CLAUSE 2. (Hansard, 22 July 1898)

*THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY
My Lords, I hope your Lordships will be good enough to give full consideration to this little formal Amendment which comes at the end of clause 2. It seems to me that the clause, as it stands at present, rather hangs in the air; no one is told what they are to do or what they may do with regard to this notice which is given in the parishes. Now, the Amendment which I venture to propose suggests that the bishop should be obliged to hear any representation made to him in consequence, provided that any objection therein made have reference to a legal ground of refusal. It seems to me that the general public have a right to powers in regard to institution to a benefice like those that they now possess in regard to ordination. In one way it is much more serious to institute a man to a benefice than it is to ordain him, for if a man is put in legal charge of a parish he cannot be ousted except by process of law. Therefore, it is advisable that there should be no mistake in the beginning of such a connection, and there ought to be full liberty given to everyone who knows of any just cause or impediment against an institution to report it to the bishop, and to insist that the bishop should consider it. I venture to think that we have been all of us a little too slack in this matter of institution to benefices, not only the bishops, but also the patrons and other clergy and parishioners. Testimonials 773 have been given much too freely; people have been unwilling to speak because they have been afraid of the charge of libel, and it is on purpose that we may all be a little more strict that we are asked, I suppose, to pass this Bill. We are now going as a nation to turn over a new leaf in this matter of institution to benefices. Would it not be wiser and fairer to the parishioners and others to let them know that this is really the mind of Parliament, and not to leave the clause hanging in the air? In the diocese with which I am familiar, in the last 12 years we have tried this plan, and asked the parishioners if they have any objection to make, and in no case out of some 500 has there been any unfairness or ill-will or disagreeable feeling shown. I venture to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will accept this Amendment or not, and, if not, whether they will tell me, as the law will stand when this Bill is passed, what will be my position in regard to the Queen's Bench, supposing a man came and said, "Here is a valid objection," and I were to say to him, "I will not hear it, because I am not obliged to," and he went to the Queen's Bench for a mandamus to compel me? The other question I wish to ask Her Majesty's Government is one which I should like the Lord Chancellor to answer—namely, whether, under the present law, as amended by this Bill, an action for libel would lie against a man, whoever he was, if he made a complaint to the bishop, which the bishop forwarded to the presentee? I venture to ask these two questions, and also that Her Majesty's Government, if they cannot accept the Amendment, will make some definite statement on these two points.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)
My noble Friend, who is in charge of this Bill, will tell the right reverend prelate whether the Government are willing to accept the Amendment or not, but, for my own part, it sems to me a perfectly useless Amendment. It infers that a bishop requires an actual Statute to compel him to do his duty. I protest against that on behalf of the bishops, although a bishop has proposed this Amendment. As to the other question, I am reluctant to answer an abstract ques- 774 tion on a legal point, but, giving the best reply I can to the right reverend prelate, I would say that a parishioner and a bishop have a common interest in unfit persons not being presented to a living, and a communication of the character referred to would be a privileged communication, with the qualification. I must warn the right reverend prelate that no person could avail himself of this privilege for the purpose of indulging in private malice. If a person is actuated by malice, the occasion does not relieve him from the consequences.

§ *THE EARL OF SELBORNE
My Lords, Her Majesty's Government cannot accept this Amendment. As the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said, this appears to be a perfectly useless Amendment, and infers that a, bishop requires an actual Statute to compel him to do his duty.