Lords Sitting of 15 July 1898

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLORtook his seat on the Woolsack at a Quarter-past Four of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with—
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11).
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13).

    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14).
    PIER AND HABBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1).
    And the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with—

WHITECHAPEL AND BOW RAILWAY.
  ST. HELENS CORPORATION.
    KEIGHLEY CORPORATION.
    The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
    MID-KENT WATER BILL.
    Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
    USK VALLEY RAILWAY BILL.
    Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
    IPSWICH DOCK COMMISSION BILL.
    The Queen's Consent signified; and Bill reported with Amendments.
    FISHGUARD AND ROSSLARE RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS BILL.
    Moved, That the Order made on the 8th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday, the 28th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read the second time; agreed to; Bill read the second time accordingly.
    RENFREW BURGH AND HARBOUR EXTENSION BILL.
    Moved, That the Order made on the 8th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday, the 28th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read the second time; agreed to; Bill red the second time accordingly.
    DEVONPORT, PLYMOUTH AND STOKE TRAMWAYS BILL.
    Moved, That the Order made on the 8th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday, the 28th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read the second time; agreed to; Bill read the second time accordingly.
    FISHGUARD AND ROSSLARE RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS BILL.
    Committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
    TOTTENHAM AND EDMONTON GAS BILL.
    Read the third time, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
    DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BILL.
    The Queen's Consent signified; Bill read the third time, with the Amendments; a further Amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
    MATLOCK URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BLLL.
    Read the third time, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
    PAIGNTON IMPROVEMENT BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read the first time, and referred to the Examiners.
    BUENOS AYRES NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to.
    COLONIAL BANK BILL. [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to.
    WALKER'S ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to.
    RHONDDA AND SWANSEA BAY RAILWAY BILL.
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
    CROMER GAS BLLL.
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
    DROGHEDA GAS BILL.
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
    WIGAN CORPORATION BILL.
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
    BACUP CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
    DOVER HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
    LONDON, CHATHAM AND DOVER RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.

    FISHGUARD AND ROSSLARE RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS BILL.
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bill, viz.:—

    M. Bristol,

    E. Camperdown (chairman),

    L. Colchester,

    L. Plunket,

    L. Penrhyn;

    Agreed to, and the said Lords appointed accordingly; the Committee to meet on Tuesday next, at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bill.

  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

    TRADE REPORTS, 1898.
    Annual Series: Diplomatic and Consular Reports on Trade and Finance:

    No. 2156. China (Shanghai with Soochow and Hang-chow);

    No. 2157. Germany (Prussian Finances, 1890 to 1897).

    Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

    CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.
    List of all Pensions granted during the year ended 20th June, 1898, and charged upon the Civil List.
    POLLING DISTRICTS (MANCHESTER).
    Order made by the Council of the City of Manchester dividing into polling districts the several divisions of the Parliamentary Borough of Manchester.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888 (COUNTY OF KENT).
    Order of the County Council of Kent converting the parish of Cheriton into the Cheriton Urban District, under section 57 of the Act, as confirmed by the Local Government Board.

    SHERIFFS' TENURE OF OFFICE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1898.
    Order by the Secretary for Scotland for the removal from office of Dugald McKechnie, esquire, Sheriff of Argyll.
    Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

    VIGORS' DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
    Message from the Commons for copy of the Minutes of Evidence taken before this House, together with the proceedings and the documents deposited in the case; Ordered to be communicated, with a request that they may be returned.
BILLS ADVANCED.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 10) BILL.
  Committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
  Moved, That the Order of the 8th March, 1898, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday, the 28th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read the second time; Agreed to; Bill read the second time accordingly.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
  Moved, That the Order of the 8th March, 1898, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday, the 28th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read the second time; Agreed to; Bill read the second time accordingly.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.
  Moved, That the Order of the 8th March, 1898, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday, the 28th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read the second time; Agreed to; Bill read the second time accordingly.
  PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL.
  Moved, That the Order of the 8th March, 1898, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday, the 28th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read the second time; Agreed to; Bill read the second time accordingly.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
  Committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
  Committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.
  Committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.
  PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL.
  Committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read the third time on Tuesday next.
  LEITH BURGH PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read the third time on Monday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read the third time on Tuesday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read the third time on Tuesday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
  Report of Amendments (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Tuesday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) BILL.
  Read the third time (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  SOLICITORS BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  IRISH SALMON FISHERIES.
  THE EARL OF HOWTH: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the present unsatisfactory condition of the Irish salmon fisheries, and to move to resolve—
  "That whereas a Royal Commission was lately granted to consider and report on the laws, modes of fishing, and conditions of the Tweedside and Solway district fisheries of Scotland, Ireland has now a paramount claim upon the Government to appoint a similar Royal Commission or Committee to advise and report upon the salmon fisheries of that country."
  My Lords, it is perfectly well known by the public that the Irish angling salmon fisheries have been utterly ruined owing to the want of salmon fish in the fresh water of that country. Since the year 1886 I have been somewhat actively engaged in endeavouring to support angling interests but I have found Her Majesty's Government in Ireland—and I may add, also, the honourable Privy Council—so cold and so averse to seeing

  1141
  any more salmon admitted into the Irish rivers that I gave up the case. I have now turned round, my Lords, and have taken up the cause of what may be termed the mercantile salmon fisheries of Ireland, and I shall endeavour to explain to your Lordships that, for the benefit of those fisheries, a great deal more fish should be allowed into the Irish upper streams. By way of argument I will first of all allude to what is done by different nations. It is well known that Canada is the first nation in the world in so far as the management of her fisheries is concerned, and Canada adopts every possible means that can be found in order to get the upper waters of her rivers largely filled with fish. She only allows one-third of the water to be occupied by nets, and the other two-thirds of the water are occupied by the salmon getting up the river. In Ireland, my Lords, every effort is made to prevent salmon getting up the rivers. The law of netting in Ireland is in a dreadful condition, and only a short time ago the present Master of the Rolls made some attempt to define this law, but found the task impossible. I would ask your Lordships to look at the great difference between the law of Ireland and the law of Canada in reference to netting. I now turn to Norway. It is well known that in Norway experiments have been tried by Herr Landmark—perhaps the first authority on fisheries in Europe—and by a gentleman whose name was mentioned in your Lordships' House only three or four days ago—Mr. Archer, the Inspector of Scottish Fisheries, and extraordinary results have been obtained by allowing more salmon into the upper waters. This is what is required in Ireland. Scotland has always had a great deal more fish in the upper waters of her rivers than Ireland, and this is at once distinctly proved by the value of the inland fisheries in Scotland—prominently of the river Tay and other rivers; while in Ireland there is no place—at least, I have not heard of one—where there are any valuable inland fisheries. A short time ago the Scottish people complained of what was going on on the river Tweed. A great deal of rioting existed there, and it became so strong that a gunboat was sent up, but had to come down in consequence
  1142
  of one of the poachers being wounded. A Royal Commission was appointed to consider the laws, and they expressed themselves very strongly in favour of letting the salmon up into the upper waters. Here are the observations of the Royal Commission—
  "It seems to us that, as a general principle, Mr. Archer is right in advocating that netting in the sea, for commercial purposes, should be encouraged, and that netting in the narrow waters of rivers should be restricted. The rivers should be kept for breeding the fish, rod-fishing being only allowed. This will give sufficient inducement to those who have rights of fishing to protect the fish during and after the spawning season, which, in our opinion, is absolutely necessary if the production of fish in the river is to be adequately maintained. Evidence was put before us as to the great improvement effected in the value of the fisheries in several rivers, the Sands river in Norway, the Dee in Aberdeenshire, and certain rivers on the west coast of Sutherland, where these principles have been applied to a considerable extent."
  Ireland alone has been neglected in this matter, and I would urge upon your Lordships the paramount claim which Ireland has upon the Government for the appointment of a similar Royal Commission or Committee to advise and report upon the salmon fisheries of that country. Her Majesty's Government and the Privy Council are opposed to any more fish being let up into the upper waters of Ireland, but if the Government and the Privy Council were to ask themselves, "Are we acting rightly in doing in Ireland exactly contrary to what is done by all the great nations of the world?" I think they would have to admit that they were not. I wish to refer, first of all, my Lords, to the question of poaching. Ireland is a nation to whom Providence has been bountiful in giving her a large produce of salmon, and Providence has also been bountiful in supplying a peasantry whose greatest delight is in poaching, killing and slaying, especially in the spawning time, when they do an enormous amount of damage to their unfortunate fellow-fishermen down below the river; in fact, I should not be surprised if they took 30 per cent. in many rivers off the value of the fish that are taken. This is a great scandal. Now, as regards the quantity of fishing that is going on. A very important angling society in Ireland, called the Irish Tourist Association

