Lords Sitting of 18 July 1898

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLORtook his seat on the Woolsack at a Quarter-past Four of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with—
PAIGNTON IMPROVEMENT.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
RENFREW BURGH AND HARBOUR EXTENSION BILL.
Committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
MERSEY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Committee to meet To-morrow.
SHEFFIELD DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.
Committee to meet To-morrow.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Committee to meet on Thursday next.
DOVER HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
Commons' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
WINDSOR DOCK, CARDIFF, BILL.
Leave given to the Select Committee to adjourn over To-morrow.
CARDIFF RAILWAY BILL.
Leave given to the Select Committee to adjourn over To-morrow.
WHITECHAPEL AND BOW RAILWAY 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.
ST. HELENS CORPORATION 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.
KEIGHLEY CORPORATION 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.
LONDON BUILDING ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
Read the third time, and passed.
PLYMOUTH AND STONEHOUSE GAS BILL.
Read the third time, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
COVENTRY CORPORATION GAS BILL.
Read the third time, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
BLACKBURN CORPORATION (TRAM- WAYS, ETC.) BILL.
Read the third time, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
NEATH, PONTARDAWE, AND BRYNA MAN RAILWAY BILL.
Read the third time, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
BRISTOL TRAMWAYS (ELECTRICAL POWER, ETC.) BILL.
Read the third time, with the Amendments; Further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
BRISTOL TRAMWAYS (EXTENSIONS) BILL.
Read the third time, with the Amendments; Further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
METROPOLITAN COMMONS BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
MUSSEL FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
VEXATIOUS ACTIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
CRYSTAL PALACE COMPANY BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
PLYMOUTH CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
TURNCHAPEL WHARVES AND WARE- HOUSES BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
STIRLING GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.

RENFREW BURGH AND HARBOUR EXTENSION 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.—

E. Craven,

L. Zouche of Haryngworth,

L. Windsor,

L. Kintore (E. Kintore) (chairman),

L. Monk Bretton;

Agreed to, and the said Lords appointed accordingly; the Committee to meet
6
To-morrow, 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.

WEST HAM CORPORATION BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 10) BILL.

    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) 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 Bills, viz.—

    M. Bath,

    M. Hertford,

    L. De L'Isle and Dudley,

    L. De Mauley,

    L. Rathmore (chairman);

    Agreed to, and the said Lords appointed accordingly; the Committee to meet on Friday 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 Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.

  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
    ARMY (MEDICAL DEPARTMENT).
    Report for the year 1897; Vol. XXXIX.

    SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT.
    Calendar, history, and general summary of regulations, for the year 1899; with tables.
    Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
    Minutes of Committee of Council on Education, sanctioning the subjects to

    7
    be taught under clause 8 of the Technical Instruction Act, 1889, for counties of—

    Middlesex (third minute);

    East Suffolk (fifth minute);

    Derby (sixth minute).

    Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

    ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACT, 1869, AND AMENDING ACTS.
    Scheme for the management of the foundation known as the Grammar School, in the Borough of Colchester, in the County of Essex, founded by charter or letters patent of King Henry VIII., dated the 12th November, 1539, and re-founded by letters patent of Queen Elizabeth, dated the 6th July, 1584, Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. [No. 157.]
  BILLS ADVANCED.
    METROPOLITAN COMMONS BILL.
    Read the first time, and to be printed. [No. 158.]
    VEXATIOUS ACTIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Read the first time, and to be printed. [No. 159.]
    MUSSEL FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
    Read the first time, to be printed, and to be read the second time on Friday next (The Earl of Cranbrook). [No. 160.]
    MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
    Committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow; and Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 15) BILL. [H.L.]
    Committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
    House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived, and Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.
    House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived, and Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.
    PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIR- MATION (No. 1) BILL.
    House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived, and Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.
    LEITH BURGH PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    Read the third time (according to order), and passed.
    LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS BILL.
    Read the third time (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  PUBLIC BUSINESS.

    BENEFICES (No. 2) BILL.
    House again in Committee (according to order).
    The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Earl of MORLEY)in the Chair.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 3, lines 15 and 16, leave out 'and his decision thereon and his finding,' and insert and find.'"
    "Line 17, after 'disqualification,' insert 'and his decision on such questions of law and his finding as to any such fact.'"—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
    THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I do not think I shall occupy your Lordships' attention very long in moving this Amendment, because I rather hope that my noble Friend and I are at one with regard to the principle. The Amendment which I move is really for the object of making the intention of the clause clearer than it is, and with the object of making the language more direct. The language as it stands now appears to infer that the lay judge is to decide all matters connected with the fact of the unfitness or disqualifications of the presentees. What I want to do is to alter the clause so that there can be no doubt upon that point. I believe that to be the intention of the clause as it now exists, but I much prefer my version, inasmuch as I consider it to be more clear.
    *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think that the noble Lord's words are more clear, and I am prepared to accept them.
    Question put.
    Amendment carried.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 3, line 32, after 'justice,' insert 'provided that the bishop shall not be ordered to pay costs in any case in which the judge's finding is in his favour.' "—(The Archbishop of Canterbury.)
    *THE ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY: My Lords, it appears to me and to my brethren on the bench that it was not
    10
    unreasonable, inasmuch as we were abolishing the quare impedit and duplex querela in all these cases, that the bishops should be made a party to the proceedings, and consequently be liable to the payment of the costs as they would have been if these two modes of proceedings had still remained. In a suit for quart impedit or duplex querela, the bishop is liable to be cast in costs, but it did not seem quite just that when the bishop had been proved to be right upon the question of law and the question of fact that he should be liable to costs because his discretion was not confirmed by the archbishop. If the matter comes to a question of discretion it is obvious that the bishop is on the same footing as the judge, and ought to be set free from any consequences of his action, and I therefore propose to add—
    "Clause 3, line 32, the following words after the word 'justice,' 'provided that the bishop should not be ordered to pay costs in any casa in which the judge's finding is in his favour.'"
    *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I feel some difficulty in combating the argument that is in the most reverend prelate's mind, because his experience of costs in these matters must be so much, greater than my own. But I must ask him whether this Amendment of his is not somewhat dangerous? Does it not follow by implication that if these words were adopted that the bishop should always be ordered to pay costs in cases where the judge's findings were not in his favour? Is it not really better to leave the provision as to costs as it stands in the Bill? According to the Bill the question of costs is to be decided by the court—the whole court—that is, the judge and the archbishop sitting together. Personally, I think it would be wiser to leave the judge to correct the archbishop and the archbishop to correct the judge than to put in any specific directions of this kind which might possibly be double-edged. The Government have considered the most reverend prelate's Amendment, and I am bound to say that they prefer not to insert the Amendment, but to leave the Bill as it stands at present.
    *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I am bound to say that I am not convinced by the argument of the

    11
    noble Earl, but I do not feel that the point is of sufficient importance for me to press it upon the House against the decision of the Government, and therefore I will consent to its being withdrawn.
    THE PREMIER AND SECRETAEY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I cannot allow this short conversation to pass without pointing out that it raises really the great difficulty of this Bill—who is to pay? As I understand, if the bishop is wrong he is to pay. That is reasonable enough; but, also, if the bishop is right he is to pay—there is nobody else to pay. I believe there is nobody to pay for the room in which the proceedings are held; there is no way of paying for the judge who is to come, down; in fact, as an eminent legal authority said to me in almost a pathetic tone of voice, there is nothing to pay for even a clerk. I have no suggestion to make at this point, but I would earnestly commend this matter to the consideration of noble Lords, whether some means of paying for these expenses must not be provided, otherwise the Bill will become a dead letter.
    LORD HERSCHELL: As regards the Amendment, I quite agree with the noble Earl, because I do not know that anything will be gained by inserting it, and it is not necessary for any practical purposes. Of course, these costs could only be imposed upon the bishop, notwithstanding his success, by an agreement of opinion between the judge and the archbishop. I think it must be some very extraordinary case in which the judge and the archbishop should agree that though the bishop is right he is to pay the costs. I do not know that the case is of great importance; there is no practical danger in it, and therefore the matter can be left as it is. With regard to the observation of the noble Marquess, there is no doubt that the Bill does need serious alteration in the way of providing for the payment of expenses. Under this Bill all cases in the province of York are to be heard before the Archbishop of York. Therefore the judge must journey to the province of York in order that the case may be heard. But there is no provi-
    12
    sion for his expenses in going to the province. Whether he is expected to pay them himself I do not know, but I think some machinery is wanted, because, so far as I can see, there is not even any method as to how the court is to be called together. Is the archbishop to summon the judge, or is the judge to summon the archbishop? Some provision must be made or some machinery devised whereby the court can be brought together, and undoubtedly there must be some more machinery inserted than is to be found in the Bill.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think in respect of some part of the machinery—I am afraid I cannot say the same with reference to the question of expense—the objection might be obviated by making the learned judge, daring the time he occupies the position of a person nominated, a member of the Rule Committee of that particular body.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 3, line 41, leave out from 'archbishop' to the end of line 42, and insert 'a bishop of his province to be nominated by the Queen under her sign manual.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
    *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The Amendment down in my name is of some importance. As the Bill stands at present, in the case of an appeal in the matter of a diocese belonging to either of the archbishops, it is obvious that the archbishop interested cannot sit in the Court of Appeal, and therefore the Bill provides that the other archbishop can take his place. I do not think that that provision is historically defensible, and I have accordingly put down an Amendment to the effect that the archbishop's place should be taken in that case by a bishop of his province, to be nominated by the Queen under her sign manual. The most reverend prelate has put down as an Amendment a provision that has been considered in connection with these Bills previously, and that is that the archbishop's place shall be taken by three bishops of his province. The question therefore, for your Lordships to decide is not as between the archbishop and the archbishop of the

