SECOND READING. (Hansard, 6 May 1909)

LORD MONKSWELL
My Lords, this is a Bill to remedy what I hope your Lordships will agree is an indefensible anomaly with regard to the eligibility of clergy to serve on municipal bodies. The present 834 occasion the Government do not propose to depart from that line of action. Therefore, so far as their supporters are concerned they hope they will take just such action as they desire to take, without feeling that His Majesty's Government wish to influence them in any way.
On Question, whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion?—
law disqualifies clerks in Holy Orders and regular ministers of dissenting congregations from serving on municipal bodies, but at the same time clergymen are eligible to sit on county councils, even on the London County Council, which is the largest municipal body in the world, and they are also eligible to sit on the twenty-nine London borough councils. They can also sit on the councils of the University towns of Oxford and Cambridge, and they are eligible to be co-opted on the education committees of bodies to which they do not belong. It appears to be part of the duty 835 of clergymen to concern themselves in education, and surely it would be far better if they were allowed to sit on the bodies which form the education committees instead of having to be co-opted from outside. If they sat on these bodies they would be able to justify in the full council the policy of the education committee of which they were members.
The present state of the law seems to me to be indefensible from any point of view you may take of the duties of the clergy. There are two views with regard to the duties of the clergy. One is that they should confine themselves entirely, or very nearly entirely, to the exercise of their spiritual functions and should mix as little as possible in politics, either municipal or Imperial. Another view is that, even with regard to the exercise of their spiritual functions, it is just as well that clergymen should be to some extent men of the world and should understand mankind; that it is good for them and for their flocks that they should, to some extent, mix in the world. I submit that it is good for the community in general as well as for himself that any clergyman who feels that he has a vocation for municipal work should have an opportunity of doing that work. It seems to me perfectly clear that the present law is in a transitory phase, and that in this matter we must either go forward or backward. In 1882 the law forbade clergymen to serve on any municipal bodies, but in 1888 and in 1894 a different view prevailed in the Legislature. In 1888 they were made eligible to sit on county councils; in 1894 they were made eligible to sit on the London borough councils. The prohibition was then partially removed. It was removed in an absolutely illogical manner. I do not complain in the least of the Legislature. The legislation of 1888 and of 1894 was in the nature of an experiment, and what I say is that the present law is an unstable compromise between two absolutely different schools of thought with regard to the clergy, and that it is time now to settle which view shall prevail.
I contend that experience has amply justified the experiment of allowing the clergy to sit upon municipal bodies, and that we may usefully make them eligible for all municipal bodies. It was said at one time, before we had any experience of the matter, that if we permitted the clergy to serve on these bodies they would 836 have such an ascendancy over their congregations that they would have an unfair advantage over their lay competitors and the result would be that the spiritual element would be predominant in these local bodies. That has not turned out to be the case at all. On the contrary, very few clergy have sought to sit on these bodies and very few have been elected, but those who have sat have shown that they were capable of doing excellent work. I sat on the London County Council for eighteen years, and can only call to mind—I may have forgotten one or two—five clergymen of all denominations who served on that Council during that period, and those who served did excellent work. I have it on the authority of Canon Jephson that there have been eight clerical mayors in London—namely, in Marylebone, Southwark, Finsbury, Wandsworth, Hammersmith, Fulham, Lewisham and Chelsea. In the case of Marylebone the Rev. Russell Wakefield was re-elected because of his excellent work as mayor—an unusual honour; and with regard to Chelsea, I can speak from personal experience of the excellent work of the Rev. Henry Gamble. I do not agree with him in politics and am not prejudiced in any way in his favour, but I say it is of great advantage to Chelsea that Mr. Gamble is the Mayor.
Canon Jephson also informs me that there is at least one clergyman on every one of the twenty-nine London borough councils. Three or four per cent. of these councillors are clergymen; that is not a large percentage, and not one likely to swamp the lay element. The clergy have acted with great discretion in this matter. Only those clergymen have come forward who have a vocation for this kind of work, and they have shown that they can do it admirably. The Bill which I am asking your Lordships to read a second time is very much wanted. I have in my hand a very long printed list of clergy of all denominations, many of whom have served on local bodies, who are very desirous that this Bill should pass. I regard this question exclusively from the English point of view. I know very little about the circumstances of Scotland or Ireland. I therefore propose, in Committee, to restrict the operation of the Bill to England. I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2^a.—(Lord Monkswell.)