  1143
  —of which the Earl of Mayo is chairman—sent round circulars all over the country, and the replies they received were to the effect that the whole of the rivers of Ireland, with the exception of a very few, were in the hands of poachers. This is the case from one end of the country to the other, and the loss of property by poaching during the last 30 years amounts to a king's ransom. The deterioration of Irish angling has been most noticeable during the last 10 or 12 years, in which space of time matters seem to have been going from bad to worse. The lakes and rivers, except in some few favoured districts, seem to be without supervision of any kind and at the mercy of poachers. In Ireland there are the most perfect natural salmon and trout rivers in the world, rivers whose upper waters offer the best possible spawning grounds, and whose deeper and lower reaches afford everything necessary in the way of suitable shelter and haunts for mature fish. The causes militating against an adequate supply of fish are found to be poaching and the want of proper protection. The peasantry of Ireland have assumed such a spirit of independence, especially in connection with salmon, that they carry on their poaching practices in every direction without let or hindrance. There is the other very serious point, that the bailiffs who are supposed to look after the poachers are extremely lax in the performance of their duties. I could give many instances of the correctness of this statement. I respectfully submit that if Ireland's fisheries are to flourish the present system of poaching must be done away with. I would suggest that a law should be passed making it almost a felony to poach salmon from, say, October 10th to January 10th. I would further suggest that during these months the Government should give the police a free hand, and that in the more important districts the police from out stations should be allowed to come in and render assistance during the active spawning season. I will now call your Lordships' attention to a fact that has not been very generally, if ever, brought before the public, which will, I think, prove, and prove conclusively, the great difficulty that is experienced in Ireland in order to secure immunity from poaching. Of the districts in Ireland only
  1144
  six or seven have what may be termed a dominant interest—that is, some vested right or interest that has sufficient power to get value for money expended on salmon preservation—over the fisheries of their river, and these are principally in the north of Ireland. Among the districts I refer to are Bangor, which employs 100 bailiffs; Ballina, which employs 420 bailiffs; Ballyshannon, which is another district well preserved, employing 200 bailiffs; and Londonderry, which, on paper, is the most flourishing district in Ireland, employing 280 bailiffs. The funds at the disposal of the various boards of conservators, particularly in the smaller districts, are only the proceeds of the sale of licences, and are totally inadequate even to pay a sufficient staff of water bailiffs to watch the rivers, and what we suggest is that these funds should be supplemented by an annual grant of money in aid from the Government. The fact that salmon is yearly getting scarcer in the upper waters is easily accounted for. Fishes, like animals and birds, if they are persecuted by men, in the first instance change their habits, and after having changed their habits they desert the locality. We have it on the most undoubted authority that the irregularity that is going on at the sea mouths of the rivers is very great, and that the fish are so frightened and alarmed that they turn back into the sea. They then await the close time when the nets are up, and go in their hundreds and thousands up to the spawning beds and breed an enormous number of salmon, which has inflated to an excessive degree the production of salmon and the export statistics. Ireland is entitled to an inquiry into this subject, and a report thereon. The present state of things will lead ultimately to the ruin of the Irish salmon fisheries. That is perfectly well known. The first river I will refer to is the Suir. An appeal case was heard before the Judicial Privy Council on October 23, 1896, in reference to the fishing in the fresh waters of the Suir. Let me just quote a few samples of the official evidence. In stating the case Mr. Wright, Q.C, said that nets and boats were formed in a circuit, by means of which the fish were entrapped. Those boats and nets were used for some 16 miles in fresh water, and some nets were

  1145
  fished from bank to bank. Mr. Cormack (Inspector) stated that by this mode of fishing very few fish escaped. Quoting an inspector as his authority, Mr. Barton, Q.C., stated that there were 50 miles of spawning water with only one bailiff to protect it. The second evidence was given by the police, who said the poachers had their own way in consequence of the small number of bailiffs there were to look after them. Mr. Jones handed in statistics to prove that the police, with all their other duties, effected as many prosecutions for poaching as all the bailiffs put together. I will now refer to the river Blackwater, of which I was an angling tenant for five years. For the first two years there was a very fine show of fish, and no run of fish was late. In the third and fourth seasons the fish became scarcer, and in the last year the fish became so scarce that I gave up the water. Mr. Foley, tenant of the Lismore Weir and Artificial Fishery, close by the tideway, reported in 1895 to the Salmon Fisheries Inspector that he had caught a great number of gravid fish in November in nets, and even while fishing for parent fish for his hatchery. In 1895 the Conservators' report stated that the fish were small on the spawning beds, and that the Blackwater fisheries had deteriorated. In 1896 the Conservators' report stated that the stock of breeding fish was much smaller than the previous winter, and that the general run was of a very small size. The report expressed the opinion that the fisheries had declined, and were declining, on the Blackwater. With regard to the hatcheries Mr. Foley stated that on November 15th, 1896, 131 salmon were taken out of the weir. He stated that in all 35 spring fish and over 450 spawning fish were caught and returned to the water. The question therefore occurs, Why did not these fish find their way to the spawning beds? That is what we want to know, and what we want a Royal Commission to inquire into. An independent report was made a short time ago by Mr. Ffennell, the Times correspondent, and a well-known authority, on the Blackwater. A considerable portion of the report appeared
  1146
  in the Field of last Saturday. In his concluding remarks Mr. Ffennell says—
  "The Blackwater is not producing anything like its proper quantity of fish owing to the improvident manner fisheries are carried on at Lismore. The development of the fisheries is not only kept in check, but it is threatened with inevitable deterioration."
  I, my Lords, can add a rider to this report, and can assert and prove, if angling be a test, that there are rivers in Ireland where there are even less salmon than in the Blackwater. I refer to the Suir, the Nore, and the Boyne—all valuable mercantile salmon rivers. I have also, in conclusion, to refer to the river Shannon. This is the greatest river in Ireland, if not in the United Kingdom, and nothing could be more melancholy than its present condition. A member of your Lordships' House—Lord Massy—said it had been deteriorating every day since 1867. Several hundreds of anglers have deserted the river, and it was only last April that the citizens of Limerick met, figuratively speaking, in sackcloth and ashes to bewail the ruinous condition of their noble river. There are 13,000 persons connected with the licence system of Ireland, and they pay £10,817 for salmon licences. That is a tremendous representation, and I claim that we are entitled to a Commission. I therefore move the Motion which stands in my name.
  VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: My Lords, I can corroborate much that the noble Earl has stated. He has all the facts at his fingers' ends, and I have not; but I have had the experience of a lifetime on one of the rivers he mentioned—the Nore. I have been a fisherman all my life, and I do not know a prettier stream in any part of the United Kingdom. I have been telling my countrymen for years that they are letting thousands a year run to waste by not preserving that stream. It is no joke, my Lords, but a fact, that all that is preserved are the poachers. If your Lordships could see what goes on in the dusk of the evening with the cots you would be surprised that any fish got up at all. There is another river that borders my county—the Suir—which the noble Earl mentioned. I have been along that river by rail, and I have often wondered,

  1147
  seeing the number of cots and nets, how any fish could possibly get up. I think the noble Earl has made out his case, and I do hope your Lordships will grant this Commission, because many of the rivers in Ireland, if not most of them, are undoubtedly running to ruin.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, I cannot help confessing that, as a fisherman myself, my own personal sympathies are entirely with the noble Earl who has brought forward this Motion in his endeavours to improve the fisheries of Ireland, and though I am aware it is a somewhat risky thing for anybody occupying a subordinate position in the Government to give utterance to a personal opinion, I am comforted by the knowledge that the sympathies of Her Majesty's Government are also to a very great extent with the noble Earl. I entirely repudiate the statement made by the noble Earl that the Privy Council or the Government authorities in Ireland have done anything to prevent fish from getting up into the upper waters, or have in any way tried to injure the fisheries of Ireland. I think, my Lords, that the Government and the inspectors of fisheries are fully alive to the fact that a good deal might be done to improve the fishing in Irish rivers; and though it is a fact that there has been no actual legislation on the subject, or any inquiry since the year 1870, still, I know that the Irish inspectors have made certain definite recommendations with regard to the suppression of poaching, and with regard to the enactment of a minimum penalty, which is a most important matter. It is true that these recommendations have not yet been acted upon, but the noble Earl must know that public time in regard to Ireland has been very fully taken up in years past, and that there has not been time for everything. But I can assure the noble Earl that the Government have in no way lost sight of the recommendations made by the inspectors. They consider that it is certainly worthy of careful consideration, whether or not an inquiry by Royal Commission or otherwise should precede any legislation which might be brought in to deal with the question. Further than that, my Lords, I am afraid I cannot pledge the Irish Government at the present moment. I
  1148
  should like to say that the inspectors do not quite agree with the alarmist view which is taken by the noble Earl with regard to the Irish fisheries, and they consider that the figures of the last few years of the exports to nine of the principal markets give very fair indication of the prosperity of the Irish fisheries. Although in 1897 the number of boxes of salmon sent off was considerably below that of previous years, still the number for the three previous years—1894, 1895, and 1896—showed a great improvement compared with the preceding years. With regard to the question of poaching, I would call attention to the report of the Irish fisheries inspectors for 1897, which has, I think, only been laid upon the Table of your Lordship's House during the last few days. In that report the inspectors say—
  "In regard to offences generally against the Fisheries Laws, we are glad to say they have diminished. This is owing to the vigilance of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and the better supervision by the water bailiffs in some districts."
  Well, my Lords, I am sorry that I cannot give the noble Earl a more definite answer than I have given him. I can only say this question will meet with the earnest consideration of the Irish Government. They think, and the Irish fisheries inspectors think, that the money which would be expended in a Royal Commission might very likely be more satisfactorily employed in an experimental investigation into the habits and natural history of the salmon, about which we are still a good deal in the dark. Still, as I have said before, they will give careful consideration to the question as to whether or not legislation on the subject had better be preceded by a public inquiry.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships one moment, but with regard to the answer made on behalf of the Irish Government, I should like to say that, as usual, we get a great deal of sympathy, but very little is done. The Irish Government have been fully informed on the subject by a committee formed by the Irish Tourist Association. This committee took the trouble to send a number of questions round the country, and the