    13
    other province, but as between one bishop of the province or three bishops of the province appointed under the Queen's sign manual. A very strong expression of opinion was given in the House of Commons against entrusting this system to three bishops of the province, the ground taken being that it was quite an unnecessary abstraction of the bishops from their already too onerous duties, and that to direct three bishops to do the work that one man could properly perform was undoubtedly trespassing upon their time. I do not think it is necessary to follow that argument at length. It is sufficient to state that it was thought of very great weight in the House of Commons, and it was that argument that made the majority so large when the Division took place. But there is really sound ground for objecting to the three bishops in the place of one. Three bishops have to be substituted for the archbishop, and the vote of the majority, I think, would have to reckon as the vote of the archbishop. But, my Lords, there are cases where it is not possible to say whether there is a majority at all. Take the question of costs. Each bishop might have a different view as to costs, and you would have the sitting archbishop and the archbishop divided into three, having between them four different opinions as to what the costs ought to be. It is quite obvious that in that case no order could be made, and, therefore, on the ground of convenience—and it is obvious that that found weight with the House of Commons—and on the grounds of detail connected with the work of the court, Her Majesty's Government, after very long deliberation, have come to the conclusion that they cannot accept the Amendment of the most reverend prelate, and that they must support the Amendment that is down in my name. I need scarcely say that the Amendment having been put down in the name of the most reverend prelate the greatest consideration and deference was given to it, and if the decision of Her Majesty's Government does not command the assent of the most reverend prelate I can only express my sincere regret for it; but after, as I said before, prolonged consideration, the Government are not able to accept his view of the case.
    *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: The argument which the noble Earl has just presented to us seems to me to be hardly consistent. He finds that to keep the Bill as it stands and to have an appeal from the archbishop of one province to the archbishop of another is without historical precedent and it certainly would be quite impossible to find any historical reason for allowing the archbishop of one province to intrude into the province of another; but he will, I think, equally find that there is no historical precedent for an appeal of this kind from an archbishop to one of his own suffragans. The idea of the Church generally was always that the appeal should be from the archbishop to his Synod—that is, all of his suffragans put together. But it is obvious that that would be too large a body, and that the proposal to have three of them is a proposal really to represent that body, and that is in accordance with the work of the Church in past times. But this proposal is certainly not in accordance with any such workings; and I think that in all these matters, when you are dealing with a Church which goes back so many centuries, it is of real importance that you should, if possible, make the clergy feel that the machinery used is machinery of a kind which harmonises with all the traditions of the Church in the past. I cannot say that the argument used by the noble Earl, that we might have these three bishops each with a separate opinion of his own as to what the costs are to be, and, therefore, there being, with the archbishop's opinion, four separate opinions upon that point, is a very powerful argument. They could talk it over till they came to a conclusion, and I have very little doubt that when you get three bishops talking it over together there would be two of them at least that would come to a harmonious conclusion, and thus they would outvote the third, and the decision of those two would be the decision of what would in other cases be come to by the archbishop. I do not deny that there are impossible things that may happen. You have always, of course, in legislating to bear that in mind; but I must say that I think these things are impossible. But it cannot be denied that the Government have introduced something which is totally at variance with our past history and alien to

    15
    our past traditions. I am quite sure that the clergy will dislike it, and I am quite sure that the bishops, as a rule, will also object to it very much.
    LORD HERSCHELL: The noble Earl said that the question was whether the matter should be left where the archbishop may not act to one bishop of his province or to three; but there is the preliminary question whether the matter is to be left as it is to one or other of the archbishops, as the case may be. That is the first question which is to be determined. Personally, I very much prefer the Bill as it stands to either of the amendments. It is quite true there is no historical precedent for an archbishop intervening in the case of an appeal with regard to a benefice not in his own province; but, then, the whole of this procedure is new. You are creating a new court, with new jurisdiction; and the question is, how can you best constitute it under the circumstances. The noble Earl's proposal sins against historical precedent; but there is no historical precedent for submitting the determination of an archbishop to an appeal heard by one of his own bishops. That is equally unsupported by historical precedent. Now, creating as you are this new court, is it not much better to put it in this way—that the Court of Appeal consists of the two archbishops, each acting for matters in his own province when he is qualified to act, but either archbishop acting when the archbishop of the province concerned happens to be not qualified to act because it is an appeal from himself. That seems to me to form a very proper and intelligent tribunal, and that is really the effect of it. You make the two archbishops members of the Appeal Court and one of them only acting, always for his own province when qualified; when disqualified, then the other archbishop acts in his stead. That seems to be much better than leaving it to one bishop in the province. It seems to me that there is something hardly seemly in the fact of an appeal from an archbishop to a bishop.
    *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: If the most reverend prelate prefers the Bill as it stands, the Government are quite prepared to accept that view of the case. What they are not prepared to accept is the substitution of three bishops.
    *THH BISHOP OF SALISBURY: I very much prefer the archbishop's amendment. I believe it would work perfectly easily, and I cannot say that what the noble Earl has said has tended to diminish my belief in that regard.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The noble Earl, I think, has carried deference to the most reverend prelate rather too far. I have much respect for the highest dignitary of the English Church; but this is one of the Houses of Legislature, and I do not think the question can be, or should be, decided simply upon the opinion of the most reverend prelate. We have to determine for ourselves, exercising our own judgment as to what will be best. I have no great qualifications to give an opinion; but where the question lies between the archbishop of one province and the bishop of the province, it seems to me far more seemly and dignified that the archbishop should act.
    THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: I do not think that there is any doubt about our wish, so far as the most reverend prelate is concerned, to carry conciliation as far as we possibly can. As it appears to the Government that the amendment they propose is unacceptable to the most reverend prelate, and as they cannot accept the most reverend prelate's amendment, they would much rather stand by the Bill as it is.
    Question put.
    Amendment negatived.
    *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Is it my Amendment that you are putting?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Your Amendment and the Amendment of the noble Earl are both the same, and the Amendment has been put and lost.
    Question put—
    "That clause 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    *THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: I should wish to say a very few words on a matter connected with this clause. This is one of the chief disciplinary clauses of the Bill: but I should be very sorry

    17
    if it were supposed that this is the beginning of discipline in the Church of England. On the Second Reading of this Bill the noble Marquess the head of Her Majesty's Government used the expression "There is no discipline in the Church of England," and a few moments afterwards he repeated, with considerable emphasis, "There is no discipline in the Church of England." I feel quite sure that the noble Marquess must have used this expression in some very limited sense, but at the same time it has given a good deal of offence and caused a good deal of anxiety to both clergy and laity. No one who has studied the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer can fail to see that a very considerable amount of discipline is entrusted to the bishops of the Church, and when we consider the Statutes now standing in the Statute Book giving power to the bishops to enforce that discipline—and the last of those Statutes we owe in a very great measure to the support and the guidance of the noble Marquess himself—we can hardly accept such an opinion as that "there is no discipline in the Church of England." It is quite true, my Lords, that we do not profess to exercise discipline of that despotic character which prevails in some other branches of the Church. We do not forget the injunction of the Apostle, who tells us that we are not to be lords over God's heritage, but to act as fathers and counsellors and brethren, and in that spirit we have always endeavoured to exercise our powers of discipline; and even in the extremest forms of discipline we are not without experience, I am sorry to say, both of the necessity for it, and of the power to use it. Within the last twelve months I have been obliged, I regret to say, to deprive a clergyman not only of his benefice, but of all authority to exercise his ministry under any circumstances whatever for all time to come; and within the same period I have on an appeal from a priest, similarly sentenced by one of my own suffragan bishops, supported the bishop's judgment and confirmed his sentence. In all of these ways I trust it may be understood, not only by your Lordships, but by the public outside these walls, that there is a very real and very effective discipline in the Church of England, that it has been exercised for
    18
    centuries, and is being exercised now from day to day.
    THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: The most reverend prelate, I am sorry to say, failed, no doubt through my fault, to understand the drift of the observation that I made. I never denied that the law of the Church of England was very distinct and quite adequate for its purpose, whether it be expressed in rubrics or in statutes or in canons; but discipline as expressed in rules and regulations is of no use unless those rules and regulations can be carried out; and the point of weakness in the present position of the Church of England which I desired to draw attention to was that it was gravely lacking in the means of carrying into effect the very wholesome rules and regulations that exist. The most reverend prelate apparently did not do so in words, but he traverses that contention, and says that there is an adequate discipline in the Church of England.
    *THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: I did not say adequate. What I said was that there did exist discipline, and that that discipline was being constantly enforced.
    THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Then we are very much agreed. My contention is that the discipline is inadequate, and is not such discipline as the Church ought to have. I do not confine this to questions of ritual and doctrine, in regard to which there is so much difference of opinion in the Church of England that too rigid a system of discipline might produce far greater evils than it would cure. We must look to the growth of greater agreement to allow discipline in that respect to assume a more effective form; but the experience of the most reverend prelate is very different from mine. If he will say that in all parts of England there is an adequate power of correcting and removing from their opportunities of exercising a pernicious influence men who are sinning not against rules of ritual and of dogma, but against those more primitive rules, the force of which we are all convinced is the misfortune of a great spiritual and moral machine like the Church of England, it is not my experience. I have heard to the contrary, all my life, on good authority, in many parts of England.

    19
    I am very willing to believe that the evil is steadily tending to disappear, though tending all too slowly; but still it is a great evil, and I think that the Church is unhappily distinct from all other services which are rendered to the community, in that the officers of it have not the power which they ought to have to secure an adequate performance of the duties imposed upon them by their Church. It is a matter upon which each man must form his own opinion. If any man is of opinion here, knowing the various parts of the country, that discipline is adequate, I have nothing further to say beyond saying that I have been led to form a different opinion. I am quite convinced that the right reverend bench is wanting in no effort in order to remove all cases of scandal or of evil influence, and I feel certain that they often make exertions which we have not a right to expect of them. My object was to impress upon the House that you must not only furnish the bishops with adequate regulations, but you must furnish them with adequate means of carrying them out before you can boast that there is sufficient discipline in an institution of such momentous importance as the Church of England.
    Motion agreed to.

    Question put and agreed to—
    "That clause 4 stand part of the Bill."

    NEW CLAUSE.
    "The Ecclesiastical Commissioners may, if they think fit, repay the costs incurred by any bishop in proceedings under the Clergy Discipline Act, 1892, or in a court constituted under this Act, and any costs which he may be compelled to pay to any other party in any such proceedings, and shall defray them in like manner as if they had been incurred by those commissioners in legal proceedings to which they were parties."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
    THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: The observations just made by the most reverend prelate rather lead to the clause which I have ventured to put upon the Paper. It is not entirely my own idea, I have met noble Lords in other parts of the House who feel very strongly that
    20
    some means of relieving the difficulty which attaches to the working of this Bill, on account of the fact that there is no fund for carrying it out, is an evil that we ought to meet. Unless the bishops have sufficient power to carry out the authority reposed in their hands, that authority will be of little use. All law is very costly, and it is increasingly costly day by day; and ecclesiastical law is more costly than any other. I quoted instances the other day, and other instances will occur to every man's mind, of the enormous sacrifice which is imposed upon any bishop who wishes to exercise the powers that are reposed in him for the purpose of purifying and regulating the great and useful body that acts under his command. My Lords, you cannot expect that when the costs run to such figures as I have named—I mentioned one case where £1,600 was the penalty imposed upon the bishop for exercising his disciplinary powers—that the bishops will exercise their authority with that vigour and energy which is undoubtedly to be found in any public authority, if they were able to do so without inflicting upon themselves so enormous a private burden. I repeat that the Church of England is the only authority of a public kind where the superiors can only exercise discipline on their inferiors at their own most serious and grievous cost, and I am sure that the efficiency of the law must be affected by such a want. Unfortunately there is no other fund, as far as I know, excepting that to which I shall draw your attention, from which the costs of the bishop can be obtained. In all secular matters the State would pay the cost in every instance. I saw the other day that even the Incorporated Law Society, in order to maintain due discipline amongst the solicitors, received £5,000 a year from the Treasury in order to pay its expenses. There is no probability of any such liberality being exercised towards the bishops, and therefore I have suggested to the House the Ecclesiastical Common Fund. I am not proposing thereby the alienation of any properties from their ancient purposes or the abandonment of any ancient practice. Within our own lifetime Bishop Blomfield and Sir Robert Peel took the property belonging to the bishops and the cathedrals and used it for a most excellent purpose—for

