§ The House went into Committee on this Bill.
§ On Clause 1 (Transfer and Transmission of Rights of Patronage),
§
LORD COLERIDGE moved an Amendment to strike out the words "by public auction," the clause as it stood stating that, subject to the savings in this Act mentioned, it should not be lawful (a) "To sell or offer for sale by public auction any right of patronage." The noble Lord explained that his object was to prohibit the sale altogether of the right of patronage to livings. The Bill interfered, to a certain extent, with the free right of sale because it sought to prohibit by public auction any sale which should take place by that means, and he asked their Lordships to go a step further. He ventured to think that no one in that House would get up and support the sale of livings in the Church. There was no one who, if he was reconstituting the Church, would for a moment dream of introducing any such scheme of presentation as was exemplified daily in their midst by this public sale. The right of patronage had been by a great authority described as the right to present to an office of a peculiarly sacred trust, and in the year 1874 a Committee of their Lordships' House reported as follows:—
We are of opinion that all legislation affecting Church patronage should proceed upon the principle that such patronage partakes of the nature of a trust to be exercised for the spiritual benefit of the parishioners, and wherever the rights of property originally attached, or in process of time attach patronage, those rights of property must always be regarded with reference to the application of this principle.
He thought he had the sanction, in principle at any rate, of the most rev. Prelate the Archbishop of Canterbury, because in 1886 His Grace, speaking in that House, said:—
It is surely a repulsive thing that a man who had a great and public and spiritual trust, should allow it to be exercised for a sum of money.
If that were so, surely the logical result was to strike at the sale of these offices. The result of the Bill would be to strike a blow at the notoriety attaching to the
1687
scandal; but if it were a scandal surely the right way to take was not to attack the notoriety attaching to it, but to attack the scandal itself. If the Bill passed unamended, although public auction would be prohibited, there would be nothing to prevent the scandal of advertisements appearing daily as to the sale of livings, which attracted the attention of the people, gave rise to a great deal of scoffing, and which it would be most desirable, in the interest of the Church and of religion, to prevent. Patronage would still remain in the hands of clerical agents, and, if no Amendments were introduced, the presentations to the right of livings would be bought and sold in the future as freely as they had been in the past. If it were a scandal surely it was better the free healthy air of public opinion should be let forth to blow upon it, rather than that the evidence of the scandal, which was public auction, should be prohibited by law. He knew it might be said that this proposition would interfere with the rights of property, and that, too, without compensation. But that argument did not come logically from the mouths of the introducers of this Bill, because the measure itself did interfere with the rights of property, and that, too, without compensation. It was part of the rights of the possessor that he should get as high a price in the mode in which he desired to get it as he possibly could, and if they prohibited sale by public auction they prohibited the possessor of something valuable getting the best price in the best attainable way. Moreover, they were prohibiting altogether the sale of next presentations, and saying to persons that they must not part with the sale of next presentations without parting with the advowson itself; therefore they were limiting and circumscribing the value a man might get for his property by law, and they were doing that without compensation. That being so, the argument about compensation did not come logically from those who approved of the principles of this Bill. He felt he had the secret sympathy of the right rev. Bench, and he trusted also he should receive their support. He begged to move the Amendment.
§ *THE EARL OF CRANBROOKhoped he might interpose here without laying himself open to the objection that he was advocating the sale of patronage. But he looked upon this question as one affecting very deep interests indeed, and the Amendment of the noble lord would, he was perfectly certain, be fatal to this Bill. Attempts had been made to pass a Bill of this kind for many years, and if they came to the extreme ideal set up by the noble lord, he was quite sure they should not succeed. This Bill, as it stood, was in conformity with the last Royal Commission on this subject. These Commissioners, who were appointed in 1879, reported:—
We find that while the sale of the right of patronage has been from ancient times allowed with a greater or less degree of freedom by the Legislature; yet that, on the other hand, the Legislature has from time to time interfered to regulate the conditions of such sale on the ground of public policy.The Commissioners went on to say:—It appears to us that the varied system of patronage, public and private, which now prevails, has the advantage of interesting in it all classes of the community, and of ensuring within reasonable limits the due representation of corresponding varieties of thought and opinion in the ministry of our National Church.On the question of property in private patronage, the Commissioners reported:—Nor should it be forgotten that a large amount of property has been invested under existing laws in private patronage, and that the total value of livings in the control of private patrons exceeds that of livings in public patronage.And they go on to say:—These considerations have determined us not to recommend alterations of the present law which would strike at the root of private patronage, such, for instance, as the prohibition of the sale of an advowson or perpetual right of presentation; although the prohibition of such sale has been suggested to us by witnesses whose evidence was valuable in other respects. We are of opinion that adequate remedies may be found for existing abuses without so wide a departure from the established practice in this country.That was to say that advantage should be taken of every chance of putting an end to the abuses that were no doubt associated with sales of private patronage. But he could not help feeling, 1689 when he thought of the great interests that were awakened by even, the very smallest encroachment upon private presentations, and by every proposal to put limitations upon them, that although the noble lord believed his amendment, if carried, would set up a high ideal—as he conceived it—of what was right and correct in the Church, its real effect would be to put an end to a Bill which contained extremely useful provisions enabling the legal advisers to the Bishops to put down the worst forms of corruption, in regard to presentations to livings, which had hitherto prevailed.