  1149
  very full and voluminous answers, numbering 103, which the Committee received, showed that the deterioration was appalling. All that is asked is that the existing laws should be properly carried out. The Acts of Parliament take cognisance of all the practices, and the law as it stands is capable of dealing with anyone so offending, save and except the taking of small and undersized fish; but the chief difficulty is to get it set in motion. River bailiffs, watchers, and others in authority are few and far between, while the police—except in the Dublin districts and neighbourhood, where they do what they can and render considerable assistance—although in possession of the necessary powers, abstain, as a rule, from exercising them, and adopt generally an attitude on a par with that manifested by them in regard to the Game Laws; in other words, a policy of non-interference. This, however, is mainly owing to the Constabulary regulations. If instructed, the police could, while patrolling, stop an immense amount of poaching. When there is a conviction the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland very often reduces the fine to such a small sum that there is practically no conviction at all. We ask that the existing laws should be properly carried out, and, if they were, poaching in Ireland would be almost stopped. I therefore hope the Irish Government will do their utmost to relax some of those hard and fast rules by which the constabulary are unable to put in force the law as it at present exists.
  THE EARL OF HOWTH: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in reply to what the noble Earl has said with regard to the intentions of the Irish officials. It is very remarkable that Ireland should be the only place to which a Royal Commission has not been sent.
  THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I rise to a point of order. Has the noble Earl a right to speak a second time on the same subject?
  THE EARL OF HOWTH: In 1869, when the Commissioners were—[Cries of "Order!"]
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): The question is that this Motion be agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: What is the Motion?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I do not like to disagree with the noble Marquess on a point of this character, but, as a Motion has been moved, has not the noble Earl a right of reply?
  THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: That is the point. I did not understand the Motion was moved.
  THE EARL OF HOWTH: I certainly moved the Motion.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE): I hope the noble Earl will be satisfied with the assurance which he has received that the matter shall be looked into.
  THE EARL OF HOWTH: I withdraw my Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  BENEFICES (No. 2) BILL.
  House in Committee, according to order.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 1, line 8, leave out 'two months,' and insert 'one month.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The effect of making the period two months was not appreciated at the time. By subsection (a), clause 2, the bishop is entitled to refuse to institute if transfer has taken place one year previously to the vacancy, and by sub-section 2 of the same clause the bishop is directed to give one month's notice to the churchwardens of any parish of the name of the presentee. If the clause were left to stand as it is at present, it would be possible that transfer might be effected on the 31st December, with the understanding that the incumbent would then at once resign, and a certain named person would be presented to the benefice. The

  1151
  transfer might take place on the 31st December; the incumbent might on the 1st of January apply for leave to resign—he might obtain that permission within a week if there was no obvious reason for refusing it. The patron would then present at once, and the bishop would submit the name of the presentee to the churchwardens. The notice would expire in February, and the bishop might then at once proceed to institute, and only a few weeks afterwards, at the end of February, would he be aware that a transfer had taken place just previously to the vacancy and the presentation. It ought obviously not to be possible for a change in the incumbency to be carried through before the fact of the transfer has been necessarily made known to the bishop by registration. I am sure that there is ample precedent for registration as quickly as this, because it is necessary by the present law to register a bill of sale within seven days, and therefore there can be no hardship in having to register the transfer of a right of patronage within one month.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I do not rise to oppose the proposed duration of time, but to call attention to the fact that there is no obligation laid upon the diocesan registrar to register within any time. It must be registered in the prescribed manner within one month; but registration does not depend upon the patron but upon the registrar who is registering, and there is no duty cast upon him anywhere to register. The rule-clause does not provide for any rule which will cover that case. I think it would be quite sufficient, probably, if it were provided for by rules, but there are two or three rules in connection with this registration, which do not seem to me to be within the rule-making power, that had better perhaps be considered under the rule-making clause.
  Question put, and agreed to—
  "Page 1, line 15, after 'auction' insert 'or otherwise.'"—(Lord Herschell.)
  LORD HERSCHELL: The amendment which I have to move contains an abstract of the views which I laid before the House on the second reading of this Bill.
  1152
  I do not intend to detain your Lordships more than a very few moments, and I shall not insist upon pressing my amendment to a Division if the Government do not see their way to accept it. It is necessary in connection with this amendment to refer to one other in order to show what the scheme is which I propose to submit to the House. On the second reading of the Bill I do not think there was any question raised as to the expediency, speaking generally, of allowing the sale of advowsons, which in a large measure, at all events, was an evil of the same character as the sale of next presentations. I do not think it was denied. The noble Earl objected to the extension of the Bill in that direction, and alluded to a case in which it was desirable to sell an advowson in connection with an estate, and that in that exceptional case the evil did not exist in the same measure, and moreover that there were certain advantages connected with it. Now I do not propose to alter the provision of the sub-section which enables the advowson to be sold in conjunction with an estate in the particular case alluded to, namely, by auction, and therefore it would be the same with regard to these cases. An advowson would remain incapable of sale in such cases as that suggested by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. I do not propose, so far as relates to sale otherwise than by auction, that the provision should come into operation for thirty years. It may be said, why not wait until some future time and then Parliament can deal with the matter in the meantime. The difficulty is this, if you give notice of this distinction and allow this period of thirty years, I do not think there can be any serious complaint of interfering with existing interests. If you do not do anything you are met by the same difficulty—whether five or ten years hence the question be raised of stopping the sale of advowsons in the manner provided by this Act, it will be said you ought not at once to stop the sale of advowsons, excepting by compensation, and what difficulties the question of compensation would give rise to is apparent on the second reading. The scheme is one which would end in the ultimate abolition of the sale of advowsons, but it would not operate at the present time at all—not

  1153
  till thirty years had expired from the passing of the Act. That is the point really raised by the amendment, and I now beg to move—
  "Page 1, line 15, after 'auction' insert 'or otherwise.'"
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think I am correctly interpreting the object of the noble and learned lord by saying that he means by this amendment to stop any possibility of the sale of advowsons thirty years hence, except by way of auction, under limited conditions.
  LORD HERSCHELL: No, not by auction—"sale or otherwise." Any sale will be stopped unless in conjunction with an estate.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: That is exactly what I mean to say—any sale will be stopped thirty years hence, excepting one under certain limited conditions in connection with the sale of an estate. Now, my Lords, this is the class of amendment that was pressed very much upon the Government in the House of Commons; and I think it would really be almost sufficient if I were to say that it is wholly and entirely outside the purview of this Bill. It may be a good object or a bad one, but the Government in the House of Commons resolutely opposed any attempt to enlarge the scope of the Bill, so as to include the object which the noble and learned lord has in view. I would respectfully say, also, that even if there was not that fundamental objection to introduce legislation of this kind into this Bill, the matter is not so simple as the amendment of the noble and learned lord might seem to lead one to suppose. Surely provision has to be made, if such legislation happens in the future, for what is to happen to the rights of presentation which cannot henceforth be sold. It is not sufficient, surely, to say that in default of the voluntary transfer and in the case of complete negligence of the duty of presentation, the right of presentation will in the course of time lapse to the bishop of the diocese. Surely that would be rather a haphazard and loose way of legislating upon this very important subject. It would be necessary to provide machinery to which all rights
  1154
  of presentation could be transferred, when, after a certain length of time, those who were legally owners of that right showed complete indifference to their rights, or if they were willing to transfer them for nothing. My Lords, I hope that the noble and learned lord will pardon me when I say that I do not think his object is secured by his own amendment. He proposes to insert the word "or otherwise" in line 15 after the word "auction," so that the clause would read—"It shall not be lawful to offer for sale by public auction or otherwise." That would not stop the transfer of livings for pecuniary considerations after thirty years. All that it would do would be that it would make it unlawful to offer them for sale. It would be lawful for the owner of an advowson to accept money for the livings which he possessed—it only would forbid him to offer the living for sale. Therefore, if there were not the objections which I have endeavoured to enumerate, there is the objection that the object of the noble and learned lord would not be met by his own amendment. Without dwelling further upon that point, I have to say that the amendment is outside the purview of the Bill, and cannot be accepted by Her Majesty's Government.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I do not intend to press the amendment further after what has been said, although I cannot admit that the amendment is outside the purview of the Bill. This is a Benefices Bill. Its purview is a very wide one, and I cannot see how dealing with the sale of advowsons is more outside the purview of a Benefices Bill than dealing with the sale of next presentations. One is as much connected with a Benefices Bill as the other. I quite understand the difficulty at the present moment of passing an amendment of this description, which the Government are not prepared to accept, as raising a larger and wider question no doubt than that which is dealt with in the Bill. I do not think it would be so ineffectual as the noble Earl suggests, but I do not think it is worth while discussing that, because I do not intend to press it further.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  1155
  "Page 1, line 16, after 'advowson' insert 'held and.'"—(The Archbishop of York.)
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: It appears that many of your lordships have felt, as was described by the noble and learned lord, that this clause opens the door rather too wide as regards the cases in which sales may take place of advowsons by public auction, and I venture to suggest that the difficulty might be met if the words "held and" were inserted after the word "advowson." At present it would be very easy for anyone wishing to sell an advowson to put it up for sale in conjunction with any manor when he may not have held it in conjunction with that manor, and by requiring that it should be held in conjunction, I think it would shut the door against very great abuse which might still exist after the passing of the clause as it at present stands. It is quite possible that some other amendment might meet this difficulty in a better way, but I should like to feel sure that it would be met somehow. It seems to me that at present, even as the clause stands, the facilities for sale by public auction of advowsons remain very great indeed, and much greater than there is any necessity for maintaining, even with a view to the preservation of the rights of the present owners of advowsons. I therefore move the insertion of the words "held and" after the word "advowson." The subsection would then read—
  "It shall not be lawful to offer for sale by public auction any right of patronage save in the case of an advowson held, and to be sold, in conjunction with any manor or hereditament."
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I hope that the most reverend prelate will not press that particular Amendment, because, if he will look at the Paper of Amendments, he will see that I have an Amendment which, I think, would meet the objection he has in view. I propose presently, if the most reverend prelate withdraws his Amendment, to move to leave out "any manor or hereditament" in line 17, and to insert "not less than one hundred acres of land in the same or an adjoining parish, and belonging to the same owner." The effect of that will be that no advowson can be offered for sale by public auction unless it is sold
  1156
  in conjunction with at least 100 acres of land in the same or an adjoining parish, and belonging to the same owner. I think that carries out the effect intended by the most reverend prelate, and it also meets the criticism of the learned Lord made by him on the Second Reading of the Bill the other day.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: The suggestion meets most of the difficulties of the case, but these hundred acres may not be acquired ad hoc, while any other might be. The point is met by the words, that it should be held by some settlement, along with the manor. Under the words of the noble Earl, it will be possible for a man to acquire 100 acres of land. This Amendment does not shut the door against that purchase of land for the purpose of enabling him to sell the advowson.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Might I suggest to the most reverend prelate that his own words are exactly subject to the same criticism; it might be held for one hour.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: A hundred acres is rather a small quantity of land. If the noble Earl would raise the number of acres there might be something in it. A hundred acres might be arranged to be sold with the advowson.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: I meant that the land should be held under some settlement.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The most reverend prelate's Amendment does not say so.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: I will withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I would suggest to the noble Earl whether there is a necessity for leaving out "manor," and putting in "land of 100 acres in the parish," because I am told that there are cases where the owner of the manor might not have a hundred acres; and if he owns the manor, the charge has always been held, and in the sale of the

