance, of course, every presentee would desire that the inquiry by the Bishop should be private, for, however much the inquiry might result in his favour, a public inquiry often led to some dirt sticking, and that would be bad for the presentee when instituted. It would be worth considering whether, when the decision was against the presentee, it would not be well to give assurance that the appeal would be a real and substantial appeal, in which the case would be satisfactorily reconsidered.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOKsaid that, in view of the enormous difficulty in the way of Bishops getting rid of men who were disgracing the livings which they held, and the very serious questions involved in the removal of an incumbent, proper inquiry before institution ought to be facilitated.
Bill read 2a

THE LORD'S DAY ACT.
On the Motion of VISCOUNT CROSS, the Select Committee on the Lord's Day Act was nominated as follows:—The Archbishop of Canterbury, Earl Cowper, Viscount Cross, the Bishop of Rochester, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, Lord Kinnaird, Lord Halsbury, Lord Hobhouse, Lord Thring, Lord Ashcombe, and Lord Farrer.
House adjourned at Twenty minutes before Seven o'clock.