§ The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, he quite felt the force of what had been said by the noble Lord who had just sat down. He did not think that at the present time public opinion would be shocked if the proposal of his noble Friend, Lord Coleridge, were carried; or that it would generally be thought to be an undue interference with the rights of property. Of course, the Bill did interfere; and it was only a question of degree as to how far such interference was justifiable. He did not think there would be anything unjustifiable in preventing, in future, the sales of livings altogether. But the Amendment, if carried, would excite such extreme hostility, that he doubted whether it would be possible to carry the Bill. What he was afraid of was that if the provision, as it stood in the Bill, were carried it would seem to give a fresh sanction to the sale of patronage otherwise than by public auction; for it would seem to say that the only thing wrong about the sale of livings was to sell them by public auction. The number of sales by auction was comparatively limited, of course; but he was not sure that there was anything more scandalous in selling livings by public auction than in selling them by private contract, which would still go on.
§ *LORD GRIMTHORPEsaid that until Nine o'clock that morning nobody knew that this Amendment was going to be proposed. So far as this part of the Bill was concerned, it had been passed by the House a great many times since 1886. The proposal, so far as it was contained in the Bill, was founded upon the Report of the Commission of 1878, in which many distinguished persons took part. A very remarkable thing happened in 1690 relation to that Commission. The late Lord Justice James, who was a distinguished member of it, told him, and the same was afterwards published, that he went into the Commission with a very strong impression against the sale of patronage, but that he had been entirely converted. Everyone who had known Lord Justice James, knew that he was not a man to be easily converted, and certainly not against any of his prejudices without very good evidence. He also observed, on looking through the papers, that a good deal of the proceedings before that Commission consisted of a discussion between a well-known seller of livings by auction and otherwise, Mr. Emery Stark, and a much more distinguished person, the late Archbishop Magee; and it was a very remarkable fact that, contrary to what might have been expected, Mr. Stark had decidedly the best of it. When they found such distinguished persons as the members of that Commission in agreement with the proposal of the Bill, he could not help thinking that this attempt to destroy a great deal of private patronage in England without a day's notice was what is called rather a strong order. He could not help remarking on the neglect of the clergy interested in this matter, in making known their views and opinions on the subject. They went to their Church Conferences, and seeing that the Bill, in a certain way, agreed with their prejudices, they voted for the Bill and the whole Bill, and they expected him and others to attend there to fight their battles in regard to details of the utmost importance. As to the Amendment, it might be right, or it might be wrong; but, at any rate, there should have been ample time given for its consideration.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONdid not like it to be supposed that there were no Bishops with the noble Lord who moved the Amendment in desiring to get rid of the sale of patronage. He did wish that they could stop the sale of patronage in every form; but he could not help feeling that, after having fought this battle a very long time, to introduce this Amendment into the Bill would be almost certain to destroy its chance of becoming law; and, therefore, although it would be a very good thing if they were to get rid of the sale of patronage 1691 altogether, it would be much better to have this Bill than nothing at all. He thought that, as practical men, the wisest thing for them to do was to try what the remedy proposed in the Bill would effect. It certainly would create a very different state of things from that which now existed. At any rate, the proposal in the Bill was as far as they dare go at present. He hoped the noble Lord would not press his Amendment, because it would be a very great danger to the passing of the Bill into law, and they should, therefore, lose a great deal and gain nothing at all.