  1157
  manor it would be a case of transferring the advowson.
  THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Is not a manor a hereditament?
  LORD HERSCHELL: Yes, but it is not to be less than a hundred acres. My Amendment was to leave in the word "manor," and then add, "or with." I think, if you are to allow it with 100 acres you should allow it with the manor.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Then it would read "manor, or with an estate."
  LORD HERSCHELL: If the noble Earl will leave out "hereditaments," and insert "with an estate in land of not less than 100 acres, situate in the parish in which the benefice is situate, or in an adjoining parish, and belonging to the same owner," it would, I think, meet the requirements of the case.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I move the Amendment in that form:
  "Page 1, line 17, leave out 'hereditament' and insert 'with an estate in land of not less than one hundred acres situate in the parish in which the benefice is situate or in an adjoining parish and belonging to the same owner.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  "Page 1, after line 17, insert 'any sale or any transfer of a right of patronage in contravention of this sub-section shall be void: provided always that the foregoing provision in so far as it relates to a sale otherwise than by public auction, shall not take effect until the expiration of thirty years after the passing of this Act.'"—(Lord Herschell.)
  LORD HERSCHELL: I do not know whether the noble Earl accepts that Amendment.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I cannot. The point has been very carefully considered since the noble and learned Lord brought it forward on the Second Reading. I am advised that, although no doubt an actual conveyance would be valid in which money had passed, yet the contract for that conveyance would be void, and the vendor would be indictable, and, as an auction cannot be
  1158
  an easily concealed affair, it must be fairly publicly known that the auction has taken place, and, that the vendor in that contract has, at that auction, broken the law, I am advised that it is not necessary to insert the words that the noble and learned Lord proposes. I am advised that there is an absolute objection, because, whereas the transaction might, by some inadvertence, have escaped attention at the time, the point might be raised many years afterwards, and if the noble Lord's words were inserted, although the conveyance had taken place many years previously, and although the patron who was then enjoying the benefit derived from that conveyance might have been perfectly innocent of the transaction, the whole title might be upset. The real answer to these technical points is that these sales by auction are extremely few in number, and that it is not necessary, in the opinion of those who have been studying the subject, to close the door further than is done by the words as they stand at present. I am, therefore, unable to accept the noble and learned Lord's Amendment.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I cannot say that I am quite satisfied with the noble Earl's reasons. It is perfectly easy to preserve the rights of a third person, but I do not see why you should allow the transaction to be valid as between the parties who are pronounced by the law to be doing an unlawful act. As the clause now stands, he may accomplish all he wishes to accomplish, subject to a chance of being indicted.
  Question put.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY: Is there to be no punishment for a contravention of this section?
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The punishment will be by indictment.
  "Page 2, line 8, after 'section' insert 'or commits any breach of the promissory part of his declaration.'"—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: The Amendment I have down on the Paper is similar in principle to the Amend-

  1159
  ment which I see my noble Friend in charge of the bill has down—I mean the Amendment he put down subsequent to my Amendment. The object of my Amendment is to render any breach of the promissory part of the declaration punishable. I do not myself think there will be any difficulty in inserting these words, because Parliament is quite within its rights in saying that any breach of the promissory part of the declaration will render the man making it liable to a misdemeanour—liable to the punishment attaching to the law of perjury. My noble Friend thinks it will be, perhaps, more consistent if the Amendment to carry out the same object were inserted somewhat subsequent in the Bill—a few lines lower down—and, as our intentions are quite the same, I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment on the understanding that he will press his.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It would not have been possible to accept the Amendment in the form in which my noble Friend moved it, because breach of promise is not perjury, and it would not be possible to make it so, but it seems to the Government a very proper offence to include amongst those which can be dealt with under section 1 of the Clergy Discipline Act, 1892. Therefore, I would move the Amendment I have down—
  "Page 2, line 8, after 'section,' insert 'or commits any breach of the promissory part of his declaration.'"
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  "Page 2, line 21, after 'redemption,'insert—
  "(8) A transfer of the whole interest of the transferor in the right shall not be necessary where the consideration for the transfer shall be applied to some church purpose approved by the bishop, in writing, provided that such transfer is registered in the prescribed manner in the registry of the diocese within two months from the date of the transfer."—(The Marquess of Bristol.)
  THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOL: My Lords, there are two reasons for which I think this Amendment should be
  1160
  accepted. One, because I think it would be an advantage to the Church, and the other because I am not one of those who think that, when Parliament is engaging in some reform, it would be well to go further than the necessities of the case require. I apprehend, my Lords, that those who have charge of this Bill have put into it the forbidding of the sale of next presentations, in order to prevent the scandals which, unfortunately and admittedly, have been happening in connection with these sales. But in the Amendment I propose, I do not think there is any danger to scandal arising. Scandals must attach either to the vendor or the purchaser. I think that where the vendor, openly and above-board, and for purposes which no doubt have the approval of everyone, sells an advowson—in that case there can be no scandal. But I can quite imagine that some of your Lordships might think that, with regard to the purchaser, the case might be somewhat different. Those who hold that view must, I think, have a very small belief in the adequacy of those safeguards which have been so abundantly placed in this Bill against the appointment of certain persons, who would not be fit for the performance of the sacred duties of the parish, and it is because I think that these scandals will not happen in this case, that I trust the noble Earl and your Lordships will agree to the Amendment, and I think, if you do, that it will be the means, from time to time, of enabling some increase to be given to the smaller and poorer livings, of which there are so many in all the dioceses of the kingdom.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am afraid that this Amendment is one which it is quite impossible for the Government to accept. The point of view from which this Bill has been drafted is that the sale of next presentations is, in itself, an indefensible transaction, and it cannot be argued, if that view is sound, that an indefensible transaction becomes defensible because the money received for it is applied to a good and worthy purpose. It would, therefore, be quite impossible, on its own merits, to accept the Amendment; but there is another, and very cogent reason, which I am sure will commend itself

  1161
  to the noble Marquess, and that is, that if he is of opinion that this exception should be made to a general rule, there may be others in your Lordships' House, who think that there should be other exceptions, and if one exception were let in there would be an immediate demand to let in a large number more; but the whole principle of the particular exception now asked for is against the view which Her Majesty's Government have taken in promoting this Bill, and I cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
  Question put.
  Amendment negatived.
  Question put—
  "That clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  LORD HERSCHELL: I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to consider, before the next stage, the point we have been discussing. I confess I feel a great objection to forbidding a transaction, and then not providing any punishment for doing the thing which is prohibited. It is not upon the lines of recent legislation to leave a thing of that sort to a common law indictment, and, further, it would be much better to make a transaction invalid as between the parties—that is really the best penalty—while, at the same time preserving from injustice any persons who subsequently took without notice of the invalidity.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not quite satisfied with the language as it stands, because it is only a question of offering for sale, and does not operate against any of the parties but the unfortunate auctioneer; but I doubt very much whether there is any necessity to go so far as the noble and learned Lord suggests. I think one might alter it so as to provide a specific penalty or what not, but I may remind the noble and learned Lord that where you have prohibition of marriage under certain circumstances—Lord Hardwicke's Act—the marriage is perfectly valid; but the person who celebrates it is liable for 14
  1162
  years' penal servitude; so there is an analogy between the celebrating clergyman of a forbidden marriage and the officiating auctioneer at a forbidden sale. However, as I think the form in which this section is cast at present is certainly open to some objections, I will consult my noble Friend upon the subject.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I shall be quite content with any form which will give some substantial penalty.
  THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY: I would ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is possible in any way to check, not only public auction, but public advertisement of benefices. I have recently had in my hands a publication called the Church Patronage Gazette, in which there are at least three benefices in my diocese offered for sale—a form of advertisement which would be much more likely to attract unworthy presentees than a sale by public auction.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Of course, the right reverend prelate's suggestion will be considered, but I cannot hold out any hope that we will be able to do anything towards meeting what is, I believe, a very novel proposal.
  THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY: It is a very pressing evil.
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 2.
  "Page 2, line 30, leave out 'three,' and insert 'five.'"—(The Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Winchester.)
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: When this Bill was first introduced in another place the period within which the bishop might refuse to institute was the cause of much discussion. This is really a very important clause. It would be possible, under this clause, that a patron might appoint, in one of the most important livings, say, in London, a man who had been only three years in orders. After all, the power exists with the bishop. I think, therefore, that the period should be extended to five years, which would be a safeguard against many of the evils

