§ 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 and 2 agreed to.
§ Clause 3:
§ Power to Lord Chancellor to make rules.
§ 3. The Lord Chancellor, with the advice and assistance of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, may make rules for prescribing anything which under this Act is to be prescribed and in particular for—
- (i)regulating the place and time of the sittings of the commissioners, and as to the quorum necessary;
- (ii)the taking of evidence, and hearing by the commissioners of objections;
- (iii)the notices (if any) to be given of their sittings to the incumbents, patrons, churchwardens or other persons interested, and the service of such notices;
- (iv)the filling of vacancies in the number of commissioners, and the time within which the commissioners are to make their report;
- (v)the payments (if any) to be made towards the costs and expenses incurred in the matter by any Bishop or by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, or by the commissioners or the persons appearing before them;
- (vi)the registration and inspection in the diocesan registries or elsewhere of Orders in Council made under this Act;
- (vii)the fees to be paid to diocesan or other officials; and
- (viii)generally as to all matters and things incidental to or connected with the holding of local inquiries and the publication or registration of draft schemes, schemes, or Orders made under this Act.
§ THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH moved, in paragraph (viii), after the word "inquiries," to insert "appeals to His Majesty in Council." The right rev. Prelate said: it is quite plain that if there are to be appeals it is necessary that provision should be made, and that the Lord Chancellor should make rules accordingly.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 17, after ("inquiries") insert ("appeals to His Majesty in Council").—(The Lord Bishop of Norwich.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 4:
§ Bishop to transmit report of commissioners to Ecclesiastical Commissioners who are to propose scheme.
§ 4.—(a) The Bishop receiving a report under this Act shall cause the same, or a copy thereof, to be transmitted to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who shall, if the report shall recommend a union, and if the Bishop of the dioceses or the Bishops of the dioceses affected shall signify in writing his or their approval of the report, but not otherwise, cause to be prepared a scheme based upon the terms recommended for effecting the proposed union, which scheme may, with the assent of the Bishop of the diocese or the Bishops of the dioceses affected, embody any modification of the proposals.
§ Draft scheme to be published locally.
§ (b) Drafts of such proposed scheme shall be published locally in the prescribed manner, and also be transmitted in the prescribed manner to the patron or patrons affected, together with a notice in each case requiring any objections to such draft scheme to be stated or transmitted in writing to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners within the prescribed time.
§ Ecclesiastical Commissioners to certify final scheme to the King in Council.
§ (c) After giving full consideration to such objections (if any), and after making such alterations (if any) in the draft, scheme as, having regard to such objections, they shall deem right, and after submitting such alterations (if any) to the Bishop of the diocese or the Bishops of the dioceses affected, and obtaining his or their consent thereto in writing, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners (unless, after full consideration, they shall think it advisable to withdraw the scheme) shall certify the scheme, and the consent thereto in writing of the Bishop of the diocese or the Bishops of the dioceses affected, to His Majesty in Council.
602THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICHI beg to move the next Amendment standing in my name, which is that in paragraph (a) of Clause 4, after the words "who shall, if the," to insert "Commissioners or a majority of the Commissions making the,"
§
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 22, after "the ") insert ("Commissioners or a majority of the Commissioners making the")—.(The Lord Bishop of Norwich.)
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI suppose it is the ordinary practice of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to act by the majority?
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYThese are not the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but the three Commissioners.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ VISCOUNT CHAPLIN moved, in paragraph (a), after the words "and if the Bishop of the diocese or the Bishops of the dioceses affected," to insert "and the patron or patrons affected." The noble Viscount said: In moving the Amendment which stands in my name I would say three things to begin with. I have not the least desire or intention to stop the passing of this Bill. I do not move my Amendment for that purpose. For what purpose I do move it I will say a little later. In the second place, with regard to certain communications that I have had by letter and personally both with the most rev. Primate and the right rev. Prelates who have taken part in the debates on this Bill, I wish to tender to them my thanks for the courtesy with which they met my appeal. But notwithstanding that, I am not perfectly satisfied with the position which will be held under this Bill by patrons, who may take, as I think justly, objection to some of its provisions.
§ May I refer for a moment to this point? What is the origin of the great majority of the benefices to which I refer. The greater part of them, beyond all doubt, have either been endowed by the existing patrons or by their predecessors, and I think we are sometimes a little apt to forget that at the present moment at all events they are as much the legal property of the patrons as anything else the patrons possess, or any one of your Lordships possess. Yet it cannot be denied that there are some very drastic provisions in 603 this Bill which might conceivably, in cases which would not be just, deprive them altogether of the property and the rights which it confers upon them.