§ *LORD COLCHESTERsaid, the noble Lord who moved the Amendment had not faced the question whether it would not be well that they should have some way for the transfer of the right of patronage. If the Amendment were passed, patronage would be tied for ever to the descendants of the present patrons. They might leave the country, or cease to have any connection with the parishes in which they had the right of patronage; or, through stress of poverty, they might be strongly tempted to make unworthy use of it; and yet they would have no means of disposing of their right of patronage. He thought it was extremely desirable that, not only private patronage, but public patronage—as in that of Colleges and Universities, now that they no longer were so clearly connected with the Church—in many cases, should be alienated; and, therefore, except some method could be found for the transference of patronage from hand to hand when necessary, the Amendment would be extremely mischievous.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid that, while he desired there should be no sale of livings at all, he could not be a party to a wholesale annulling of property which had been recognised by law ever since there was any law of real property in England, without some provision for compensation, and he had not heard any suggestion of compensation that would be accepted. But to carry this Amendment would be not only to destroy the chance of the Bill passing, but literally to destroy the Bill. The Bill might as well be cancelled for any little use it would be. They would be in a most useless and immovable position. It would be impossible, under the Amendment, to make any 1692 advance in the sweeping away of great abuses. The object of the Bill was to stop evasions of the law. He hoped their Lordships would not drop out the prohibition against public auction, because, if only one instance of such auction could be given, the power ought to be abolished on the ground of scandal. Instances of public auction, however, were not few; indeed, a Curates' League had actually been formed, with the view of sending representatives to disturb or prevent auctions. He did not think the Lord Chancellor had quite stated the whole case in respect to public auction. There was this further most grave objection—that the person who put up his living to public auction exercised no sort of control or choice as to the person who bought it. The possibility of only one instance of public auction was a very great scandal, and a thing which by itself, apart from all other considerations, ought to be made illegal.
§ LORD COLERIDGEsaid, he had no wish to imperil the passing of the Bill, and therefore would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 1 agreed to.
§ Clause 2 agreed to.
§ In Clause 3,
§ *LORD GRIMTHORPEproposed to insert after "transfer," in line 29, "or devise."
§ Amendment agreed to.
*THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYmoved to insert "being incorporated," after "patron," in line 30. He thought the Amendment was desirable, because the license in mortmain only applied to corporations, and there were other trusts to which it was not intended to give any special privilege by the Bill. He thought that, as licence in mortmain referred only to corporations, and it was not intended to give any special privilege to other trusts, it was right to make the Amendment he proposed. The object had been simply to save them from injury.
§ *LORD GRIMTHORPEsaid, he would like to be sure that if this Amendment passed it would be possible to devise an advowson to any of these trusts to persons not incorporated in the legal sense. He could not understand why they should be precluded from receiving an advowson by devise. They were not precluded from purchasing. Why might they not have land left to them by devise just as well as money with which they might buy it?
§ *LORD GRIMTHORPEsaid, it seemed to him devise might be made to all sorts of people except these trust bodies.
§ *THE LORD CHANCELLORIt is made to a trust which would not come within the Mortmain Acts at all.
§ *LORD GRIMTHORPEUnder the last Mortmain Act would they not be obliged to sell it—the very thing this Bill is intended to guard against?
§ *THE LORD CHANCELLORThat might be so.
§ *LORD GRIMTHORPEThat is just what was in my mind.
§ *THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that originally the Bill only referred to transfer, but the introduction of devise would bring them under the last Mortmain Act.
*THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, they could protect themselves by licence in mortmain. There was no desire to injure them, neither was there a desire to place them in a perfectly new position, as an unincorporated body, able to receive devise without licence in mortmain.
§ *LORD GRIMTHORPEasked why the trusts were to be put to the trouble and expense of getting a licence in mortmain, even if they were sure to get it, which they were not?
*THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsuggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn for further consideration.
§ *LORD GRIMTHORPEWithdrawn altogether.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment made, Clause 3, line 32, after "transferred" insert "or devised."—(The Archbishop of Canterbury.)
1694§ *LORD GRIMTHORPEasked, if there was any reason for the last line of the clause, "and a right of patronage so transferred shall be held and enjoyed accordingly"?
*THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, it was intended that the right of patronage might be held and enjoyed, and not necessarily sold. If an advowson were left to a charity, say the Sons of the Clergy, they would be obliged to sell it within a year. The last line of the clause was to enable them to hold it and enjoy it.
§ *LORD GRIMTHORPEsaid, it was to enable them to do what he wanted other trusts to do. He was much obliged for the explanation, which confirmed the necessity for protecting trustees.