  1163
  which would arise if the lesser period were maintained.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment. This point was thrashed out in the House of Commons. I do not pretend to say, for this purpose, that three is right and five is wrong, any more than I pretend to say that five is right and three is wrong; but on general grounds of expediency, taking the balance of difficulty between the two, the decision was come to by Her Majesty's Government to make it three years instead of five. I would point out that the three years would not always in every case apply to very young men, because there are older men ordained to whom the five years might really amount to almost a hardship. At any rate, Her Majesty's Government have determined to adhere to the three years, and therefore I cannot accept the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  "Page 2, line 39, after 'Act' insert—
  "(c) If he is satisfied that the representations made by the churchwardens on behalf of the parishioners, in reply to the notice served upon the churchwardens under this Act, that the presentee is unsuitable for the benefice in question, are well founded."—(Earl Grey.)
  EARL GREY: The object of the Amendment which I have the honour to move is to give to the bishops power to enable them to refuse to institute the presentee on the general ground of his unsuitability to the benefice in question, and I trust, my Lords, that you will grant me your kind indulgence while I endeavour to explain to you some of the reasons why it appears to me it is important that this House should either adopt this Amendment, or should, at any rate, support it with sufficient strength to convince people outside that there is a party in this House which does not consider any Measure dealing with Church patronage reform final or complete unless it contains provisions which will compel the owners of the right of presentation to exercise their right as a trust in the interests of the parishioners at large. What is the real evil in connection with this patronage system?
  1164
  It does not appear to me to be so much that the right of presentation is the subject of sale, but that, notwithstanding the fact, as the noble Earl in charge of the Bill pointed out, that the Statutes of Elizabeth and Anne, and subsequent legislation, show that the law had always intended that the right of presentation should be regarded as a trust, there is no legal obligation on owners of advowsons, either under the law in its present state or under the law as amended by this Bill, to treat their right of presentation in any way as a trust. I am aware that under a later clause in the Bill patrons are prevented from presenting presentees who are bankrupt in either means, health, or intellect, and that to this extent the powers of the patrons are restricted. But it will still remain in the power of the patron who does not present a presentee who is thus ear-marked by bodily or mental infirmity, or pecuniary embarrassment, to force upon the parishioners anyone whom he may please, however unacceptable the presentee may be to the parishioners who are to be committed to his charge. This is the evil which lies at the root of the scandal with which we have to deal, and which, unless my Amendment or some similar Amendment is accepted, this Bill does nothing to remove. I confess it appears to me to be little short of monstrous that whereas elaborate care is taken to secure the professions and every branch of the Civil Service against the admission of unsuitable men, the cure of souls, one of the most responsible positions in the whole scheme of our local administration, is open to anyone who can obtain a friend to buy an advowson and present him to the benefice. It is this uncontrolled power which the owner of the advowson possesses, of being able to present to a living the stupid member of his family, who is unable to earn a livelihood in any other direction, which gives to patronage its value. It is this power which gives rise to the evils which make legislation necessary, and if we can remove this power, or safeguard this power, I question much if legislation would be necessary at all; but so long as this power of presenting anyone the patron pleases, without having regard to the interests of the parishioners, continues to exist, it is my opinion that any legis-

  1165
  lation which you may put upon the Statute Book will not attain the object you have in view. I am totally unable to find any solace or consolation in that part of the Bill which deals with next presentations. It is a common and notorious practice for men to buy advowsons, present, and then sell again. In a volume published recently by Canon Gore it is stated that as many as 600 benefices where the incumbent is his own patron have been subject during recent years to transactions of this character. So long as the patron has the right to present anyone he pleases, without any regard to the parish, without taking into consideration the interests of the parishioners, then this practice of purchasing advowsons, presenting, and then selling again will be followed, and this Bill, which affects to sweep away the sale of next presentations, will not achieve its object. It may be asked, why does not this Bill, as sent up by the House of Commons, provide that the patron should be compelled to administer his patronage as a trust in the interests of the parish? I have heard it stated in the House of Commons that this House, which is a House of patrons, would never give its consent to any provisions which would make it necessary for the patron to consider the interests of the parishioners when he makes his presentation. My Lords, that seems to me to be a reflection upon this House, and if the only patrons we had to consider were the patrons who are connected with the land, and this House, I daresay it might be urged, after the most satisfactory statement by the most reverend prelate as to the way in which the landowners administer their rights of patronage, that there would be no necessity for this Bill at all. But there are other patrons who have to be considered, and whose malpractices bring great discredit upon the Church of England—namely, the 600 men to whom I have already referred, who buy advowsons, present themselves, and sell the advowsons again. These are the men with whom we have to deal, and if no Amendment is incorporated in this Bill of the character I am proposing, then I say that this evil will not be stopped. If, on the contrary, an Amendment—not necessarily mine, but a similar one—is proposed in this House, and incor-
  1166
  porated in this Bill, then the great evils connected with the scandals of the present system of patronage will be stopped altogether. In considering this Amendment, I trust that greater regard will be had to the principle of the Amendment than to the way in which that principle is carried out by the Amendment. My object in moving the Amendment is to obtain an expression of opinion that bishops should be empowered, under certain circumstances, to reject the presentee on the ground of his unsuitability to the parish. That is the principle. It may be urged that it confers too much power upon the bishops. Very well; I am perfectly willing to withdraw my Amendment in favour of any other which makes it necessary that a Commission such as is appointed in the further clauses of this Bill should report to the bishop that the presentee is not suitable before the bishop has any power to refuse to institute him. That might be advisable in the interests of the patron, in the interests of the presentee, and in the interests of the parish, and also in the interests of the bishop. In making this suggestion that this Amendment should be incorporated in this Bill, I have the precedent of the clause which was in the Bill of the late Archbishop of Canterbury. In his Bill of 1886 it was provided that the bishop should have power to reject the presentee, on the ground that in the opinion of two-thirds of his diocesan council of patronage the presentee was not a fit or proper person to be instituted to the benefice in question. I regret that a clause of that character was not included in the Bill and sent up to your Lordships to pass. The rights of the parishioners appear to me to be too much overlooked in this Bill. The noble Earl said it was a great step forward that the law should give notice to the churchwardens of the intention of the parish to institute a presentee, and that the churchwardens should have one month within which to make their objections. It is no very great advantage to the parishioners that they should know who is going to be appointed to the parish unless they have the power of making representations on the ground of the unsuitability of the presentee to their own parish, which will enable the bishop, on proper inquiries having been made, to

  1167
  refuse to institute him. That is the object of my Amendment, and I trust that the House will see its way to adopt this particular Amendment, or hold out some assurance that one of some such a nature shall be included in the Bill, so as to safeguard the interests of the parishioners and make it absolutely necessary that a patron, in exercising his patronage, should consider the interests of the parishioners and regard his right of patronage as a trust and not as a property.
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: I am sure that all your Lordships must agree with the fundamental principle underlying the Amendment proposed by my noble Friend, although, as it stands, its wording seems to me to run counter to the other provisions in the Bill. We cannot, unfortunately, vote for a principle, however excellent. We must vote for or against a specific Amendment couched in specific words. Now the Amendment of my noble Friend appears to me to amount practically to this: that the churchwardens, controlled by the bishop's discretion, are to decide, finally as to the suitableness or unsuitableness of the person presented to the living. Personally, I have great confidence in episcopal discretion, but I can hardly expect that the country at large will express quite so much confidence in that discretion, and I confess, as I said before, that it does seem to me that, the proposal, as it stands, goes almost contrary to the rest of the Bill from first to last. Indeed, we should hardly require any of the other clauses safeguarding the conditions under which a man should be appointed if this clause were now to be inserted. Practically, the churchwardens controlled by the bishops would have power given them to decide on undefined general grounds as to what my noble Friend calls the "suitableness" or "unsuitableness" of any man presented to a living, and I can hardly believe that the country is prepared to transfer responsibility so largely from the patron, and to place such unreserved confidence in the controlling power of the bishops and the churchwardens. I am glad, however, to be allowed to give expression from the Bishop's Bench to our warm recognition of the principle which underlies what the noble Earl has
  1168
  proposed. We all desire that the unsuitable man should be kept out, and that the suitable man should be put in; and that is what this Bill has endeavoured to do. We are all desirous, too, that the legitimate wishes of parishioners should be, so far as possible, ascertained and respected. As to the definition of what suitableness and unsuitableness should practically consist of, those are matters upon which an immense difference and variety of opinions would be found to exist, and what we have to consider is, what we can at the present moment reasonably enact and secure with reference to the restrictions to be exercised on the rights of patronage. While I cordially agree with the noble Earl in principle, I cannot agree that what he has suggested will be consistent with the rest of the Bill, and I must therefore, though with very great reluctance, vote against the Amendment.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: I am prepared, my Lords, to go somewhat further than my right reverend brother. I think we are all only desirous that the suitable man should be appointed, and that the unsuitable man should be excluded; but, for myself, I am extremely desirous that in one way or another the opinion of the parishioners should be taken. It may be that the noble Earl's Amendment may not be the best possible way of granting this power, but I think it would be a great blot on the Bill if there was not a definite recognition of the interests of the parishioners in the appointment of their own clergy, and of their right to be heard, at all events before he is appointed by the bishop. I should be very glad to support any Amendment of this kind consistent with the general principles of the Bill.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I really welcome with great pleasure that which we have just heard from the most reverend prelate, the Archbishop of York. He has, I think, exactly touched what I regard as the principle of the Amendment of the noble Earl. The principle is this: that the parishioners should have a voice, and it seems to me that you will never have any contentment in the parish unless that is so. With regard to the objection that it

  1169
  puts too much power in the hands of the bishops, I am not going to express either confidence or lack of confidence in them. The bishop is not of his own motion to do this; it is only when the parishioners make a representation to him that he has to determine whether or not that representation is such as he should act upon; therefore, that is something very different from giving the bishop an initiative power of putting a veto upon the nomination of the clergy to benefices. All he has to do is to consider those objections with any other objections which arise under the Bill. I am far from saying that the Amendment is complete in itself, and I am also very sensible of the real difficulty which there would be in framing a satisfactory law by which so vital and important a change should be introduced into the Church as that the parishioners should have a voice. I do not think any more important reform could be made, and I think it a matter of the greatest satisfaction that a bishop so highly placed as the one who has just spoken has made a declaration in favour of that principle. I cordially agree with the principle contained in the Amendment, and if the noble Earl goes to a Division I shall record my vote in favour of it.
  THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: I desire to join myself with the noble Lord in subscribing to the admirable sentiments which have been expressed upon the subject; but it is not admirable sentiments with which your Lordships have to deal—we have to deal with the Amendment that it is desired to put into the Bill, Which, in my opinion, is a very odd one. The bishop has to be satisfied that the representations made by the churchwardens, on behalf of the parishioners, that the presentee is unsuitable for the benefice in question are well founded. The noble Earl opposite is enthusiastic for the voice of the parishioners, which I suppose means election by the parishioners.
  EARL GREY: Being heard.
  THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Very well, then, being heard; but I do not suppose they would thank you very much if they were only heard; but
  1170
  nobody has ever argued that the churchwardens should be heard on this subject, and yet this Amendment would place this power entirely in their hands. It would be for them to decide whether or not a man was unsuitable, and I observe from this Debate that none of us are able to say what suitable or unsuitable means. If that is so, is it likely that the churchwardens should know any better? Supposing you were to give this power to churchwardens in a parish where there were a great many publicans, they would say that a teetotal clergyman was entirely unsuitable to the parish, and vice versâ in a very teetotal parish, I have no doubt that a clergyman who took a liberal view in these matters would be very unsuitable to the parish. I will not enter into the thorny questions of doctrine, but it is obvious how far every churchwarden would erect himself into a temporary Pope, in order to determine what doctrines should and should not exclude from the tenure of a particular parish, and I would represent that the position that is essential to the churchwardens is one that could not possibly be vindicated. You may, for the sake of large and generous principles, vote for an Amendment in which you do not believe, but when that Amendment comes to be put into an Act of Parliament people would say that the churchwardens were intolerable, and it would result in a vote of the parishioners, and the unfortunate presentee would occupy the month, during which his name is nailed upon the church door, by canvassing everybody in the parish, and assuring them of his entire agreement with the sentiments which they, entertained as to his suitability or unsuitability. You are raising a very large question indeed—a question, I venture to say, on which there has been, in the Church of England, a tolerable preponderance of opinion for the last two or three hundred years, and that is that election is not a good mode of supplying the incumbent of a parish, and until you have made up your minds to turn back from that opinion, and to adopt the other doctrine, I think you had better not meddle with the question by ambiguous and not very perspicuous language, lest you should find that you had surrendered a principle which was thought valuable, and introduced maxims which would be