    21
    the purpose of multiplying incumbencies in the Church. I do not for a moment depreciate the great value of the work which they then did; but when it comes to be a question whether you shall suppress scandals in the Church or whether you shall multiply incumbencies I am unable to say that the multiplication of incumbencies is in itself so superior an object that I should be content to pass the other by. I do not believe that the burden on the Common Fund would be great, but I think it would be quite as germane to the object for which these properties were anciently acquired and endowed as the object of creating new incumbencies in other parts of the country. I put it in that way merely out of consideration for the fact that there is really no other fund from which we could set this Bill in machinery at all. There is no other fund from which we could pay the expenses of the judge or the expenses of the court, or all the numerous expenses of machinery which the erection of a new court, of a new tribunal, and of a new system of jurisprudence must necessarily involve. There is no other means of getting the machinery into work, there is no other fund to support it; and if you refuse access to this fund I have no doubt that your new tribunal and your new jurisprudence will be a dead letter. Of course some doubt as to details has necessarily arisen. I have proposed that the determination as to whether the money shall be advanced or not in each case shall rest with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners themselves, but I gathered that such a provision would be distasteful to the Commissioners, and that in the minds of some persons it would perhaps be giving suggestion for invidious comment if a body so largely consisting of bishops as the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were to determine in each case whether a bishop was to be assisted. Without acknowledging the entire justice of such comments, I feel that perhaps it might be tending more to the acceptance of this proposal if another arrangement were made. I think I should prefer to make the application of the common fund, in paying the costs of the bishop, dependent in each case on a certificate from the judge that the proceedings were such that it was the duty of the bishop to undertake. If the
    22
    judge is willing to give that certificate, I think the common fund would be saved from any extravagant expenditure or from any action of a litigious bishop. On the other hand, you would give sufficient support to the action of the bishop as to ensure that our new legislation should not be entirely without effect. I do not of course deny that I would much rather not obtain it from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners if I could get it from any other source; but there is positively no other source. It seems to me a most unwise proceeding to allow the maintenance of the discipline of the Church of England and its purification from such rare blots as occasionally occur to depend upon the willingness of the bishop to pay enormous sums out of his own private income. That does not seem to be wise; and, as I have said before, there is no other alternative left but to take this money from the common fund. I do not believe you are alienating it from any purpose to which it was originally destined, and I believe that with the precautions which I have suggested you may avoid any serious diminution of activity which has hitherto been shown in the most beneficent application of its authority.
    *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I am very sorry that it appears to me to be my duty to deprecate very much the insertion of this clause, although there is so much to be said for it on the ground of logic. I do not dispute that the funds in the possession of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are derived from such a source that it would be quite consistent with the original purpose for which the money and the property were given to assign a part of the income of that property to the purpose which the noble Marquess proposes to assign it to. But we have to consider, I think, what is actually done with the money which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners now have at their disposal. The purposes for which that money is used now are three. In the first place, the Act of Parliament requires that the money shall be used in the places where it is raised to provide those places with sufficient ministration, and those are called "local claims"; and those local claims are very far from being exhausted. We still have a very

    23
    considerable number, and we still find that there are a good many cases that we simply have to pass over because we have not funds as yet to deal with them. The work to be done there is to raise the income of benefices of very small value up to £300 a year. All these benefices are very small, and they have become very much smaller in consequence of the depreciation of the tithe-rent charge, and of the rents of the glebe lands. Now, here the Commissioners are acting under a very clear Act of Parliament and they are using this money as fast as they can use it for the purpose which the Act which governs their proceedings distinctly appointed. In the course of 1896 129 such applications were made; 51 cases received grants, 78 were declined for lack of funds. In 1897, 111 applications were made; 36 received grants, and 75 were declined for lack of funds. In 1898, 115 applications have been made; 44 have been granted, and 71 have not been granted for lack of funds. You will see, my Lords, how this works upon the poor clergy. That is one of the purposes for which the money is used. The second purpose is that of the augmenting; of small livings, for the augmentation of which benefactions have been made. There are a great many small livings where the landowners in the neighbourhood or other benevolent persons who know something about the parishes are ready to contribute considerable sums towards raising their incomes, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners meet these as far as they can. One hundred and fifty-two applications were made in 1896, and 102 were granted; 154 applications were made in 1897, and 96 were granted; 180 were made in this present year, and 103 were granted. In all of these cases the clergy were poor, and the grants were for the purpose of increasing their incomes. The third purpose for which the money is used is to provide ministration for large populations. For that purpose a number of new districts possessing a population of 4,000 and upwards have been endowed, and in the last three years there have been 50 cases of such endowment. They are dealt with in chronological order of application. There are only eight or nine which it is possible to deal with each year, because we have not funds to deal with more. Now, my
    24
    Lords, it certainly is by no means desirable that the bishops should have their expenses paid out of a fund which is being used to alleviate in some degree the great distress which has fallen upon a very large number of the incumbents of parishes. It may be that you may say the large parishes can wait; and the noble Marquess may possibly consider that it is better worth while to provide for the discipline of the Church under this Bill, than to provide for new churches and for new clergy for the growing populations of its country; but I cannot even agree with that—though it is really a different thing. But when you come to think of all these poor clergy who are now getting slow but real assistance year after year, considering how much they suffer and how heavily the blow has fallen upon them, considering all these things, it does not seem to me to be wise to relieve the bishops at the cost of prolonging the sufferings that these poor clergy have to bear. We are everywhere calling out upon the country to assist these poor clergy; and the bishops know better than anyone else can know how very seriously the clergy are suffering. They are men who from their position are naturally exceedingly unwilling to make their privations known to the public at large, and the bishop, as a rule, only knows them by learning incidentally what they are giving up. To give up the education of their children, sometimes to give up necessary recreation, sometimes to give up the maintenance of any servant at all, and all the time still to be maintaining the position which an English clergyman ought to maintain before his people, are indeed evidences of privations; and, knowing of the existence of these privations, it is very hard indeed that one of the funds which is now being used for the purpose of alleviating them is to be taken away, and taken away in order to take off the burden of this discipline from the bishops. It must be borne in mind that whilst the clergy generally have suffered so very severely from the depression in agriculture in both its forms—both rent of glebe and tithe-rent charge—the bishops have not suffered anything. Their incomes remain the same. You cannot wonder, my Lords, under these circumstances, that we should deprecate most earnestly anything being done at

    25
    such a time as this to relieve the bishops, in order to work this Bill at the cost of so many of these poor men. I cannot help hoping that even if it be said that you ought to provide for the mere machinery such as the cost of the judge and the cost of the room where he holds his court—even if you provide for those things and call upon the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to pay for them, it would come to no great charge; but to go on and say that the bishop himself is to be relieved out of such a source as this, I cannot in conscience bear even considering, although it is true that the expenses are heavy and that a bishop often finds himself severely pressed in consequence of those expenses. I do not deny it. I have suffered it myself, and I know perfectly well what it is, and I also know perfectly well that it is a real burden; but I would rather, far rather, bear the burden twice over than be relieved by anything which would diminish the means that are now used for the alleviation of the sufferings of our poor brethren in the ministry, and for that reason I deprecate the insertion of the clause; and if the noble Marquess still thinks there ought to be some sort of provision made for the mere machinery, that is, for such expenses as he mentions—the payment of the judge, the judge's travelling expenses, payment for the room, for the light, and for clerks—they would be necessary expenses, they would not be a very great amount, and I should not object to see them charged upon the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. But I very earnestly hope that if the noble Marquess would take these matters into his consideration he will withdraw this clause now and consider still further what had better be done, and bring the matter up again upon the report stage.
    LORD HERSCHELL: Everybody, I think, must sympathise with the feelings which have dictated the speech which the most reverend prelate has just made. Undoubtedly from time to time complaints have been made of the burden which falls upon the bishops by reason of the necessity of their being called upon to enforce discipline and to punish offenders against the existing law; and the noble Marquess has endeavoured, in consequence of these complaints which have
    26
    been heard from time to time, to meet them in the manner provided for by this clause. Undoubtedly the principle of the burden of enforcing discipline falling entirely upon the bishop whose duty it is to enforce it is an unsound one. There can be no doubt about that. I do not for a moment suggest that any bishop would conscientiously refrain from enforcing the law for fear that he might cause a pecuniary burden to fall upon himself; but at the same time one cannot shut one's eyes to the fact that it is impossible to doubt that at times there may be a tendency, perfectly unconsciously, to be less vigilant in seeing what is wrong and in endeavouring to put it right, when it means really that in putting it right a pecuniary burden is cast upon the bishop, and perhaps this would not be the case if the burden did not fall upon him personally. My Lords, I do not think that that can be doubted, and therefore it cannot be questioned that the existing law as it is fails and has a mischievous tendency in relation to the discipline which we all desire to see enforced for the purpose of preventing scandals occurring in the Church. The most reverend prelate objects to this particular source from which the expenditure is proposed to be derived on the ground that there exists only so much money, and that so far as it is taken for this purpose some of the poor clergy will be deprived of that assistance which they would otherwise receive. The most reverend prelate's objection does not go beyond that. There is no contention that they have a vested right to participate in these funds. I think the most reverend prelate has admitted that it would be perfectly allowable to use them in what seems to be the best interests of the Church. No doubt it is true that at the present time many of the clergy are hardly pressed. I think myself that that is largely the fault of the laity. If the clergy are so hard pressed in a Church consisting of laity possessed of such great wealth as the laity of the Church of England possess, it is a shame upon the laity that there should be no means of relieving the necessities of that depression, except by relying upon a fund which it is suggested might be usefully used for other Church purposes. Let the laity come forward and provide the means that are wanting for preventing the clergy from