§ * LORD ALLENDALE
My Lords, the noble Lord in moving the Second Reading has stated the case for the Bill so clearly that I am relieved of any necessity of going at length into the matter. I may say at once that the Government offer no opposition to the Bill. Lord Monkswell has pointed out that the Bill is designed to remove an anomaly with regard to the eligibility of clergymen and ministers of religion to serve on the councils of municipal boroughs. There appears no reason whatever why that anomaly and disqualification should continue, especially as ministers of religion can already sit on county councils and the councils of metropolitan boroughs. Possibly some people do not look upon clergymen as particularly good business men, but there are, of course, exceptions, and where these exceptions exist and the clergy are capable and willing to undertake these duties there seems to be no reason why their services should not be made use of when available. The Government, as I have said, offer no opposition to the Bill. In fact, they consider the object of the Bill, which is to effect uniformity in the law, a very desirable one.

* THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK
My Lords, I can speak upon this matter as one connected with districts which are not under this disability, and can certainly confirm what has been said by the noble Lord who introduced the Bill as to the public advantage to be gained from the clergy being able to take part in these duties. I speak as one who is no indiscriminate admirer of clergymen taking up this work. I think in many cases it is very questionable whether a man with heavy burdens of another kind has a right to take on himself these large secular burdens, but there are, I know, cases where, in the circumstances, it is best he should do so. The supply of men highly qualified for municipal work is not in all cases adequate, and it may very well happen that the clergy are in a position to bring what very few men about them are able to bring to the work. Their special qualifications have been of value in regard to many matters affecting the welfare of the community. In a few cases they take an effective part, no doubt, as political partisans; but they also often take a line independent of party, and I think I am right in saying that in almost every case those who have been elected 838 have been valuable members of the body which they joined. In those circumstances, though as a Bishop it should be my part to hinder anything like an indiscriminate extension of the discharge of secular duties by the clergy, I do feel strongly that a case has been made out for the removal of the disqualification which is at present placed upon ministers of religion in this matter.
On Question, Bill read 2^a,, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

CONTENTS
Canterbury, L. Abp.	Hereford, L. Bp. [Teller.]	Eversley, L.
Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Lichfield, L. Bp.	Langford, L.
	Norwich, L. Bp.	Lucas, L.
Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.)	Southwark, L. Bp.	Marchamley, L. [Teller]
		Monkswell, L.
Cross, V.	Avebury, L.	O'Hagan, L.
Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)	Blythswood, L.	Reay, L.
Morley of Blackburn, V.	Brassey, L.	Saye and Sele, L.
	Braye, L.	Stewart of Garlies, L.
Bangor, L. Bp.	Coleridge, L.	(E. Galloway.)
NOT-CONTENTS
Bedford, D.	Plymouth, E.	Harris, L.
	Verulam, E.	Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)
Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)	Waldegrave, E.	Hindlip, L.
Bath, M.		Hylton, L.
Bristol, M.	Falkland, V. [Teller.]	Kesteven, L.
Exeter, M.	Goschen, V.	Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
Salisbury, M.	Halifax, V.	Lawrence, L.
	Hardinge, V.	MacDonnell, L.
Camperdown, E.	Iveagh, V.	Monk Bretton, L.
Cathcart, E.	Knutsford, V.	Newton, L. [Teller.]
Cawdor, E.		Ribblesdale, L.
Chichester, E.	Abinger, L.	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Cromer, E.	Ashbourne, L.	Rosmead, L.
Dartrey, E.	Atkinson, L.	Rothschild, L.
Durham, E.	Barnard, L.	Saltoun, L.
Fitzwilliam, E.	Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)	Savile, L.
Ilchester, E.	Cottesloe, L.	Sinclair, L.
Kilmorey, E.	Desborough, L.	Stalbridge, L.
Lauderdale, E.	Ellenborough, L.	Vivian, L.
Liverpool, E.	Faber, L.	Willoughby de Broke, L.
Mansfield, E.	Granard, L. (E. Granard.)	Wolverton, L.
Onslow, E.	Hamilton of Dalzell, L.	Zouche of Haryngworth, L.