  1171
  most pernicious for the election of fitting persons for the service of the Church.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I cannot agree that this Amendment in the slightest degree involves the question of election of the clergy by the parish. If you give an absolute power to the parishioners, then it would involve the question of election of the clergy by the parish; but even if you gave an absolute power there would be nothing inconsistent with the present mode of institution if the veto does not itself go so far as to give a veto to the parishioners. It merely requires that the parishioners' representations should be considered by the bishop, who may or may not act upon them, according as he thinks they are well founded or not. There is no obligation on the bishop to refuse to institute because of the objections taken by the parishioners; the Amendment only provides for their being heard. In one respect I agree with the noble Marquess. I think the Amendment treats the churchwardens as too much representing in all cases the parishioners. I should like the representations of the parishioners attended to in the sense of being considered. I apprehend that that was in the mind of the promoters of the Bill, because the Bill itself provides that the notice is to be given to the churchwardens; they are treated for this purpose as representing the parish, and I imagine that that admitted to some extent the principle of my noble Friend's Amendment.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: It would be quite easy to make that clear that the representations of the parishioners should be made through the churchwardens. I do not suppose for a moment that the churchwardens would act of their own accord and ask a bishop not to appoint any particular man. I apprehend that the principle is the voice of the parishioners, spoken through the churchwardens. Whether the Amendment is suitable for carrying its purpose or not, I am very strongly in favour of making some provision for the voice of the parishioners being heard, and I shall be very sorry indeed if the Bill goes forth to the world without that being done.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I will only add one word to what the noble Marquess
  1172
  has said. This Debate has proceeded rather on the grounds that this Bill does nothing in the direction which my noble Friend advocates. For the first time this Bill proposes that the bishop shall be obliged to give a statutory notice to the churchwardens of every parish of the name of the man proposed to be instituted as incumbent of the parish. The churchwardens are mentioned because they are the lay authorities who represent the parishioners. What is the object of notice being given in the manner provided? It is not merely a private courtesy to the churchwardens; it is to enable the parishioners, who have seen the notice published in the prescribed manner, if they have any objections to the proposed incumbent, to bring them to the notice of the bishop. There is absolute security, if this enactment becomes law, that in every parish every parishioner who chooses to use his eyes and read the notice shall have an opportunity of bringing to the attention of the bishop any objections he knows of against the institution of the proposed incumbent, and then the responsibility is thrown upon the bishop. But is there any ground of unsuitableness in the reasonable acceptation of that term which is not included in clause 2, sub-section b? By that clause the bishops may refuse institution on the ground that at the date of presentation not more than three years have elapsed since the presentee was ordained deacon. He may refuse institution on the ground that the presentee is unfit for the discharge of the duties of the benefice by reason of physical or mental infirmity or incapacity. He may refuse institution on the ground that the proposed presentee is in a state of pecuniary embarrassment of a serious character, or that he has been guilty of grave misconduct or neglect of duty in an ecclesiastical office, or on the ground of evil life, and of having by his conduct caused great scandal concerning his moral character since his ordination. On each one of those grounds any parishioner may, who reads the notice, have an opportunity of bringing his objections to the notice of the bishop. Therefore, I maintain it is quite impossible to provide machinery which will more fully give every parishioner that opportunity which your Lordships may consider he ought

  1173
  to have. The question is whether the responsibility of acting on this information is to be vested in the bishops or in the churchwardens, or in a combination of the two. I maintain that the proper authority to deal with this matter is the bishop, and can only be the bishop. I think we have done all that is possible if we provide that there should be ample opportunity to the parishioners to bring to the notice of the bishops any objections that they may know of to the character of the man that is to be appointed.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: The noble Earl has entirely misunderstood the object of this Amendment. We all know that for certain specific objections the bishop may refuse to institute, and that the churchwardens may bring before the bishop the candidate who is not fit, but there are many other reasons for which a man may be unsuitable to serve in a parish, and we do not think it is right that the parishioners, with regard to those other objections, should not have the power of going to the bishop, and we think that that power should be included in this Bill. We do not ask by this Amendment that the churchwardens should decide the matter. They are only the mouthpiece of the parishioners—they are the channel through which the voice of the parishioners reaches the bishop, and it is the bishop who decides whether the man is unsuitable or not.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAX: The House hardly realises the extreme difficulty of this question, for it really involves a reconstruction of our whole system of patronage. At the present time there is, I believe, nothing which limits the churchwardens to being members of the Church of England. Surely it is a very grave matter to suggest that the whole of the parishioners, irrespective of their religious belief, are to be given power to represent to the bishop who is a fit and proper person to be the clergyman of the parish. It is within the knowledge of everyone who has the least acquaintance with these matters that of all the modes of appointment which prevail in the Church of England, none are so bad as those in which the incumbent is elected by the parishioners. There
  1174
  have been one or two cases within my knowledge where the elections under such circumstances have been a perfect scandal. There is no one in this House who does not sympathise with what fell from the noble Earl who has moved this Amendment—that patronage is a trust, and that it is to be exercised for the benefit of the parishioners. That we must all cordially endorse; but my objection to the Amendment is, that if it is carried out, it will not conduce to the appointment of the best men in the parish, but might, in many cases, prevent the appointment of just the man who in the real interests of the parish ought to be appointed.
  THE BISHOP OF RIPON: I am quite sure that there is not one of us who does not entirely endorse what has fallen from the noble Lord. We are all of us alive to the great danger and the great scandals which arise from election to a benefice. Everyone who has looked at these things must be perfectly well aware of that, but I do not think that the question concerning such scandals or such elections is in any sense relevant to our considerations to-day. In the first place, there is no suggestion whatever that there should be even an opportunity for going round a parish and gathering up the suffrages and opinions of the parishioners. All that is suggested is that there should be an opportunity of representation of the views of the parishioners to the bishop. It has been said that this opportunity is provided for. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill has reminded us that a notice should be put upon the church door, and no doubt it is primarily true that that notice enables the parishioners, if they please, to give notice of objection to the proposed incumbent, but I maintain with every deference that that is hardly sufficient to meet the point which has been raised by the noble Earl opposite. The suggestion which he makes is that there should be not merely a tacit opportunity, which is only put in in a kind of silent fashion, but that the Bill should suggest that such an opportunity should exist, because by virtue of its existence in the Bill it will call the attention of everybody to the fact that the parishioners are expected to lodge the grounds of their objection before the bishop. That is a very

  1175
  valuable provision, and I do hope that something will be done to enable something, at any rate, analogous to this Amendment to be introduced into the Bill, because, as it is, it almost looks as if we were giving something to the parishioners with one hand and taking it away with the other; or perhaps rather more like the Irishman who gave his son a bottle of whisky, and then locked it up in a cupboard, and when he came home he found his son rubbing a piece of bread on the outside of the cupboard door in order to get so far as he could the flavour of the whisky on his bread. You say, indeed, in some silent fashion in the Bill that there may be objections made, but you never suggest to the parishioner, as such, that he has a right to raise these objections. My Lords, we stand at the parting of the ways in the present day. Everywhere, in Convocation and in public meetings, all who are interested in the cause of the Church, all who speak concerning the value of the Church as an institution, all who say that her position is so highly popular because her work is so earnest, are telling us that the one thing we need to do is to give the lay people some opportunity, some voice, in the government of the Church. My Lords, is this the time for us to hesitate? Is this the time to refuse to do that in any case whatever? It is not simply a question of what may be done or what may be possible to do. The day may come when further legislation may take place, and the position of the parishioners may be much more clearly defined; and then, in such a day as that, this clause will be of extreme value; and I do hope that something will be done to show, at any rate, that the parishioners are expected to have some sense of their responsibility, and to make them feel that a door has been opened to enable them to give expression to their views.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I cannot help thinking that the right reverend prelate has misunderstood the purpose and the meaning of the Amendment suggested. I gather from what he says now that what he thinks ought to be done is to enable parishioners to make such objections as are already provided for in the Bill. That is not the meaning of the Amendment at all. I do not understand
  1176
  that the noble Earl simply means that the person who is supposed to be unsuitable is to be considered unsuitable merely by reason of his being guilty of any of the matters mentioned in the Bill.
  EARL GREY: On any ground whatsoever.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is the whole point; and what I would point out is this: that upon some vague ground—upon any ground whatever, as the noble Earl says—the parish, or some members of the parish, think proper to suggest to the bishop, the bishop is to refuse institution to the presentee. Just imagine what the bishop has to do He has to find out whether the representations of the parishioners are well founded and that he is unsuitable to the benefice. Has anybody the least opinion as to what that means? In what respect is he unsuitable? Is he to be unsuitable in regard to doctrine, in regard to ritual? Is that point to be raised? Is he to be considered unsuitable in any political point of view—is that point to be raised? If it is a very Conservative parish—I will give that view preference—and the clergyman is a Liberal, is he to be considered an unsuitable person? As a matter of fact no one knows; no one can define exactly what unsuitability means, and that is the main objection to such an Amendment as this—that, although nobody knows what is suitable and what is unsuitable, the parish, which may not consist necessarily of members of the Church of England, are to decide whether he is suitable or not. The objection to legislation of this sort is that, whereas a presentee, who, by hypothesis, must be ordained, is entitled to some definite charge against him, or some definite proposition, which can be formulated and which people can understand, that charge can be made against him before he has received institution, so that the clergyman, of all people in the world, is to be the only person against whom a vague charge of unsuitability is to be made, and which might deprive him of the position in his profession to which I think he is entitled if no objection can be made against his physical, mental, moral, or religious capacity. All of those suggestions can be