    27
    starving. Nobody can be more conscious than I am of the immense distress to which some of the clergy are put, because I do not suppose any patron has such a number of miserable livings—you can hardly call them livings at all—to give away as the Lord Chancellor. The last time I was Lord Chancellor I had at my disposal ten livings, the best of which was £180 a year, and from that sum they reached down to £90, and therefore I am personally conscious of the bad lot of many of the clergy. No doubt, as far as I am concerned, it would seem impossible to press a proposal for the relief of the bishop, when the bishops would themselves gallantly rather bear the burden than see this fund drawn upon for such a purpose. I would venture to suggest whether, if that is the view of the right reverend bench, something might not be done in another way. The total amount of this burden is not a very great one. Of course, upon any individual question and during a particular year it might press very hardly indeed; but could not something be done in the way of a provision of a common fund out of which expenses of this description might be met. One can imagine that with an individual contribution from the several members of the right reverend bench to that fund you would create a fund of such dimensions that the burden would be fairly distributed and would prevent it falling with disastrous effect upon a particular individual in a particular year—in short, to create a mutual insurance fund. I would very respectfully suggest that to the consideration of the right reverend bench, if the matter is to remain upon their shoulders rather than to be thrown upon this common fund. "With regard to the expenses, however, it is obvious that unless they are provided for somehow, the provisions of this Bill are a dead letter. They must come out of some Church fund or other, and no Church fund has been suggested from which these expenses could be drawn, excepting it be that to which allusion has been made, and therefore, so far as these necessary expenses are concerned, I understand that the most reverend prelate admits that if these provisions are to have practical application, painful as it may be, there is no alternative but to draw from that fund.
    THE PREMIEK AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: I am very sorry to hear of the view taken by the most reverend prelate. I think that the sentiments which he expressed were sentiments with which everyone of us deeply sympathises, but I do not think they were connected logically with the argument which he was supporting. If I understood him aright, there are three purposes to which the common fund is now devoted, but the whole weight of his deprecatory argument reposes upon that part of the fund which is given for the relief of the poor clergy.
    *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Two out of the three.
    THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Then let the third purpose bear the burden of this Bill. I agree with him most earnestly in not desiring to increase the burden which now rests upon the poor clergy, or to take from them any relief which they can hope for from the common fund; but the mere multiplication of incumbencies, though a very desirable object, does not raise the considerations upon which the most reverend prelate dwelt with so much feeling, and it does not seem to me to be in itself a matter of such supreme importance as the proper execution of the disciplinary parts of this Bill. What I should suggest, however, as there are points upon which we agree with the most reverend prelate, and as there are some differences of opinion also, is that at a further stage of the Bill power should be given to the rule-making body in words, which would have to be very carefully considered, what expenses for the carrying out of the Bill and for the relief of the bishops should be charged upon the common fund, and inserting most distinctly that no part of the common fund is to be devoted to paying those expenses which would otherwise be given to increasing the incomes of the impoverished clergy. I think these things should be inserted in clause 9, which is the rule clause; and we may at least get some assistance towards the carrying out of this Bill from that common fund. I certainly think that if that assistance is refused the disciplinary part of the Bill would be of no service whatever.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments proposed—
    "Page 4, line 8, omit 'of.'"
    "Page 4, line 9, omit '(a) the period,' and insert 'in the case of the first and second presentation by the patron in respect of the same vacancy of the period."
    "Page 4, lines 10 and 11, omit 'or (b),' and insert 'or of.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
    *THE EARL OF SELBOBNE: I have an Amendment, which is not on 'the Paper, to come in at line 7. This clause as it stands at present effects a very important change in the laws in the matter of lapsing. I believe the present state of the law is this: that if a patron presents on a vacancy, and the bishop refuses to institute, and the patron then seeks for a remedy at law known as quart impedit, if the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench is given in the patron's favour, of course the patron holds, and if it is given in favour of the bishop all that period goes towards that lapse of six months at the end of which time the bishop may himself present. There is an exception to this, and that is if the bishop can be shown to have been negligent in taking proper steps for examining the presentee, and performing his duties, as it were, to have rather obstructed the presentation in order to obtain the advantage of the lapse, then that period is not allowed to count towards the lapse. But in ordinary cases—in the case of a quare impedit—if it were given in favour of the bishop after an interval of six months, the presentation would have lapsed to the bishop. That, I believe, is, generally speaking, the present state of the law. Clause 5 of this Bill makes very great and important changes in that respect. You lordships will notice that under it the whole period between a presentation by the patron and the decision of the court on the appeal against the refusal of the bishop to institute is no longer to count for lapse. Allow me to give an illustration under the present law. If a benefice became vacant on the 1st of January, and the patron was to present on the 10th of January, and the bishop refused to institute, and the patron were then to have recourse to quare impedit, if the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench were given in favour of the bishop on the 1st of July the presentation would then have lapsed to the bishop. We
    30
    will now take an illustration of what is proposed by this Bill. We will suppose again that the benefice became vacant on the 1st of January, and that the patron presented on the 10th, and that the court constituted under this Bill gave its decision in favour of the bishop on the 1st of July, none of that six months excepting the first 10 days of January would count towards the lapse. That you will see, my Lords, at once is a very great change of the law in the patron's favour. But it is conceivable that this sort of thing might occur twice, and, the same history of the case being repeated at the end of the year, the benefice might still be vacant and only 20 days would be possible to be counted towards lapse. I admit that it is almost inconceivable that there should be a patron who should have a list of incumbents whom he would present one after another and whom the bishop would in duty bound refuse to institute, and whom the court would also consider unfit persons to hold an incumbency; but it is just conceivable that a man might be so perverse that he would make no attempt to find a suitable man for the living; rather on the contrary: or the patron—and there are many thousands of them—migh the really incompetent to make a proper choice; and therefore I think, as the noble and learned Lord opposite pointed out upon the Second Reading, some provision is necessary to prevent a series of presentations ad infinitum with only a few days counting in each case towards lapse. The Amendments I am proposing are to this effect: that the provisions in favour of the patron which are now in this Bill should hold good as in this Bill for the first two presentations to any given vacancy, but after two presentations have been made and the refusal of the bishop to institute has been upheld, these special provisions against lapse should not continue, and that the present law should be allowed to have its way. Your Lordships will observe that still the advantage to the patrons under the present state of the law is very considerable. The first Amendment that I have to move is—
    "Page 4, line 8, omit 'of.'"
    "Page 4, line 9, omit '(a) the period,' and insert 'in the case of the first and the second

    31
    presentation by the patron in respect of the same vacancy of the period.'"
    The clause would then run—
    "In reckoning the date for lapse, no account shall be taken in the case of the first and second presentation by the patron in respect of the same vacancy of the period between a presentation by the patron and the refusal by the bishop to institute or admit the presentee.'"
    If your Lordships consent to that Amendment I shall propose—
    "Lines 10 and 11, to omit 'or (b),' and insert 'or of.'"
    "Line 13, omit '(c),' and insert 'nor.'"
    The whole clause would then run—
    "In reckoning the date for lapse, no account shall be taken in the case of the first and second presentation by a patron in respect of the same vacancy of the period between a presentation by the patron and the refusal by the bishop to institute or admit the presentee; or of the period between the refusal of the bishop to institute or admit and the decision of the court upon such refusal; nor in case of a bishop having a right to collate to a benefice the period between the provisions of this Act and the expiration of a month from the said service."
    LORD HERSCHELL: I think I can give my opinion upon this Amendment of the noble Earl's, that is, so far as I could gather what it meant from what he said, and I do not think it is an unreasonable one. The noble Earl has alluded to the alteration made in the rights of patrons as regards lapses, and to the advantage derived by patrons by means of the present Bill. I think it is quite right that there should be an alteration in that direction, because it must be remembered that previously there were only two or three causes for which the bishop could refuse to institute, and they were causes in which the patron could have no doubt that he was presenting someone who ought not to be presented. In the present case a considerable discretion is left to the bishop, and, obviously, therefore, a patron acting in good faith may send someone whom the Bishop might, on consideration, properly refuse to institute under the powers given to him in this Bill. That being so, it is perfectly proper that you should not count the period for the purposes of lapses in the same way as you do under the existing law,
    32
    but, at the same time, if you allow a patron to present twice to the same vacancy and you give him the benefit of this clause you have done probably quite as much as you can reasonably be called upon to do. I do not think, however, that there would hardly ever be a case where a patron acting in good faith and reasonably would really present more than twice to the same vacancy, and after two refusals confirmed on appeal it seems to me not unreasonable that from that time you should begin to count for lapse as you do now under the existing law. Therefore, personally, I think without, any prolonged consideration I do not at present see any objection to the Amendment.
    Question put.
    Amendment carried.
    LORD HERSCHELL: I have an Amendment down on the Paper to meet a point of mine which I raised on the Second Reading with reference to the repeated presentation of a presentee; but I see that the noble Earl has proposed an Amendment much to the same purpose. It meets the same point in another way, and as I have no particular love for my own way I am quite content that the noble Earl's Amendment should be adopted in preference to my own.
    "Provided that a patron may not present again a person who has been refused by the bishop in respect of the same vacancy, and any such second presentation shall be void."—(The Earl of Selborne.)
    *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think, with the permission of your Lordships, I will move this Amendment to follow the next clause.
    LORD HERSCHELL: Will it be right in the next clause? That only relates to a clerical patron.
    Question put, and agreed to—
    "That clause 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    "Page 4, line 20, leave out 'though,' and insert 'if.' "—(The. Archbishop of York.)
    *THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: This Amendment is only an Amendment of drafting. I am not very familiar with

    33
    the English used by draftsmen, but the proper expression seems to be "if he were a lay patron," and not "though he were a lay patron."
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should like to know what the most reverend prelate supposes the distinction to be.
    *THE ARCHBLSIIOP OF YORK: There is, I believe, a distinction, but the noble and learned Lord must know.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Will the most reverend prelate move it?
    *THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: If the House is satisfied with the grammar, I am.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I beg now to move the Amendment which I had intended to move to follow line 16 of clause 5, only, instead of beginning, as it is on the Paper, "Provided that a patron," I beg to move it in the following form—
    "A patron may not present again a person who has been refused by the Bishop in respect of the same vacancy, and any such second presentation shall be void."
    That Amendment, my Lords, is to meet the case that the noble and learned Lord put to you on the Second Reading, to prevent a man going on presenting a young clergyman till he had attained an age which would prevent the Bishop from any longer denying him institution.
    LORD HERSCHELL: I would suggest that that had better be the first subsection, because if it comes in after the clerical patron it might be thought only to apply to clerical patrons. If it were the first sub-section it would be perfectly clear; besides, it is more logical to do it in that way when you are going to put the presentee of a clerical patron in the same position as the presentee of a lay patron.
    Question put.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Question put, and agreed to—
    "That clause 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    "After clause 6 insert the following new clause—
    "(7) So much of the Statutes 3 and 4, James I., cap. 5, sect. 13, and I. William and Mary, cap 26, sect. 2, is hereby repealed as prevents the chancellors and scholars of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge from presenting or nominating to the benefices and livings there mentioned persons already holding any benefice with cure of souls, provided that nothing be done in contravention of the other Acts regulating the holding of benefices in plurality. And, further, the said Universities shall be permitted to elect to such benefices, and to exercise any other rights, that they may possess in respect to them in any way that they may hereafter, by statute or ordinance of the University, made in the ordinary manner from time to time determine to be expedient."—(The Bishop of Salisbury.)
    *THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY: I hope I may ask your Lordships' indulgence to this clause, for although it takes up a certain number of lines on the Paper, it is an exceedingly simple one, and it raises no question of principle or controversy whatever. It is simply administrative, to enable the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge to have, in the first place, the same rights as other patrons have for nominating to a certain class of benefices, which rights are now denied them under ancient Statutes made when there was reason for making them, but which reason has now passed away. The second part of the clause allows them to do what, I think, I heard your Lordships assent to the other night as the right thing to do when there is a very large elective body of some thousands of people, to elect by means of a committee instead of giving everyone who has the franchise power to exercise his vote. Let me explain what happens. These benefices, which are here touched, are benefices in the hands of Roman Catholic patrons, which they do not think it worth while to put in trust or to deal with otherwise. They are generally very small benefices as regards income—a sort of derelict benefices of which I have three or four in the diocese over which I am called to preside. Directly these become vacant I am in the greatest possible anxiety as to what is going to happen, judging by what has happened