§ Clause 3 agreed to.
§ Clauses 4, 5, and 6 agreed to.
§ *LORD GRIMTHORPEproposed to insert the following new clause:—
If the Bishop receives any objection he shall send a copy of it to the presentee, and shall require an answer in writing, and if the Bishop thinks that not sufficient he shall appoint a time and place for hearing the presentee in answer thereto, and also the objector if he thinks fit to attend, with such witnesses as either party may desire to call, and they may all be examined on oath, but such hearing is not to be public except to persons whose presence is needful. If the Bishop, after healing evidence for the objection, if any, and himself asking any lawful question of the presentee, shall not think any further answer necessary, he shall so declare, and institute the presentee as soon as convenient. Otherwise, he shall call on the presentee for his further answer to the objection as he thinks fit to give by evidence and argument.The new clause was intended to secure to the Clergy the means of being tried as privately as they liked and with as little expense as they liked. If, however, they wished to have a public inquiry they could have it He proposed that if the Bishop received an objection, he should send a copy of it to the presentee. As the Bill stood, there was nothing to prevent the Bishop from acting upon an entirely anonymous objection. He had some doubts about leaving the presence of the objector at the inquiry optional with the Bishop. Perhaps his presence ought to be required in any case. The proceedings would not 1695 be too public, as the objector and witnesses would be heard privately. No one could urge that this procedure would not save expenses, or that either the Bishop or the presentee had not a fair chance. All through this Bill, his Amendments had been drawn with a view to keeping down the costs, and he should be delighted to attend to any suggestions in that direction.
*THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, that there were ambiguities in the Amendment which would lead to great complication. Who was to decide which person's presence was "needful" and what were "lawful questions" for the Bishop to ask the presentee? The inquiry of the Bishop was intended to be purely administrative, and that of the Archbishop was intended to be judicial, as between the parties. The Bishop's inquiry was simply to satisfy the Bishop himself whether he should institute the presentee or not; and to prescribe any procedure would be quite out of place. If the objector were, by his objection, made a party to a suit, in 99 cases out of a 100 he would not object at all. The objector merely put the Bishop on his guard; and the Bishop having made up his mind not to institute, immediately became himself a party to a suit before the Archbishop to make good his refusal. This was not altogether a matter of theory; for he was able to quote the experience of a Bishop who for nine years past had always caused to be posted on the church doors the name and previous employment of a clergyman presented for institution, with a notification that any objection was to be communicated within three weeks. In nine years this Bishop had between 300 and 350 cases, and it had been found that the mere fact that objections could be made had acted as a complete deterrent. Only seven of the 350 cases had been withdrawn, and only one after the name had been posted on the church doors. The seven cases were withdrawn after private communication only between the Bishop and the presentee or the patron. During the whole of the nine years there had not been one case of malicious accusation; there had been no scandal, and no injury to the presentee. It was perfectly evident that prescribed 1696 procedure would have spoilt this successful practice. Cases were not all alike, and some discretion must be left to the Bishop.
§ *LORD GRIMTHORPEsaid, that not a single word of the most rev. Prelate's speech was an answer to his proposal. The Amendment did not interfere with the Bishop acting as in the manner just described.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he sympathised with Lord Grimthorpe's object. Securities ought to be taken that no man should be excluded from a living without the most ample opportunity of a thorough investigation. But the noble and learned Lord's proposal would in some cases lead to two litigated proceedings where one would be enough, because the presentee was given an appeal from the Bishop's decision. The less formal the Bishop's inquiry could be made the better it would be. He noticed that his noble and learned Friend proposed that the inquiry should not be more public than was necessary. But however much that publicity may be guarded against, by such a provision, there would remain the danger of the proceedings being talked about and bruited abroad. If the decision were ultimately in favour of the presentee, the less any one knew about the charges ever having been made the better. Otherwise the presentee would begin his work in the new living with that sort of slur which attached to a man who was supposed to have something doubtful about his antecedents which had made an inquiry necessary. If the matter were dealt with by the Bishop informally hearing what the presentee had to say, it seemed to him that in many cases the Bishop would give his decision and the presentee would be none the worse for the decision having been made where the decision was made in his favour. The Bishop had every motive, if they allowed an appeal, for him to make his inquiry as satisfactory as he could, so that he should not act rashly or hastily. It would be a serious thing for him to refuse to institute a presentee and on appeal to have his decision reversed by the Bishop and be compelled to institute him after all. The existence of an appeal was a great safeguard in itself for the purpose of securing careful action and thorough inquiry of a formal 1697 nature by the Bishop. When they came to the next stage they should make it a litigated stage, at which every security should be taken for the purpose of seeing that the presentee was not unjustly treated. If the ultimate decision were against him it meant, of course, ruin.