  1177
  very properly inserted, and on a representation by the churchwardens, as representing the parish, any one of those objections may prevail if the bishop thinks proper. But this Amendment is only put forward as a sort of means to elicit an expression of opinion, and my objection to the Amendment itself is its utterly impracticable nature. Is there to be any machinery—any security—as to how parishioners are to express their views to the churchwardens? All of this sort of thing, if there were any reality in the Amendment, would have to be considered, but it is unnecessary to criticise now, because no one supposes that an Amendment of this sort will be pressed. It is only to elicit opinions on this subject that the Amendment has been brought forward, and I hope that your Lordships will not adopt a view which I think would imperil the position of any clergyman that he can be objected to as to his suitability without defining in the Bill what suitability is.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: It seems to me that the noble and learned Lord quite fails to understand the meaning of the Amendment. The noble and learned Lord seems to think that it is a kind of injury to a clergyman who has been delayed ordination, and may be a perfectly moral man, that he should be objected to. He seemed to think that the suitability of the clergyman is a thing which no person can determine. But what has the patron to do? Surely the duty of the patron is, not merely to determine whether the man he is recommending is a man of upright life, but whether he will be acceptable to the parishioners over whom he is to be placed. Everyone knows that there are parishes in which clergymen—excellent and conscientious men—will, after their appointment, invariably be the cause of injury to the Church. I have always thought that it was in the highest degree desirable that the parishioners should be heard. Then the noble and learned Lord says, Is there to be a vote by simply sending a representation to the bishop? If I were a parishioner, I should send mine through the churchwardens, and request that it might be forwarded to the bishop; and it seems to me that it is highly for the advantage of the Church that such a
  1178
  general power should exist, and if you stick to the old ways, and try to limit that power merely to certain legal objections, and do not give the laity a real voice as to the suitability of the clergyman to the parish, you are losing an opportunity of introducing a reform into the Church which might tend to lessen a great many of the difficulties which now exist. What are these difficulties? They are difficulties with regard to differences of opinion and practices of the clergy of the Church, and who is there who will not say that if a man holding extreme views—and who may be quite acceptable to certain congregations—is thrust upon a parish which does not care for those extreme views, he will not do harm to the Church, and to the religion to which he belongs? I think, therefore, in principle, there is a most valuable suggestion in the Amendment which my noble Friend has suggested. I do not believe that it is so very easy to make all kinds of objections, but I do believe that if you were to introduce this Amendment into the Bill, possibly in some other form, there would be no difficulty in obtaining the real views of the parish, and I do not believe that a conscientious bishop would have any difficulty in determining what course he ought to adopt.
  LORD KINNAIRD: I do not know whether the noble Earl has given his attention to a few of the difficulties which surround this Amendment. There are many in the same position that I am—many who would agree with the idea that the parishioners should be able to give their opinion, but who think the result of dealing with it in the manner that the noble Earl proposes to deal with it would result in great confusion. If this power were to be given to the communicants of a parish, or if it were to be given to those who worshipped in the parish church, it would be a different matter; but I take it that under this Amendment every person living in the parish—whether living there for a short or for a long time—would have a right of attending this proposed meeting whenever the benefice should become vacant. We have had for some time something analogous to this in Scotland, and there seems to be a difference of opinion as to whether it has worked well or ill. In my experience

  1179
  it is very questionable. In some cases it may have worked well, but where it has led to a great deal of controversy it has led to bad results; and in some cases, after many differences of opinion, and an attempt made to secure an able and good clergyman, each one has been objected to, and finally a very indifferent person is not objected to, because no one has ever heard anything about him, and it is thought that such a man as that will bring peace, whereas, as a matter of fact, he does nothing. I think we should pause before we rush into a great experiment which we may now, on the spur of the moment, consider to be advisable. I agree with the principle of the Amendment, and should like it if it could be put in a workable form, but I think in its present form it is utterly unreasonable and utterly unworkable. Lately there has been, in the north of London, the election of a clergyman going on for a certain number of days. I visited the place and saw placards all about, and I understand that the result of that election is that it has not left a very satisfactory feeling in the parish, and that there has been a great deal of heart-burning and personalities going on, and that, I take it, would be the case in many parishes if this Amendment is carried. I should like to know whether this Amendment is to apply to the enormous parishes in London and the other large centres of population. Take a parish containing 500,000 or 600,000 people. Are they to be canvassed, and is everybody belonging to every denomination to attend the meeting and, under some circumstances, try to do the Church as much harm as they can? The result of that would be that religious questions would be raked up, and you will open the door to questions of doctrine and questions of ritual which are expressly barred by this Bill. While I think the Amendment contains an excellent principle under proper safeguards, I, at the same time think that to accept it in its present form would be nothing short of disastrous.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: We all quite understand each other now. The object of this Amendment is really to enable the parishioners of a parish which
  1180
  is mainly evangelical to object to the presentee who is ritualistic, or vice versâ.
  EARL GREY: There has not been one single word of that description on my part.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am within the recollection of the House that that has been the point taken by many of the noble Lords who have spoken. If the Government were to accept an Amendment that could be worked in that way—and whatever the intentions of my noble Friend were, it could be worked in that way—their position would be perfectly indefensible, because, notwithstanding Amendment after Amendment, and Division after Division in the House of Commons, the Government resolutely refuse to introduce into this Bill any considerations of doctrine or of ritual, and the Bill goes so far as this, that in clause 3 questions of doctrine and of ritual are expressly excluded from the purview of the Appeal Court; therefore, if this Amendment were carried, there would be absolutely no power under the Bill to appeal from a refusal to institute under it.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Contents 22, Not-Contents 77.

  CONTENTS.

  York, L. Abp.

  Ripon, L. Bp.

  Westminster, D.

  Aberdare, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery)

  Camperdown, E.

  Cowper, E.

  Davey, L.

  Grey, E. [Teller]

  Herschell, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Lingen, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Mendip, L. (V. Clifden)

  Morley, E.

  Northbrook, E. [Teller]

  Reay, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Welby, L.

  Falkland, V.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Grafton, D.

  Portland, D.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor)

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn)

  Devonshire, D. (L. President)

  Bath, M.

  Bristol, M.

  Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal)

  Hertford, M.

  Salisbury, M.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward)

  Aldenham, L.

  Amherst of Hackney, L.

  Lathom, E. (L. Chamberlain)

  Ashbourne, L.

  Ashcombe, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  Belper, L.

  Amherst, E.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Carnwath, E.

  Cawdor, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Churchill, L. [Teller]

  Coventry, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Craven, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry)

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Cottesloe, L.

  De Saumarez, L.

  Egerton, E.

  Harris, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Hood of Avalon, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  James, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore)

  Portsmouth, E.

  Powis, E.

  Lawrence, L.

  Romney, E.

  Ludlow, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Stamford, E.

  Muncaster, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Newton, L.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller]

  Norton, L.

  Plunket, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Halifax, V.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Knutsford, V.

  Stanmore, L.

  Gloucester, L. Bp.

  Torphichen, L.

  London, L. Bp.

  Wantage, L.

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  Wenlock, L.

  Salisbury, L. Bp.

  Windsor, L.

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Addington, L.

  LORD HERSCHELL: Before this clause is put I should like to call attention to the fact that here again something is ordered to be done, and there is no sanction in respect of the doing. Of course, if my noble Friends are content that it is to be left to the care of the churchwardens, it must be so, but that is the result; and here, if they fail to give the notice which is provided for by the Statute, then the bishop will be liable to indictment, and the same will be the fate of the churchwardens if they fail to publish the notice in the prescribed manner.
  THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Will the institution be valid if the presentation is invalid?
  LORD HERSCHELL: There is nothing which makes the institution invalid.
  THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: But is it so?
  LORD HERSCHELL: No. This is a case where the churchwardens have to publish a notice in the prescribed manner. If they fail to do so it would be an indictment at common law, which I think probably is what was intended.
  Question put—
  "That clause 2 as amended stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSE 3.
  "Page 3, line 3, after the second 'ground,' insert 'included in section 2 of this Act, or any other ground of unfitness or disqualification of the presentee.'"—(The Bishop of Winchester.)
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: There is a mistake in the wording of this Amendment as it appears in the Paper. It should be "after the first" and not "second," and then it would read—
  "Page 3, line 3, after the first 'ground,' insert 'included in section 2 of this Act, or any other ground of unfitness or disqualification of the presentee.'"
  The object, my Lords, of the Amendment is simply to carry out more accurately what I understand to be the purport and intention of the clause. The presentee whose institution is refused is granted an appeal to the archbishop and a lay judge. This is a newly-constituted court. But the appeal to that court is surely not intended to be on any other points than those which are defined in section 2, or similar grounds respecting the unfitness of the presentee. It must, however, be remembered that sometimes the bishop finds it necessary to refuse to institute on the ground of lack of sufficient title on the part of the patron, and so forth, and such grounds are clearly quite unsuited to come before a court so constituted. I do not think this Amendment will do anything more than give full expression to what is in the clause as it stands.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The object of this Amendment is to prevent it being supposed that a refusal on the ground of alleged want of title of a person presenting is to be taken to the new court; in other words, to try a question of the