    35
    in the past. I do not wish to say anything unkind of the class of men who have attained these benefices, but I cannot honestly say that it is one to which any small body of patrons or trustees would naturally look. They are men who do not mind standing the test of a contested election, and who, not having generally held any benefice, may be considered unlikely to be very useful. No man who holds a benefice can offer himself for election to one of these benefices unless he is willing to resign it. I will not say anything about the second part. That does not take away from the Convocation of Oxford and the Senate of Cambridge any privileges, but leaves them free to regulate their right to election in their own way. This clause does not in any way touch the interests of the Roman Catholic patrons at all. It is neither for nor against them; it merely enables the Universities to exercise the powers which Parliament has thought fit to give them in a better way, and I very sincerely hope that Her Majesty's Government will be good enough to allow this clause to pass, because I can honestly say that, as a bishop trying to exercise discipline—very imperfectly, no doubt, but still honestly trying to exercise it—I have found it exceedingly difficult to work the present system.
    *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It is rather a technical matter that is contained in the clause brought forward by the most reverend prelate. I understand that there are two cases to be met—the case where the universities are debarred from presenting the holder of a present benefice, and the fact that there is no real provision for a university to establish machinery to exercise its patronage. The Government have no objection to the clause.
    LORD HERSCHELL: So far as the second part of this clause is concerned, I quite approve of it, because the present mode of election by universities to benefices is both inconvenient and undesirable, and it is better that the universities should determine how their rights should be exercised, but I do not understand the first part. The Plurality Acts provide against a person holding more than one living, except under certain circum-
    36
    stances. Is this to allow a person to hold any number of livings?
    *THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY:
    "So much of the Statutes," and so on, "is hereby repealed as prevents the chancellor and scholars of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge from presenting or nominating to the benefices and livings there mentioned persons already holding any benefice with cure of souls, provided that nothing be done in contravention of the other Acts regulating the holding of benefices in plurality."
    I may say that I have had two neighbouring benefices in my diocese recently vacant. One is worth £30, and the other is worth £200, and it is most desirable that these two should be held together; but under the present law that could not be done, except through the fact that owing to an accident the university was able to elect first to the Roman Catholic benefice, and then the patron was able to present to the second. If it had been the other way, these two little benefices, which ought to be joined together on every ground, could not possibly have been held together.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I do not at all understand this clause. There is a general law against pluralities, and I understand that it is very inconvenient in certain cases of small livings, to which the universities present, that that law should prevail.
    *THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY: The universities are under a disability which has never been repealed through an accident. As your Lordships are aware, no Act of Parliament is repealed excepting in distinct terms, and this was overlooked by accident when the Pluralities Acts were amended.
    THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: By the Act of William and Mary, the universities cannot present a person actually in the occupation of any living. I do not imagine that if you pass this clause a man will be able to go on holding the two livings, but he will be capable of being presented; he must then resign the other, of course, unless it is within the limits of distance allowed by the Act.
    *THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY: The remarks of the noble Marquess quite explain the matter.
    Question put—
    "That the new clause stand part of the Bill."
    Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 7.
    *LORD CLINTON: There seems to be an Amendment required in this clause. As it stands the commissioners who are to be appointed are to be nominated by the chairman of quarter sessions of the county. In some counties there are more chairmen than one. In the county to which I belong there are three all of equal rank, and, therefore, if the necessity should arise of appointing a commissioner under this clause, it will not be known by which of those chairmen the nomination should be made. The same question arose under the Benefices Resignation Act, and I think an Amendment was made that the words "chairmen of the quarter sessions of the county" should be struck out, and these words were inserted—
    "nominated by a person who presided as chairman at the last preceding sessions, or, if there be no such person, then by the lord lieutenant of the county."
    Those words removed that difficulty. I have given the noble Earl private notice of my intention to move this Amendment, and, if he has no objection, I would move that those words be inserted.
    LORD HERSCHELL: Will that quite meet the case of Yorkshire? In Yorkshire, I believe the East Riding and the West Riding are different counties, and there are, of course, different chairmen for the sessions; I believe in Lancashire it is the same. I do not think that the words of the noble Lord would meet the case of Yorkshire and Lancashire. Of course, it is another thing when you have distinct divisions of a county.
    THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Would it not be simpler if you made it "senior standing chairman"?
    *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The cases mentioned by the noble and learned Lord—the West Riding and the East Riding—are separate counties.
    LORD HERSCHELL: There are separate sessions, but, of course, they are all the same county. The clause says—
    "The chairmen of quarter sessions of the county."
    Probably the difficulty might be met by a definition applicable to such cases. I do not think the noble Lord will find much difficulty in getting a definition clause.
    *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: If the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment, I will consider it on Report.
    LORD CLINTON: Certainly.
    Question put—
    "Page 4, clause 7, line 23, strike out 'Act,' and insert 'Acts.'"
    Amendment accepted.
    *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I have an Amendment to clause 8 which is substantially the same as the Amendment proposed by the Earl of Selborne, and I think that his Amendment, if it be accepted, will cover all the ground covered by both of mine, and I am very well content that his should take precedence.
    "Page 4, line 33, leave out from 'reports' to 'himself' in line 36, and insert 'that the ecclesiastical duties of a benefice are inadequately performed, and that this is due to the fact that the incumbent of the benefice has been negligent in the performance of those duties (which report the commission is hereby required to make), the bishop, if he thinks the appointment of a curate desirable, shall.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
    *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I will move the Amendment on the Paper with a slight change in the wording. If your Lordships will look at this Amendment on the Paper, the wording there runs—
    "Leave out from 'reports' to 'himself,' in line 36, and insert 'that the ecclesiastical duties of a benefice are inadequately performed, and that this is due to the fact that the incumbent of the benefice has been negligent in the performance of those duties (which report the commission is hereby required to make), the bishop, if he thinks the appointment of a curate desirable, shall.'"
    I propose to alter that, so that it should run—
    "That the ecclesiastical duties of a benefice are inadequately performed, and that that is due to the negligence of the incumbent of the

    39
    benefice in the performance of those duties, which report the commission is hereby required to make, the bishop, if he thinks the appointment of a curate desirable, shall."
    I think I can explain briefly why this Amendment is necessary. Hitherto the question of negligence has only been treated by implication. Negligence was only mentioned in the Act of 1838 quits incidentally. The whole clause, and the question of the appointment of a Commission, was based on the question as to whether the ecclesiastical duties of the post had been adequately performed. Negligence was not mentioned. Then when it came to the question of the salary which the bishop was entitled to allow to the curate out of the income of the benefice, these words were inserted—
    "That the stipend was not to exceed more than one-half, excepting in cases of negligence, which, of course, by implication, would lead the court to suppose that they would have to report on negligence."
    That is the reason why we have inserted here that the Commission is empowered to report on negligence if it think fit.
    Question put.
    Amendment agreed to.
    "Page 5, line 21, after 'after,' insert 'such appointment or.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
    *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I now come to an Amendment of some importance, and I am sorry that in moving this Amendment I shall find myself not wholly in agreement with the Amendment of the most reverend prelate. As this clause left the House of Commons it might have given rise to a conflict of jurisdiction. I should be glad if your Lordships would bear in mind that this clause is dealing with the Pluralities Act, 1838, and the Pluralities Acts Amendment Act of 1885. As this clause left the House of Commons, it is possible that an appeal against the appointment of a curate in case of negligence might have laid to the archbishop under the old Acts, and also, on the subsequent inhibition of the incumbent, to the new court, constituted under this Bill; and it was possible that the archbishop might have found in the case of his appeal that there had been negligence, and the
    40
    court might have found on appeal that there had not been negligence. Her Majesty's Government desired to avoid any possibility of conflict of jurisdiction. I think, so far, I should carry the most reverend prelate with me. The Government desired that there could be no possibility of the same case coming up for revision, both before the archbishop under the old Acts and before this new court under this Bill, and we have met that desire by words, which, taken together, have this effect: that no case of a report of negligence could henceforth proceed under the old appeal, and in no case where there is a report of negligence can the bishop proceed under this Bill. Therefore, the old Acts will be the Acts, under which the bishop will proceed with an appeal to the archbishop in any case where a Commission has been appointed, and that Commission does not report that there has been negligence, but reports that the inadequate performance of ecclesiastical duties is not negligence, but physical infirmity or physical incapacity. This will go on appeal to the archbishop, and cannot by any possibility come before this new court; but if the Commission report that the inadequate performance of these ecclesiastical duties is due to negligence, then the bishop will have to proceed under this Bill, and the appeal will lie to the court constituted under this Bill. Now, my Lords, so much, for the way in which the Government have endeavoured to avoid the conflict of jurisdiction. The question remains whether the Government have been right in adhering to the court proposed under this Bill, and not referring to the court of the archbishop, which was the court, of appeal under the old Acts. I do not deny, my Lords, that there is room for a conflict of opinion in the matter, but I can say that it has received the very careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and on review of the details and arguments pro and con the Government came to the conclusion that it was distinctly in the interests of the smooth working of this Bill, and if its effect upon the efficiency of Church discipline, that the court established by the Bill should be adhered to. A great deal will be done in the future if this court works effectively. If all that is hoped by the promoters of this Bill from

