CLAUSE 3. (Hansard, 22 July 1898)

§ *THE EARL OF SELBORNE
My Lords, the Amendment which I now move is introduced in order to meet a criticism of the noble and learned Lord on the Front Opposition Bench, who pointed out that it would be a wise precaution to insert words to this effect.

§ *EARL FORTESCUE
My Lords, happily the Amendment of which I have given notice, and which I now rise to move, requires only a very few words of introduction. It was drawn by that eminent ecclesiastical lawyer, Dr. Tristram, and has been approved of by the most reverend Primate. From time to time, Dr. Tristram states, some of the judgments given by such eminent judges as Sir H. Jenner Fust, Dr. Lushington, and Sir R. Phillimore in cases of clerical immorality have been reversed on appeal, but, under this Bill, the unhappy presentee will find himself for the first time in quite a different position to that of any other citizen, inasmuch as he will be debarred from appealing to any tribunal except this newly-constituted one. Dr. Tristram added that Dr. Lushington told him those cases cost him great anxiety. I think that the authority of Dr. Tristram, and the approval of the right reverend Primate, will have their just weight with your Lordships, and that your Lordships will agree to my Amendment.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY
My Lords, I am very sorry that Dr. Tristram should have entirely misunderstood what I said. He showed me the clause, and said he understood that 776 there was a Peer in the House who would move it. The only remark I made was, "I do not think he will carry it."

§ *THE EARL OF SELBORNE
I am afraid there is a fundamental difference of opinion between the noble Lord [Earl Fortescue] and the Government on this matter. We think the presentee has been too much, and the parishioners a great deal too little, considered in the past. He appears to think we are effecting a revolution in which the presentee will be too little considered. I agree, my Lords, that we have entrusted a great deal of responsibility to the bishops, but in doing so we have had the unanimous concurrence of all parties in your Lordships' House. Nothing, I think, could have struck your Lordships more than the stress which the noble Earl, the Leader of the Opposition, laid on the responsibility of the bishops during the Second Reading Debate. We have acted on those lines. The responsibility is put upon the bishop in the first instance to make up his mind whether the presentee is a fit person for the cure of souls. He must allege definite reasons for his opinion, if he thinks he is unfit, and an appeal is granted from that refusal to the court constituted under the Bill. That court is formed of the archbishop of the province and a judge of the High Court, and in our opinion that is a tribunal that amply meets all the responsibilities of justice. If that tribunal is not competent to do justice to the presentee, we do not know which one is. To load the Bill by adding an appeal to the Privy Council, would be to defeat absolutely one of the chief endeavours of the Government. In fact, as your Lordships are well aware, Her Majesty's Government do not think the Bill goes far enough in warding off the burden of expenditure which handicaps the bishops sometimes in the performance of their duties. The proposal of the noble Earl is nothing less than to put on the back of 777 every bishop, who acted on his responsibility under this Bill, the burden of costs which might accrue to him in the Privy Council. What those costs are the right reverend prelates who sit in this House only too well know, and a case has been quoted in these Debates under the analogous procedure of the Clergy Discipline Act of 1892, where a bishop was mulcted in costs to the amount of £1,600. To accept this Amendment will, in the eyes of the Government, be fatal to the Bill, and I ask your Lordships therefore not to accept it.