HL Deb 31 July 1918 vol 31 cc235-9

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Bishop of Norwich.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 5:

Commission, how to be nominated.

5. Of the three commissioners one shall be nominated by the Bishop of the diocese in which the benefice or benefices, and sinecure or sinecures (if any) affected by the proposed inquiry are situate, or in case the benefices are situate in more than one diocese then jointly by the Bishops of those dioceses; one shall be nominated by the patron or, if there shall be more than one patron, jointly by the patrons of the benefice or benefices and sinecure or sinecures affected; and the remaining commissioner (who shall act as chairman) shall be nominated by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.

Provided that if the Bishop of the diocese in which any benefice or sinecure affected by the proposed inquiry is situate shall also be the sole patron of that benefice or sinecure the right of nomination by the Bishop in his capacity of patron shall be exercised by the same person as it would have been exercised by in the case of a patron who had after request, as in this section mentioned, refused or neglected to nominate a commissioner for a period of thirty days.

If for a period of thirty days after being requested in writing by the Bishop to nominate a commissioner the patron or patrons shall refuse or neglect so to do, his or their right of nomination shall be exorcised by the persons following, that is to say, (A) where the benefice or one of the benefices affected is situated wholly or partly within a city or municipal borough, by the mayor of the city or borough, and (B) where no benefice affected is situated wholly or partly within a city or municipal borough, by the person who has presided as chairman of the last preceding quarter sessions for the county or division of the county in which the church of the benefice affected or if more than one benefice is affected of that one of the benefices which has the largest population shall be situate, or, if there be no such person, then by the lord lieutenant of the county in which the church of that benefice shall be situate.

THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH moved to omit the words— by the patron, or, if there shall be more than one patron, jointly by the patrons of the benefice or benefices and sinecure or sinecures affected; and the remaining commissioner (who shall act as chairman) shall be nominated by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners: Provided that if the Bishop of the diocese in which any benefice or sinecure affected by the proposed inquiry is situate shall also be the sole patron of that benefice or sinecure the right of nomination by the Bishop in his capacity of patron shall be exercised by the same person as it would have been exercised by in the case of a patron who had after request, as in this section mentioned, refused or neglected to nominate a commissioner for a period of thirty days. If for a period of thirty days after being requested in writing by the Bishop to nominate a commissioner the patron or patrons shall refuse or neglect so to do, his or their right of nomination shall be exercised by the persons following, that is to say, and to insert at the end of the clause "and the remaining Commissioner (who shall act as chairman) shall be nominated by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners").

The right rev. Prelate said: My Lords, first I should mention how it is that I come to move this Amendment. Certain right rev. Prelates who sit in the Upper House of Convocation of Canterbury feel rather strongly on the constitution of the tribunal provided in this Bill, and I undertook when the Bill was read a second time to move this Amendment in Committee in loyalty and deference to their views. Personally I do not think that the Bill, if it becomes an Act, will fail to accomplish its purpose, whether this Amendment is carried or not.

Under the present law, when a Bishop initiates a proposal to unite more than one benefice, he forwards to the Archbishop a request that inquiry should be made on the subject, and with that he sends the assent of the patrons of the benefices concerned. If the Archbishop considers that it is proper to go forward in the matter, he invites protests or comments from the parishioners and those who are interested in the matter. The procedure is of a most cumbrous character, but those who are interested in the matter are never brought quite face to face with those who are to decide it. This Bill provides that the tribunal should investigate the matter on the spot, or probably on the spot. The tribunal obviously must be a small one if it is ever to carry out investigations on the spot and naturally it must have an uneven number of members.

I have heard no criticism of the proposal that one member who should act as chairman should be appointed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, nor have I heard any criticism of the proposal that a second member should be nominated by the Bishop of the Diocese. It is over the third member that the discussion has arisen. As the Bill stands the third member is to be nominated by the patron if there is only one patron concerned, or by agreement of all the patrons if there is more than one To that proposal exception has been taken. Some have urged that it is undesirable that the patrons should be represented on the tribunal, and that it is wiser that the tribunal should be composed in a more completely detached manner. Others have said that if the patrons are to be entitled to nominate one of the Commissioners then the parishioners ought to be entitled to nominate one. Others have said that it is exceedingly unlikely that, if there is more than one patron concerned, the patrons concerned will be able to agree upon one nominee.

You will observe that the case of the disagreement of the patrons is provided for. The procedure which is in the Bill as it stands provides that in case a disagreement on the part of the patrons should afterwards take place, the third nominee should be nominated by some borough or county official, and that no patron should have any say in the matter. I am inclined to believe that it is true that in many cases the patrons would not agree on a nominee. In some cases the patrons might be too indifferent to the whole scheme to consider the question of nomination at all, and in that case the alternative procedure would be operative.

What I propose is that the alternative procedure should be the one that is universally applicable, namely, in the nomination of a third Commissioner. I have said I believe that either plan would work very well, but your Lordships will understand that it is always a difficult thing to steer a little barque, like a Bill which is privately initiated, through two Houses of Parliament. But those difficulties are far greater when an inexperienced hand, such as I am, is at the helm, and when the navigator has to consider, not only the two Houses of Parliament, but also the two Houses of Convocation of York, and when he must not neglect either House of Laymen.

I am moving this Amendment because, in duty and in loyalty to the right Rev. Prelates who sit in the Upper House of Canterbury, I am bound to do so; but I repeat that my own personal impression is that either plan would work well, and that the adoption of one or the other will not wreck the usefulness of this Bill if it becomes law.

Amendment moved—

Clause 5, page 2, line 39, leave out from ("nominated") to ("(A)") in line 16 of page 3,

Clause 5, page 3, line 26, at end insert ("and the remaining Commissioner (who shall act as chairman) shall be nominated by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.").—(The Lord Bishop of Norwich.)

LORD MUIR MACKENZIE

I am very sorry to find myself in opposition to the right rev. Prelate, and I trust your Lordships will not accept this Amendment. The right rev. Prelate is aware that this Bill was drawn up after reference to a Committee upon which both he and I sat. The matter was most carefully gone into. All the points which he has mentioned were very fully considered, and we came to the decision that the clause should appear as it does now in the Bill. On the Second Reading of the Bill, which I supported in this House, I went so far as to say that it interfered very little with anybody's rights. The person whose rights are interfered with under the Bill is the patron. At present he can do as he pleases as to consenting to a union. The Bill proposes that a committee should make a local inquiry, that three Commissioners should be appointed, and that the patron or patrons, from whom alone any right is taken, shall be able to nominate one of the Commissioners to deal with this matter. It seemed to me that that did justify one in saying there was very little interference, because the patron was so well represented upon the body of inquiry. For those reasons I trust your Lordships will leave the Bill as it is, and I cannot feel that the right rev. Prelate will have much to complain of if his Amendment is not accepted.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.