    41
    this court is achieved, Parliament may be inclined to give further powers to it in connection with Church discipline; but in. order that there may be a possibility of such a development of the duties and functions of the court, it is absolutely necessary that it should be a court that should command the whole confidence of the country, whether it is looked at from the point of view of the clergyman, or from the point of view of ecclesiastical discipline. Now, I have mentioned that the constitution of this court gets over the inherent difficulties of this case. It leaves to the judge, who is trained to balance evidence, which never can be, or has been part of the training of the bishop or of the archbishop, to see whether the incumbent has been guilty of negligence as aforesaid. If the judge finds that such negligence has in fact existed, then it leaves the administration and disciplinary decision in the hands of the archbishop. I cannot think, my Lords, that it would be easy to find a court that would really solve the difficulties of the problem more perfectly than this one. It has been the subject of very prolonged Debates in the other House of Parliament, and it represents a compromise which differs from most compromises in that I believe it wholly satisfies all parties to the argument—that is to say, in the other House; and I would go further, my Lords, and say that this court not only may prove a strong court to which further functions may hereafter be given, but that this court will be a great protection to the bishop in the exercise of the powers entrusted to him under this Act, because, just consider, such a case as this may possibly arise: a bishop might, proceed against a clergyman on grounds which afterwards became the subject of a libel action. The bishop would send the case to the Commission. The Commission would report that there had been grounds in the incumbent's conduct that warranted the bishop taking action. The incumbent might appeal, and the archbishop might find that in fact the grounds alleged against this incumbent were sufficient to justify the appointment of a curate, and the inhibition might hold good. But, afterwards, on an action of libel arising exactly upon the same facts on which the bishop and the archbishop
    42
    had proceeded, a judge and jury might find that in fact those facts had not been proved, and that the grounds of action did not exist, and then there would be a danger of a very serious cry against the capacity of such a tribunal as that, which was supposed to balance and weigh legal evidence, when, on the other hand, it would be a case in the public estimation of the opinion of a judge of the High Court endorsed by the opinion of a jury against the opinion of a bishop or an archbishop. According to the plan of the Government, even if such an action arose, and such a different view were taken by the judge and jury of the High Court, it would not be the archbishop that would have to bear the brunt—it would be the judge; it would be the case of one judge against another judge, and I think that the shoulders of the judge are much more able to bear the brunt in such a case as that than are the shoulders of an archbishop. I can quite conceive, in such a case, that the popular outcry would arise against the ability of an archbishop to weigh questions of evidence when such evidence was seriously affecting the position of an incumbent; because, my Lords, you must remember that this inhibition is a new provision in this Act; it is not one that exists in the Pluralities Acts. Inhibition, to my mind, is no more than depriving an incumbent of his living who wilfully and persistently neglects his duties, and possibly does all he can to prevent a curate, who is put in, from discharging his duties for him. Such a man deserves inhibition, but he only deserves it if the means by which he is proceeded against are without flaw in law, and it would be a very serious thing indeed for Church discipline if such a stringent provision as this were not carried out with the utmost care, because inhibition is the most dreadful thing that can happen to a clergyman, and the greatest harm would be done if it could even be thought that he could suffer inhibition on grounds that would not bear examination before a judge of the High Court and a jury. Therefore, for these reasons combined, the Government have decided to abide by the tribunal, which is provided in this Bill as it came from the House of Commons. I can assure the most reverend prelate that his Amendment has received

    43
    the most careful and earnest consideration, but the Government are not able to adopt it. I move the Amendment to line 21, as an instalment in consolidating the position of this court, from the working of which Her Majesty's Government really expect beneficent results to the discipline of the Church.
    *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I have not been able to follow at all the logic of the noble Earl's speech, and it seems to me, I must confess, that a great deal of it is directed against the wrong thing. According to the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl, the archbishop will still be the appellant judge when the Commission does report negligence, and the appeal, therefore, on the question of fact brought before the Commission will be to the archbishop alone, and will not go before the judge; but if the bishop inhibits on the ground of a report of negligence, then the appeal is to lie to the court. It does seem to me, I confess, that it ought to be quite the other way. The question of fact is one that may be very well referred to the judge, but the question of negligence is really a professional question, and in every profession the professional question is always dealt with by professionals. What is right conduct for a clergyman will be a matter which the archbishop will be able to judge of, or he is not fit for his office. Whether or not the man was negligent is precisely one of the things which he, more than anyone else, is capable of deciding, and the result, of referring it to a judge will very speedily be this, that the judge will, little by little, surround the question of negligence with subtle decisions, and you will very soon find that a distinction has arisen, both in men's minds and in the courts, between negligence and legal negligence, and you will happen to say, "Yes, he was an idle man, he did not do his work certainly, but he was not legally negligent; he has kept himself within the law." That is really not a very good way of working such a clause as this. If there is anything that ought to be referred to professional judgment, it is precisely this very question of negligence. I should not at all object to reversing the proposal, and letting the court judge
    44
    of the facts of the case, and leaving the archbishop to judge of the question of negligence, because that is precisely parallel to what you do in regard to a man who is presented to a living, but who is to be refused on certain definite grounds, and after it has been settled that those reasons are sufficient to justify the bishop, it is within the discretion of the archbishop to say whether, although the bishop had sufficient reasons to use his discretion, he had used it rightly. This is precisely a parallel case. The appeal upon that question is in clause 3, upon a question of the suitability of the man for the place, and his character, and the question as to his fitness for the work, is left to the archbishop alone. When once the facts have been ascertained, then the archbishop is to confirm or over-ride the discretion of the bishop. Well, as I say, that is a parallel case to this. Here is a man who is found by the Commission to have performed his duties inadequately. He has not done what the parish has a right to require from him to do, and then comes the question—is that due to negligence? The obvious man to decide that is the strictly professional man, and I cannot help thinking that we shall very seriously hamper the work of this Bill if we allow decisions to be made, and reasons given, and substitute a sort of rule-made law by successive judges for the judgment of the archbishop as to whether or not this man has really neglected his duty. My Lords, it is obvious that in any profession whatever an outsider will take a very different view as regards what is professional duty from those who are inside the profession. In all cases where there is a judgment of professional work to be made, to the profession it is left to make that judgment. Questions of fact are totally different questions. Under this Bill it is proposed to leave questions, of fact as they are now left, to a Commission, with an appeal to the archbishop, and when the strictly professional question comes forward, it is proposed that the judge shall step in, and that he shall decide whether or not the fact of negligence exists. "Negligence," my Lords, is a very loose sort of word. It is not like a fact that you could find by simply putting together evidence,

    45
    "Did this man do this or did he not?" but it refers to the whole spirit of the man's conduct in his parish. Of course, if the Government insist upon their way of doing it I cannot hope to alter their opinion, but I venture to think, nevertheless, that the proposal of the Government is a mistake, and that my proposal is a very much better one.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I confess that I think that the most reverend prelate has argued against himself without knowing it. The question of negligence is, perhaps, rather a loose phrase, but if you analyse it into its elements it really means the neglect of some duty. Let me remind the most reverend prelate that judges and juries have to decide cases in which professional questions are involved. We have constantly, in our courts, questions of the negligence of medical men; and other most difficult questions for investigation relating to professional matters come constantly before our courts. No doubt what the most reverend prelate said is true. The phrase is a loose one; but if you resolve it into its component parts, it is in the strictest sense a question of fact, and I do not anticipate that any learned judge who sat with the archbishop would hesitate to consult the archbishop upon any subject that might be appropriate as to the consideration of what was, or what was not, the duty of the clergyman in a particular case. After all, there are definite duties which a clergyman has to perform, and which duties can be definitely stated, and proof can be given whether they have been performed; and, if they have not been performed, the reason or excuse for their non-performance would be a question for the judge to consider. I doubt whether there is any part of the inquiry which is not in the strictest sense of the word a question of fact, and, under those circumstances, it appears to me that these tribunals, which have been in the habit of administering justice, are very appropriate and proper tribunals to enter into a consideration of all these matters.
    *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: The noble and learned Lord says that the duties are definite duties, but I think every bishop will tell him that a great
    46
    many of the duties which a clergyman ought to perform in his parish are very indefinite duties.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If that is so, I do not know what tribunal could deal with them. If the duties of the clergyman are so indefinite that they are incapable of definite; expression, I quite fail to see how any tribunal can deal with them.
    *THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY: These clergymen have first to go into a court, and before a carefully chosen jury of persons who know them, and then before the bishop. In my opinion, it is very undesirable that judges should have more power in reducing the standard of clerical morality than they have already. I beg your Lordships' pardon, but if that is not so, will you kindly tell me why the Clergy Discipline Act, 1892, was required? It was because the judges had gradually reduced the standard of punishment for clerical immorality that it had become necessary.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: There is rather a serious principle at stake in this matter. It has been the practice of this country for a long period that in matters of this kind we do not constitute strictly an ecclesiastical court; what we do is, that when a man is to be judged upon points of fact, we say that he ought to be judged by a lay judge, and it seems to me that in this respect the clause is properly framed. The judge will find upon the facts, and then the archbishop, on the finding of the judge as to the facts, will say what penalty shall be inflicted. I hope the Government will abide by the clause as it stands.
    Question put.
    Amendment agreed to.
    "Page 5, line 26, leave out 'inhibition,' and insert 'appointment and inhibition, if any, or either of them.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
    Question put.
    Amendment agreed to.
    "Page 5, line 28, after 'thereof,' insert 'the said appointment should have been made, and also whether.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
    Question put.
    Amendment agreed to.
    "Page 5, line 33, after 'Act,' insert 'with respect to procedure.'"
    Insert as a new clause*—
    "(9) It is hereby enacted that all articles of agreement relating to the patronage of churches or chapels (under section twenty-three of the Church Building Act, 1845) shall be recorded in full in the registry of the diocese within two months from the execution thereof, and a certificate thereof shall be endorsed on the same, and signed by the registrar of the diocese before the articles of agreement can be legally acted upon."—(Lord Ludlow.)
    *LORD LUDLOW: My Lords, I beg to move the insertion of the clause, which stands in my name. There are some verbal matters in the clause, as it appears on the Paper, about which I should wish to say a word presently. But I will shortly state what the object of this clause is. By the Church Building Act, 1845, articles of agreement are authorised—
    "Binding articles of agreement may be made between the patron, the bishop, and the incumbent, for the purpose of recording the rights of patronage in the future."
    That Act was passed in 1845, and in 1848 an amending Act was passed. That Act recited that certain difficulties, existed as to whether or not more than one nomination might be governed by these articles of agreement, and the Act went on to state that the articles of agreement might govern the right, of patronage in perpetuity. It is obvious that these articles of agreement, are most important documents. In point of fact they are the title deeds to the patronage of the benefice, but there is no particular place of deposit for these very important documents. Generally they are left in the hands of the patrons, and very often they are lost; and I have known cases which I could state, if it were necessary, where they have been lost, and where very great inconvenience and confusion has arisen in consequence. Now, the object
    48
    that I have in view in my Amendment is that these documents should be registered, and I may tell your Lordships, that Dr. Tait, when he was Archbishop of Canterbury, was strongly in favour of a provision of this kind. Sir Francis Jeune, who has had great experience, having been Chancellor of many dioceses, also approves of a provision of this sort. I have also letters from other people who are concerned in such matters, who approve of this provision, and I think I may venture to state that the occupants of the Episcopal bench are not only not opposed to a clause of this kind, but I may go further and say that they heartily approve of it. That being so, I take it that the noble Earl who has charge of this Bill will be willing to accept the clause. Perhaps I may add this, that I should be very glad indeed myself to see some comprehensive plan for the registration of important ecclesiastical documents. I have not ventured to go so far as that with the clause I am now proposing, and my reason is this, that it might be urged that I was travelling beyond the scope of the Bill; but I think everybody will agree with me that the clause which I am endeavouring to introduce is really within the ambit of the present Bill. The clause is this, and I will read it with the verbal alterations that I desire to make—
    "It is hereby enacted that all articles of agreement relating to the patronage of churches or chapels (under section twenty-three of the Church Building Act, 1845, amended by section 4 of 11 and 12 Viet., cap. 37), shall be registered in full in the registry of the diocese within two months from the execution thereof, and a certificate thereof shall be endorsed on the same, and signed by the registrar of the diocese before the articles of agreement can be legally acted upon."
    I venture to say that not only in my own opinion, but in the opinion of those most competent to judge, a provision of this kind will be extremely valuable, and I hope Her Majesty's Government will be willing to accept it.
    *THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: It is, I am sure, the desire of all the bishops to see this clause form part of the Bill. It is an anomaly that such important documentary matters as those connected with the patronage of advowsons should not be protected against the danger arising from lack of registration. It is most desirable that it should be made necessary to register in every case the deed of patronage. Grave difficulty has arisen from the absence of such documents in particular cases. I can see no objection to this clause. I hope it will be passed, and I think I may go so far as to say that such is the wish of the whole Episcopal Bench.
    *THE EARL OF SELBORNIE: I do not mean to say that this Amendment, so far as it goes, does not meet a want, but I would ask the noble and learned Lord whether it is really in place in this, Bill. This Bill makes no attempt to establish a complete registration of title to advowsons. I quite admit that it is a most extraordinary thing that there is no such official registration. I speak under the correction of the reverend prelates present, but I believe that no reverend prelate has any means of knowing whether a patron who presents to a living is in fact legally the patron of that living, excepting by common report, and by referring to the clerical directory. To such an extent is that true that in the form used on institution the bishop uses the words "who alleges that he is the patron." I only mention that to show that there is no real registration in existence of advowsons. What the noble and learned Lord proposes is that in this Bill we should enact that certain titles under the Church Building Act of 1845 should be registered; but I would point out to him that there is no provision in his Amendment for this, that having once been placed on the register they should remain there. Supposing there was a transfer by change of trustees. That is not provided for in his Amendment. The old names would remain on the diocesan register, and the new ones would not take their place. In fact, this is only nibbling at a very big question. This Bill only proposes, to enact that no transfer, with certain exceptions, should take place without
    50
    registration. It makes no attempt to establish a complete register, and I do say, with great respect, that it is not in place in this Bill to enact that in the case of an infinitesimal proportion of the whole number of benefices, that in their case only there shall be registration apart from transfer. I hope, therefore, that the noble and learned Lord will not think it, necessary to press this, Amendment.
    *LORD LUDLOW: I can scarcely follow the noble Earl. He says it is a great misfortune that there is no regular registration of advowsons, of ecclesiastical documents, which all admit are important ones. I entirely agree with the noble Earl, but because there is no such registration can it be said that it is not desirable that provision should be made in cases of this kind for certain agreements with regard to patronage? Patronage is clearly within the ambit of this Bill. Take the title of the Bill—
    "'An Act to amend the law relating to the Patronage of Benefices and to amend the Pluralities Acts, 1838 and 1885."
    I do not desire to press the Amendment if Her Majesty's Government are not willing to accept, it, but I should much like to have a better reason given for not embodying it than anything that has fallen from the noble Earl. I again say that it is a great misfortune that there no general register kept of important ecclesiastical documents, and I should be glad to hear from Her Majesty's Government that in future they propose to bring in a Measure which would make registration in certain cases imperative. But that may be. for anything I know, a long time hence, and I ask them most seriously to consider this matter, and not to say, because the whole of the thing is not feasible, that they cannot give a part of it which is admitted to be required.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Does the noble Lord move this Amendment?
    *LORD LUDLOW: Yes, I press the Amendment.
    *THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: I desire to support the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord. I think every