§ VISCOUNT CROSSagreed with the Lord Chancellor, and pointed out that there were three words in the Bill which seemed to him to give every security desired on the part of the presentee. The Bishop might refuse to institute "after having given to such presentee a reasonable opportunity of being heard." The Bill insisted that the presentee should have a right to be heard by the Bishop in private.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, the proposal of his noble and learned Friend in this clause really came to this—that there should be a private inquiry as well as an opportunity, if a man desired it, for a public trial. But in the Bill the public trial would be before the Archbishop and the private inquiry before the Bishop. He thought it would be far better for the presentee to have that private inquiry before the Bishop, and if he wished to have a public trial he should have it before a different judge.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ On Clause 7 (Grounds of Bishop's Refusal to institute),—
§ *LORD GRIMTHORPE moved an Amendment to the effect that a Bishop may refuse to institute if he be satisfied, among other things, that the presentee is unfitted for the discharge of pastoral duty by reason of existing pecuniary embarrassment, "which in the opinion of the Bishop is not likely to be removed," and of "such" misconduct ''as would have justified proceedings under the Clergy Discipline Act 1892." He argued that "pecuniary embarrassment" was a very wide term indeed, and he thought it afforded opportunity for a great deal of discussion which it was not wise to leave. What they wanted to do was to prevent a man from being instituted who was in a state of serious pecuniary embarrassment not likely to cease. But "pecuniary embarrassment" was not to be measured or defined by anyone; the phrase left too much to the discretion of 1698 the Bishop to say whether he would have a man or not. Therefore the phrase needed some such definition as "such as is not likely to cease."
*THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, the cases would be examined properly. If a man could show that his pecuniary embarrassment was sure to be removed, then it was not pecuniary embarrassment; but if a man said that it was likely to be removed, then he thought that plea ought not to be accepted. There was a gentleman in his own diocese who had been for two years proclaiming day after day and month after month that all his pecuniary embarrassments were coming to an end at the end of the following month, and he had persuaded various persons to lend him money and to give him credit. He had, moreover, been through the Courts.
§ *LORD GRIMTHORPEsaid, the Bishop was to be the judge of that point. The presentee might tell the Bishop and make him believe the story if he could.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ *LORD GRIMTHORPEthen moved an Amendment in the same clause, giving the Bishop power to refuse to institute if the presentee were unfitted, by reason of "such misconduct as would have justified proceedings under the Clergy Discipline Act 1892." Was a man to be kept out of an incumbency at the beginning of his career when he would never have been turned out if he had gone in under the Clergy Discipline Act?
*THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, that misconduct which would have justified proceedings under the Clergy Discipline Act—the right name, by the way—was nothing but such offences under the ecclesiastical law as were offences against morality. And there was power already to refuse to institute for such cause. Institution could be refused for any grounds for which deprivation could be inflicted. It was not certain that "notorious fraud" came within the Clergy Discipline Act as an offence against morality. That had not been settled; but it would be immensely important that "notorious fraud" should prevent a man from being instituted.
§ *LORD GRIMTHORPEsaid, he should like to know what "notorious fraud" 1699 meant. Surely it meant that if a man were convicted he would come under the Clergy Discipline Act; or did it mean that the Bishops were to study Mr. Labouchere's newspaper, as the noble Duke (of Rutland) had just now suggested, and when the name of a clergyman was found in the "Pillory" proceedings were to be taken against him under this Bill?
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ *LORD GRIMTHORPE moved an Amendment that the "grave scandal, or evil report, concerning the presentee's moral conduct" should be "then existing," but otherwise requiring the Bishop, after hearing the presentee, to institute the presentee, "and no objection shall be considered which relates to any act or neglect more than five years before the hearing." He asked whether the existence of a scandal many years before was to be a reason against instituting a man in a living? Was it seriously intended to allow objections to be made to a man on the ground that he was alleged to have done something many years ago? The Act of 1840 limited the time to two years; that period was considered to be inadequate and the time was now extended to five years. Was it now to be extended to the whole of a man's life?
*THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, the point was to find out whether the presentee was unfitted for pastoral duty by reason of the scandal. If an old scandal existed which now unfitted the man, he ought not to be presented. Take the case of a person with an illegitimate child, of some years old, whose existence was known. It would be impossible for such a man to officiate in the parish where the fact was known. Another reason which might hinder institution would be some impediment, or defect in the title of a patron, which had to be investigated, but according to the Amendment as it stood the Bishop was to institute if the objection were over-ruled whatever other impediment might exist.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment agreed to.
1700§ *LORD GRIMTHORPEmoved, in line 10, to leave out from ("signification") to the end of line 20, and insert—
("demand a trial in the same way [as nearly as circumstances admit] as if the objection were a charge under the last-mentioned Act, and such trial shall take place accordingly in the prescribed mode, unless the objection is either withdrawn or admitted; and the Bishop shall either institute or not institute the presentee according to the result of the trial").
*THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYdid not think that the Archbishop ought to be got rid of. It was much fairer to the presentee that he should go into a fresh Court.
§ *LORD GRIMTHORPEsaid, that he wished to go into a fresh Court, but not, with all respect, the Archbishop's Court. He agreed that if the earlier proposal were to be rejected the appeal to the Archbishop was to go on. He drew the Amendment in order to substitute for an irregular Court a regular tribunal.
*THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYthought, that in 1893 the noble Lord had presented a similar clause and withdrawn it. He thought that the noble Lord was convinced on that occasion.
§ LORD GRIMTHORPEWas I?
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORasked whether it was proposed to assimilate the procedure or to prescribe it as that of an appeal by a curate on the revocation of his licence. It limited the power of prescribing the procedure only within those limits, and he doubted whether that was sufficient.
*THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, that it was a simple and known procedure. The Archbishop sat with his Vicar General, and the cases had always been heard in open Court. He desired that the appeal should be as regular and perfect a trial as could be.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he entertained doubt, as the procedure was to be prescribed by the Rule Committee, two members of which must be the Lord Chancellor and one of the judges—probably the Lord Chief Justice, whether it would not be better to leave the procedure to be altogether prescribed by them. He thought it tolerably certain that the Rule Committee, as constituted 1701 under this Bill, would see that the procedure should give satisfaction.
§ *LORD GRIMTHORPEsaid that on a appeal by a curate there were no such proceedings as had now been referred to. The paper he read on the Second Reading Debate showed that the Court of Queen's Bench had decided years ago that a curate was not entitled to any kind of hearing beyond what the Archbishop chooses and he could answer for it that in the last 18 years there had been no hearing before the Vicar General of York. There may, however, have been no curate rash enough to waste his time and money on trying that always ineffective remedy.
*THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid that he had inherited the practice.
In the result, the Committee agreed to leave out all the words after "appeal" in line 12, down to the word "licence" in subsection (2), and to insert, in place of the words omitted, "in accordance with subsequent procedure."
*THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYmoved, after line 15, to add:—
On any such appeal the Archbishop shall have power to require in the prescribed manner the attendance of such witnesses, and the production of such documents, evidences, and writings as may be necessary on either side; such witnesses shall give their evidence upon oath, or upon solemn affirmation where an affirmation is allowed by law instead of an oath, which oath or affirmation shall be administered in the prescribed manner.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ *LORD GRIMTHORPEmoved, in line 24, to substitute "diocese" for "Archbishop."
§ Amendment negatived.
*THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYmoved, in line 24, after the words "institute him" to add "if there be no other impediment."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to without Amendment.
1702§ On Clause 10,
§ *LORD GRIMTHORPEmoved, in line 27, after "false," to insert "in any material respect.''
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ *LORD GRIMTHORPEproposed, in line 29 to add—
But any proceeding to have it so declared must be taken by prosecution for a misdemeanour in making it within a year, and with the written consent of the Bishop.He did not know how it was to be proved that a declaration was false except by means of a trial.
§ *LORD GRIMTHORPEThen let it be "two years" in the Amendment instead of "a year."
§ Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill, as also Clauses 11 and 12.
§ *LORD GRIMTHORPEmoved, in Clause 13, after "land" to insert "fifty houses." He said a man might have houses of a greater value than a hundred acres.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ *LORD GRIMTHORPEmoved, in Clause 14, before "collated" to insert "proposed to be," observing that the Amendment was meant to correct what was probably a slip in drafting.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clauses 14 and 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Bill reported, with Amendments.