  1183
  disqualification of the patron. I am quite prepared to accept this Amendment, which I think is quite necessary, but I would ask the right reverend prelate to alter the wording. If he would strike out the words "any other ground" and insert after the word "presentee" the word "otherwise," I think it would be improved. The Amendment would then read—
  "Included in section 2 of this Act, or of unfitness or disqualification of the presentee otherwise."
  LORD HERSCHELL: Would it not be well to put in some such words "now left open to the bishop"? Otherwise, if you put in "any ground of unfitness or disqualification," it rather suggests that the matter was to be left largely to the bishop.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I will consider that on Report.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HERSCHELL: In line 6 I would suggest to insert, after the word "presentee," "in the prescribed manner," so as to bring the operation of the rule clause in. The only effect of that proposal is that the matter will be left to the rules.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I will accept that.
  Question put—
  "Page 3, line 6, after the word 'presentee,' insert the words 'in the prescribed manner.'"
  Amendment agreed to.
  "Page 3, line 7, after 'signification,' insert if either of those persons shall demand a judicial hearing against such refusal, the case shall be set down for hearing in the diocesan court, which shall be a court of record and shall be held in public, and at any hearing the legal rules of evidence shall prevail. Such court shall consist of the bishop with his chancellor, or some other person learned in the law, at the bishop's discretion, sitting with him as legal assessor, unless the bishop calls upon his chancellor to hear it alone, and within one month of such refusal by the diocesan court."—(The Earl of Fortescue.)
  THE EARL OF FORTESCUE: In rising, my Lords, to move this Amendment I
  1184
  must begin by asking your very kind indulgence, which, much as I have always needed it, I latterly need more than formerly, because at best I only hear a part, and generally only an infinitesimal part, of the instructive speeches made by other noble Lords. When I gave up, for the reason I have indicated, my intention of calling attention on the Second Reading to what seemed to me and to certain other noble Lords, to be the greatest defect of the Bill, I fully hoped that some more able speaker would call attention to it with far more effect than I could possibly do. However, the next morning, having heard, though present, nothing of the Debate, I was sadly disappointed to find that no one had done so; I therefore reluctantly decided to give notice of this Amendment. When I say the greatest defect in the Bill, the Bill contains various provisions which claim my heartiest sympathy and support; but what seems such a very grave defect is the absence of any provision ensuring to the presentee or to the patron, if either of them desire it, any one public judicial hearing with a legal assessor assisting the prelate, and with opportunities of advising him and cross-examining the witnesses upon whose testimony institution is denied. That single hearing is necessarily a costly one. It is the hearing by the archbishop sitting along with a lay judge, whose joint judgment is final. Then neither of them has any further chance of appeal, because the bishop's procedure in the case of a presentee whom he declines to institute is indicated rather than explained in the Bill, and is utterly and absolutely at variance with the recommendations of the Ecclesiastical Courts Commission in their Report signed in 1883 by almost all of them. Now, the composition of that Commission is rather remarkable. Among other distinguished persons, it comprised two archbishops, three bishops, seven clergymen, three of whom have since been made bishops; it comprised several eminent lawyers, including the Lord Chief Justice of England, some of them peers, and some of them were at the time or have since that time become judges. This Commission made the following recommendation—
  "If the clergyman does not submit, or if the complainant refuses to consent to the bishop

  1185
  pronouncing sentence without trial, a complainant may set down the case for hearing before the diocesan court. The diocesan court shall consist of the bishop, with whom shall sit, as legal assessor, the chancellor of the diocese, or some other person learned in the law, at the discretion of the bishop; unless the bishop shall call upon the chancellor to hear the case alone, or sends the case direct to the court of the province if both parties give consent."
  That is their first recommendation, to which there was very little objection. The second recommendation was—
  "that an appeal shall lie from the diocesan court to the court of the province, which shall consist of the officials,"
  and also—
  "an appeal shall lie to the archbishop's court."
  To these last there were a few more objectors. In other words, the Commission recommends that the bishop may never, but a lawyer may sometimes, sit alone on such cases. We do not know exactly what the course of proceedings will be under this Bill. Happily, the noble Earl's vague proposal has just been rejected. We do not know what objections may come from parishioners and interfere with an innocent man's prospects for life; because it is to be remembered that the name is to be sent to the parish by the bishop, and I think that is in itself a desirable provision. But the refusal of the bishop becomes as public practically as the notice to the parish of the name of the presentee, and we may guess what effect such a statement would have upon the unfortunate presentee's prospects, and upon the character he would afterwards bear—not upon his own actual character, but upon his reputation. My Amendment is, almost the whole of it, in the words of that recommendation of this remarkable Commission, comprising, as I said, twelve ecclesiastics of recognised ability. That recommendation gave power to summon witnesses and to insist upon the production of documents, and also putting witnesses on their oath. A remarkable instance happened lately, in which the first appeal from a legally constituted court to a higher court took place, and the higher court vindicated the character of an innocent man. The Vicar of Silverton was condemned by the Consistory Court. He appealed to
  1186
  the Privy Council. I do not know whether Lord Herschell remembers the case, but the noble and learned Lord made some very strong comments on the injustice which had been done to an innocent man by the findings of the previous court. In what I am about to say I emphatically disclaim any want of respect for the present bishops, or want of appreciation of their pious zeal and self-denying labours; but in that aspect, as in various others, they contrast most favourably with too many prelates of the last century, and, indeed, far into the present century. But they are not a body, according to high authorities, on whom implicit reliance can be placed in judicial matters as distinct from administrative matters. It is to be remembered that upon their judicial discretion very large new demands are made by the Bill. There are new and rather vague grounds for the refusal of institution by the bishop; and the protection which they used to enjoy from the ordinary courts of justice open to all citizens is taken away by a clause in this Bill. That protection was a very real one. It had various disadvantages. It involved costly expenditure of time and money which was very undesirable, and it involved sometimes discredit to the Church, and, in addition to that, delay which was very disadvantageous to the parishioners. The refusal of the bishop being practically certain will expose the unhappy presentee to very serious disadvantages. I myself, in all the earlier part of my life after I went to a public school, lived under the episcopacy of Bishop Phillpotts, a very learned, able, and eloquent prelate. He was attacked, often unjustly, but too often with good reason for his nepotism, for his unfairness, and for his vehement political partisanship, and, latterly, for his long retention of his office after age had incapacitated him from the fulfilment of its duties. As we are engaged in passing not a mere provisional Act, are we quite certain that we are prudent in ignoring the possibility of the episcopate hereafter comprising some prelate possessing some of the less desirable characteristics of Bishop Philpotts? My Lords, beyond that I must be allowed to say that there have been public acts, not very remote, by much respected and

  1187
  zealous prelates, which have not tended to inspire lay Churchmen, at any rate, with confidence in their judicial discussions. I have been speaking throughout of them in their judicial and not in their administrative capacity, and I may add that Archbishop Thompson, with two clergymen, the Chief Justice, and Lord Chichester, who also with Lord Penzance objected to the bishop even presiding over his diocesan court, were opposed to the maintenance of the bishop's veto or proceedings under the Public Worship Regulations Act; and I consider the authority of the Commissioners clerical and legal pretty conclusive as to the un-desirableness of entrusting bishops with too much judicial power unassisted by lay assessors. Lord Penzance wrote a very remarkable Report, and he ended by saying this—
  "Speaking generally, where discretion begins the proper administration of the law, as such, ends."
  He says that he does not consider that for the administration of strict law in this sense an ecclesiastic is by his training and acquirements well qualified. He says—
  "That the bishop would not be careful to follow decided cases with which, perhaps, he would be little familiar, and that he would be apt to import into the enunciation of the law considerations of policy and the elasticity of discretion. The probable result would be a startling divergence of opinion in different dioceses, which, by rendering the law uncertain, would bring it into discredit and impair its efficiency."
  I thank your Lordships for your kindness and forbearance and patience in hearing me so long, and I cannot leave more emphatic and instructive words in your Lordships' thoughts than those with which I have just concluded.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: If I do not follow the noble Earl's argument at length, he must not suppose that it is due to any want of respect to his authority or his views, but because the reasons which influence Her Majesty's Government in refusing his Amendment do not rest on the argument which he addressed to your Lordships' House; they rest on the fact that what the noble Earl proposes is to substitute a court of his own for the court of
  1188
  appeal laid down in this Bill. Now, my Lords, the court of appeal, as it is created under clause 3, has been the subject of very careful consideration, and it would not be possible for Her Majesty's Government at this stage of the Measure to even take into consideration the substitution of a new court for the court that has been deliberately selected, and which has stood the fire of very keen criticism in the House of Commons. When we come to deal with the actual composition of that court I shall, of course, be prepared to defend it in its details. At the present moment it will be sufficient if I assure your Lordships that we cannot accept the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl.
  Question put.
  Amendment negatived.
  "Page 3, line 9, after the word 'archbishop,' insert 'of the province.'"—(Lord Herschell,)
  LORD HERSCHELL: I have moved this in order to make it quite clear. There are two archbishops, and if it is the archbishop of the province, why not say so?
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I do not think it matters, but I will accept the Amendment.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: I think that the present state of the House is hardly suitable for the adequate discussion of this Bill, and I would venture to suggest to your Lordships and to the House the adoption of the Order that was made a few years ago for cases of this nature, and to adjourn the further proceedings of the Bill till Monday, giving the Bill precedence over all the other business.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): The question is,
  "That the House resume."
  Question put.
  Motion agreed to.
  In the absence of the Lord Chancellor, the DEPUTY-SPEAKER (The Earl of Morley) took his seat on the Woolsack.
  THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: I beg to move the adjournment of the Debate till Monday, and that this Bill have precedence over all business of the day.

  LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read the third time on Monday next.
  NATIONAL MONUMENTS IN CHURCHES BILL. [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment, and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
  LIBRARIES (OFFENCES) BILL.
  Read the third time (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  PHARMACY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Third Reading (which stands appointed for Monday next) put off to Thursday next.
NEW BILL.

  PUBLIC LIBRARIES BILL. [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Acts relating to public libraries, museums, and gymnasiums; and to regulate the liability of managers of libraries to proceedings for libel; was presented by the Lore Windsor; read the first time; to be printed; and to be read the second time on Thursday next. [No. 156.]
  House adjourned at 7.40.