    51
    bishop has experienced the difficulties arising from the absence of due registration, it has been impossible to ascerand the like. There are two or three cases in recent years in which, for lack of any provision enforcing such registration, it has been impossible to ascertain officially who is the patron of a particular benefice. I earnestly hope the noble and learned Lord's clause will be inserted in the Bill.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 5, line 36, after 'prescribed,' insert 'and for defining the duties of the officials by whom registration is to be effected.'"
    Agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 5, line 41, after 'inhibition,' insert 'or appointment of a curate.'"
    Agreed to.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I had intended to move that the lay judge who acts with the archbishop should be made a member of the Rule Committee acting in this matter. I think, however, as the clause will have to be amended on the Report stage, it will be more convenient that I should move it then.
    Question put—
    "That clause 9, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Agreed to.
    Question put—
    "That clause 10 stand part of the Bill."
    Agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 6, line 13, after 'Crown,' insert 'or of the Duchy of Cornwall.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
    Agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 6, line 17, after 'institution,' insert 'nor to any private chapel.'"—(The Earl of Selborne)
    Agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 6, line 22, at the end of the clause; add—
    "(3) In section 8 of this Act and in the Pluralities Act, 1838, and the Pluralities Act Amendment Act, 1885,, the expression 'ecclesiastical duties' shall include those duties mentioned in section 2 of the Pluralities Act Amendment Act, 1885, and also the observance of the promises, not referring to matters of doctrine and ritual, which every clergyman of the Church of England solemnly makes at the time of his ordination; and the expression 'negligence' in the performance of ecclesiastical duties shall include wilful default in the performance of such duties."—(The Viscount Knutsford.)
    *VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: Your Lordships will feel satisfaction in coming to the last Amendment on the Paper. I venture to say, however, that though it is the last it is not the least in importance, because there has been a considerable amount of feeling entertained on the subject of this Amendment, and there is great hope that Her Majesty's Government will see their way to accept it. During the course of this Debate the noble Lord who is moving the adoption, of this Bill has clearly stated the procedure that is taken in cases where the inadequate performance of ecclesiastical duties is considered by the bishop to be sufficient to be tried by the Commission; and he has also pointed out the difference that exists were simply inadequate performance is found by the Commission, and those cases where the inadequate performance is found to be owing to the negligence of the incumbent. But the point which I desire to raise upon this Amendment does not turn upon procedure. The words "ecclesiastical duties." have been defined, as your Lordships are aware, by section 2 of the Act of 1885 (48 and 49 Vic, c. 54), and I will venture to read it to your Lordships. The definition is—
    "The term 'ecclesiastical duties' shall include not only the regular and due performance of divine service on Sundays and holidays, but also all such duties as any clergyman holding a benefice is bound by law to perform, on the performance of which is solemnly promised by every clergyman of the Church of England at the time of his ordination."
    Now, my Lords, there are certain cases of misconduct which certainly ought to be dealt with, both in the interests of the Church and of the parishioners who are

    53
    members of that Church, and yet there is a very grave question whether these cases of misconduct can be dealt with under that definition of "ecclesiastical duties." There are cases of conduct, or, I should say, of misconduct, of which I will venture to give your Lordships two or three concrete instances, and I am sorry to say that there is good reason to believe that they are not very unusual cases. In the one case a clergyman, irreproachable in his morals, is so intemperate in his language and conduct that he succeeds in alienating from himself tall his congregation and all his parishioners, and all those entrusted to his care. He has not only succeeded in, setting one part of his congregation against the other, but he bas emptied his church and has driven his congregation into Nonconformist chapels. That is one of the cases which I hope your Lordships will think ought to be dealt with in some way or other. There is another case of a clergyman who is never found guilty of drunkenness, and who is not immoral in the ordinary sense of the word, but who does frequent public-houses and falls under the influence of disreputable and shady companions, and who has lost all influence, as would naturally be the case, over his parishioners, and his church is empty. That is another case which I bring to the notice of your Lordships. There are other cases which are most of them of a similar kind, but varying in their extent and also varying in their effect. Now, as I have said, a very grave doubt has been entertained for many years whether these cases of conduct come under the definition of "ecclesiastical duties," and this doubt my Amendment is framed to remove. This Amendment is not the first of this kind. An Amendment really similar in terms to the Amendment I am now submitting for your Lordship's consideration was passed in a Bill in 1895 by the Standing Committee on Law, to which that Bill was referred; and I am told, but I have not verified it, that in 1896 another Bill also got to the Report stage in the other House in which the same point was dealt with, though not in precisely the same terms, but in more general terms. I will assume that these cases are cases which, in the opinion of your Lordships, should be
    54
    dealt with by the bishops. If it is not so, if these cases which cause scandal and as much injury to the Church as cases of more grave misconduct are not to be dealt with, then this Amendment of mine may be withdrawn. I should, however, be very loth to assume that your Lordships should not think these cases should be dealt with. If they are to be dealt with I ask your Lordships to remove the doubt that has been entertained whether these cases come under the head of ecclesiastical duties or not. I will now point out to your Lordships how it is proposed to remove this doubt. I propose to insert after the last sub-section the following words—
    "(3) In section eight of this Act and in the Pluralities Act, 1838, and the Pluralities Act Amendment Act, 1885, the expression 'ecclesiastical duties' shall include those duties mentioned in section two of the Pluralities Act Amendment Act, 1885, and also the observance of the promises, not referring to matters of doctrine and ritual, which every clergyman of the Church of England solemnly makes at the time of his ordination; and the expression 'negligence' in the performance of ecclesiastical duties shall include wilful default in the performance of such duties."
    I will not at this moment refer to the latter part of the clause. I believe that I shall not need to trouble you on that point, because it is accepted by Her Majesty's Government. It is the first part which I wish to impress upon your Lordshios, and I will take the two cases that I have referred to, the one where the clergyman, in other respects good, is so intemperate in his language and conduct that he has ruined himself with his parishioners, lost all his in fluence with them, and is driving them out of his church. Now, one of the promises a clergyman makes on ordination is—
    "To maintain and set forwards as much as lieth in him, quietness, peace, and love among all Christian people, and especially among those who are or shall be committed to his charge."
    I should say that where that duty has been negligently performed by a clergyman, where he has exhibited the conduct I have referred to, he has been guilty of the neglect of ecclesiastical duties, as defined by this Amendment. Take the other concrete case, where a man has fallen under the influence of

    55
    bad or disreputable company, and free quents places that he had better keep out of. Now, one of the promises on ordination is—
    "To make both himself and his family as much as in him lies wholesome examples and patterns to the flock of Christ."
    This, promise such a clergyman has clearly failed to perform. Those two cases show very clearly the advantage of removing all doubt from the question by inserting these words, which, provide beyond doubt that the ecclesiastical duties, or the performance of ecclesiastical duties, is to include the performance of the promises which the clergyman has made at the time of his ordination. My Lords, I have pointed out that this is not a new proposition, but is simply following a decision arrived at after full discussion in the House of Commons, and I have only heard two objections made to this Amendment. One is the extension of the power of the bishops by giving them a very much wider discretion. As I have said before, if these cases create as great a scandal as the many more serious cases to be dealt with, I am quite sure that the bishops will exercise this power with great care and consideration. But to those who have doubts upon this matter I would point, out, and I would remind your Lordships again of this, that the decision does, not rest with the bishops absolutely; it rests with the commission which the bishop appoints to examine into these cases. Surely we may trust a commission which is so constituted as to command the confidence of all. I have not heard a single question raised against the constitution of the commission, and surely we can trust to them to examine into these cases carefully and considerately. The other objection is that some of these cases may possibly be dealt with under the Clergy Discipline Act. My Lords, assuming that they would come under that Act, I venture to think that it is very much more desirable that they should come distinctly under the Pluralities Acts as amended by section 8 of this Bill. The penalties under the Clergy Discipline Act are too heavy, if I may say so, and are not very suitable for cases of misconduct such as I am bringing under the notice of your Lordships.
    56
    One of the penalties is depriving the incumbent altogether of his living, and has been described as—
    "turning out an innocent wife and children on to the road without any means of support."
    Now, another alternative is suspension. Well, I speak under the correction of the bishops, who know exactly what has been the working of this penalty, but I have always understood that it has had very questionable results. The term of suspension may be short or long, but all the time over the parish there is hanging the possibility after an incumbent has been suspended of his returning to that parish. In such cases, moreover, a clergyman would very seldom get back again the confidence of the parishioners. The third alternative is admonition. Well, my Lords, undoubtedly admonition is very satisfactory in some cases, but there is still this difficulty with the clergyman, that he is almost sure to fail to regain his influence with the parishioners. Now, if we can bring these cases under the Pluralities Acts as amended by section 8, the clergyman will be inhibited from acting, but he will have a part of the stipend. I will not at this time trouble your Lordships at any greater length. I do, however, desire to impress upon your Lordships the necessity with regard to such cases of making some provision for them, and I hope Her Majesty's Government will accept this Amendment. As I have said, the noble Earl below me has accepted the latter part of it on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, and I need not dwell upon that point.
    *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I believe that it has already been urged by some authorities that the definition of ecclesiastical duties in the Act of 1885 does cover all those promises which are made by a clergyman at the time of his ordination. But the Amendment of my noble Friend is directed to making that point quite certain, and to see that they are all covered. As he has shown your Lordships, there is a class of case that lies between neglect of duty, which is mainly aimed at in this Act, and those moral offences which are aimed at in the Act of 1892. It is within the experience probably of your Lordships that in cases

    57
    such as those suggested by the noble Lord, who proposed this new clause, the whole influence of the clergyman in his parish is absolutely destroyed. He may technically be performing the ecclesiastical duties of his office, but his general life and his conduct to the parishioners to whom he performs these duties are such as to deprive him of any of the influence or merit which those duties should have when he performs them. Therefore, it amounts to negligence in effect, though not in technical fact. Now, my Lords, it would be idle to conceal that the definition of offences such as my noble Friend wishes to introduce into the scope of this Bill is no easy task. It may be said that that class of offence is so vague that it may not be brought into the purview of an Act of Parliament or of the court constituted under that Act Now I fully admit the force of that criticism, but, on the other hand, you have to place against it the immense misery, the utter spiritual destitution of the parish in which the clergyman possessed of that unhappy character which my noble Friend has described is placed, or who, by his general conduct, has so deprived himself of all possibility of influence for good. My Lords, if I might say so, with all respect to the most reverend prelate, this is exactly one of those cases where the court constituted under this Bill comes in. Would it be possible to ask Parliament to embrace these offences under this Bill if the appeal was to the archbishop, who, however high his character or however great the respect which his fellowmen might have for him, is not trained in those methods of sifting evidence which training can only give confidence in the carrying out of an Act like this? The more vague the offence the more difficult it is to decide and the more necessary it is for a judge of the high courts to say whether an offence of this kind has been committed or not. Now your Lordships have agreed to the constitution of this court as proposed by Her Majesty's Government, and in view of the confidence they have in the constitution of that court; in view of the fact that this principle has been accepted in the House of Commons, certainly on two occasions in Grand Committee, I
    58
    believe also, though I speak with less certainty of knowledge with regard to the Second Reading of this Bill on which these Grand Committees sat; in view of these facts Her Majesty's Government are prepared to accept this clause as proposed by my noble Friend. As regards the financial position of that clause it has been held to be just conceivable that wilful default might not be technically legal negligence, and that would indeed be a catastrophe—and that being so, we accept the latter portion of this Amendment as well as the first.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Question put—
    "That clause 11, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Agreed to.
    Clauses 12 and 13 added to the Bill without discussion.
    Schedule and title agreed to.
    Standing Committee negatived; the report of Amendments to be received on Friday next.

    CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.
    The House resumed; and the LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack.
    A Bill to make further provision for the prevention of cruelty to animals, presented by Lord HERSCIIELL.
    LORD HERSCHELL: I beg to call attention to the law relating to the prevention of cruelty to animals, and to present a Bill. I need detain your Lord ships but a few moments in presenting this Bill to call attention to the present state of the law and the change which it proposes to make. As your Lordships are aware, the Acts for the prevention of cruelty to animals are at present limited to domestic animals. Now, a number of cases have arisen during the last few years from time to time in which prosecutions have been instituted with a view to checking some gross acts of brutality and cruelty, but those prosecutions have

    59
    been unsuccessful because the animals were not domestic animals, although I believe that in every case the tribunal before which the case came expressed great regret that it was impossible to punish because the offences were precisely of the same character as those which were punished under the Act for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. In one case gross acts of brutality were committed on caged lions. The question was considered by the count, and although it was argued that the lions had been for a considerable time in confinement and deprived of their liberty, it was nevertheless held that they were wild animals, and not domestic animals, and therefore did not come under the Act. The other cases were one of gross cruelty to a performing bear, and another was a tame sea gull which for several years a person had tamed with such success that it would come and feed out of her hand. It followed the owner about, and was used in her business as a photographer. Now, this sea gull was brutally ill-treated, and there was a prosecution, and the court held that it was a wild animal, although she had it tamed in this way for some years; and it was held that by law cruelty could be inflicted with perfect impunity. There are other prosecutions in the case of parrots, and also a swan, which was horribly ill-treated; but the man who owned it insisted upon pursuing his ill-treatment because he knew perfectly well that he could not be punished for it. These cases are enough to show the nature of the mischief with which it is intended to deal. There has been a wide consensus of opinion that cases such as these should have the same protection as applies in the case of domestic animals. Undoubtedly it is obvious that such a Measure as this has no chance of passing into law if any attempt were made to extend it to all animals under all situations. I mean all wild animals. The Bill, therefore, proposes to deal with cases of this description by limiting it to cases in which animals are deprived of their liberty, or tamed, or kept upon ornamental waters. Those will meet all the cases to which I have called your Lordships' attention. Of course one is quite aware that if you were to extend the Bill as many would desire you
    60
    would meet with difficulties in two directions. You would touch upon the region of what is commonly called legitimate sport, and you might touch upon another region in which certain agriculturists are interested. It is therefore very necessary to be careful to safeguard these provisions if it is intended to pass it into law, so as to limit it to the particular class of cases in which the evil has been found to exist, without seeking to have a general and more sweeping provision which might be more logical, but which it would be perfectly impossible to pass into law. Therefore the Bill which I have introduced at the instance of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal's is limited in this way. I have no doubt some will find fault with the Bill in its limited scope, but I think it is better to deal with it in this way, because there is a general consensus of opinion in favour of it, and any attempt to introduce a wider Act would be certain to give rise to a great difference of opinion. I do not think, limited as this Measure is, there is likely to be any difference of opinion with regard to it. This is a matter in which it would be hopeless to attempt to legislate in advance of public opinion, and it would be very undesirable. I believe as the Bill is now framed it will not do otherwise than follow the course of public opinion, and although I cannot hope that at this period of the Session the Bill will pass into law, I have thought it desirable to introduce it in order that its terms may become public and subject to criticism, and it is possible there may be some extension of it in the spirit which I have indicated, although personally I should deprecate any attempt widely to extend its operation, for I am quite sure that the only result would be to destroy all chance of amending the law to the extent to which public opinion I am satisfied is prepared for it. I must say that on more than one occasion I have been very much impressed by the circumstances that the uncompromising and enthusiastic advocates of a cause are often more deadly foes to it than some pronounced opponents. My Lords, although I have said that the Bill is limited in its scope, I think it will cover these cases which have been shown by public opinion to be desirable, and which it has

    61
    been found impossible to deal with under the present law.
    THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: I have no doubt the House will be sure to give the most careful consideration to the Bill of the noble and learned Lord. I think, however, it is trespassing upon rather dangerous ground, and I would mention for his consideration the following cases—those of bagged foxes, a deer-buck kept for the spout of the buck-hounds, and the pigeons which are shot at Hurlingham. All these three cases would be cases of animals kept in confinement, and would come under the Act of the noble Lord. I think I should recommend the noble Lord, if he goes on with this Measure, that he should refer it to a Select Committee, where it could be fully considered.
    LORD HERSCHELL: I am inclined to think that this Bill will not touch those cases which have been referred to by the noble Marquess, because in the case of the bagged fox it is not deprived of its liberty.
    THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Not when it is in a bag?
    LORD HERSCHELL: That is the reason why I wish to avoid all questions of sport, and so it provides for them when deprived of their liberty.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I have no sympathy whatever with people who hunt the bagged fox. I hunt foxes, but they are not bogged, and I think if the practice of hunting bagged foxes were terminated it would not be regretted by any true sportsmen. I agree that there are serious difficulties, but that should not prevent us from framing some Bill which will put an end to it.
    THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: I am afraid the noble Earl is one of the extreme advocates of a cause which has been denounced by the noble and learned Lord.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the cruelty is just the same to the bagged fox as to the wild fox when once it is being hunted.
    Bill read a first time.

  NEW BILL.

    TELEGRAPH (CHANNEL ISLANDS) BILL. [H.L.]
    A Bill to amend the Telegraph Acts, 1863 to 1897, and the Post Office Acts, in relation to the Channel Islands; was presented by the Duke of Norfolk; Read the first time; to be printed; and to be read the second time To-morrow. No. 161.]
    House adjourned at 7.25.