§
In the course of the debate the other day the most rev. Primate told me that he could not understand what I meant when I ventured to suggest that a patron, if it came to a dispute before the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, would always be in a minority. I think I find the answer to that in the words of the most rev. Primate himself in the debate which took place on Tuesday last. This is what he said—
What does he mean by representatives of the Church? The Church is represented as to one part by the patron, as to another by the Bishop, and as to the third part by the Ecclesiastical Commissioner.
Those are the three persons to which I myself referred in the case I submitted last week. Is it not obvious, when we remember that one of the provisions of the Bill is that the Ecclesiastical Commissioner is to be Chairman, that the third part, as pointed out by the most rev. Primate, is directly connected with the Church. I have had dealings in days gone by with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and somehow or other—I do not know why or wherefore, and make no criticism or accusation against them—I fancy that in these matters they lean rather to the Church. It would be surprising indeed if they did not. That is what I meant when I said that where there was a difference of opinion between the Bishop on the one hand and the patron on the other, the third party representing according to the most rev. Primate the Church, the patron would always be in a minority. The most rev. Primate also said that this case was argued last year and the matter then disposed of. I have taken the pains to read the debate of last year, but I cannot see that the objections to the case which I submitted were answered then.
§
I will not delay the Committee for more than a single moment, but may I just say what my case was? I will quote what I said the other evening—
There are two parishes now adjoining.… One of them during my time was extra-parochial altogether. The other was a parish with a very good living and a very old church. The time came when I thought it was desirable that the means of religious worship and education should be provided in the parish which originally was extra-parochial altogether, and there I built a small church and a school, and not only that but I endowed a living, and there it is at the present
604
moment.… The adjoining parish contains a church of the old-fashioned description, which was much more common in my younger days than it is now.
That church, at a very considerable expense to the patron, was restored in a modern way, and made into a church which gave great satisfaction to every one. I want to know whether in a case like that it would not be fair and right that the patron should not only have a voice but an effective voice in any questions that arise. It seems to me that if it is not so he would be very hardly and unjustly treated.
§ I am told that all these matters are to be carefully inquired into and examined by the three Commissioners, before whom the patron may raise any objection he pleases. That is quite true, and if Bishops were invariably like some of those whom it has been my great privilege to know exceedingly well, I do not believe that I should have had anything to say upon this occasion. But there are exceptions to that rule, and I do not think these very drastic powers ought to be given without the possibility of an appeal being afforded to the patron who has adopted the course I have endeavoured to describe, if a case is given against him. It is not for me to say how this Bill should be altered if this Amendment is carried. I do not want to stop the Bill; that is the last thing I desire to do. But it does seem to me that consequential Amendments could be very easily introduced giving the right of appeal, under certain conditions, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council if, in cases such as I have endeavoured to describe, the verdict was given against the interest of the patron. I do not know that it is necessary for me to say anything further in connection with the Amendment which I have ventured to place upon the Paper, and with this brief explanation of my object I beg leave to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 24, after ("affected") insert ("and the patron or patrons affected").—(Viscount Chaplin.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYMy Lords, I hope that the right rev. Prelate in charge of the Bill will not accept the Amendment in the form in which the noble Viscount has moved it. I am entirely with the noble Viscount in every part of the argument that he has submitted. I want the patron, as a 605 representative of local interests, to have the fullest possible say that he can legitimately and reasonably be supposed to have in this matter. I want him to have—and I believe the Bill gives him—the full right of appeal if his interests have been in any way impaired or seriously tampered with, and I cannot help thinking that the noble Viscount has, in the first place, omitted to notice what are the powers of the patron under the Bill in having his case put from his point of view, and, secondly, that he fails to realise where the difficulty now arises with regard to patrons and how that would be perpetuated if the Bill were to be amended in the way that he suggests.
As the Bill now stands, in every case any suggestion made will be considered by three Commissioners, one of whom will be appointed by the patron. That Commissioner will have his say with the other two Commissioners as to what is to be done. When the Report of the Commission has been made it will be sent to the patron as well as to the Bishop, and the patron will have the full right to make any objection or remarks that he desires to make upon it. We will suppose that the matter goes forward against what the patron has asked for. There would then still remain, what is set forth more fully in the proposed Amendment of the Bill by its mover, the right of the patron to appeal to the Privy Council against the decision before that decision can take effect. The patron, therefore, will have all these possibilities before him throughout the proceedings; but if the noble Viscount's Amendment were carried he could, by merely declining to answer a letter—I am sorry to say an exceedingly common thing in matters of this kind—stop all proceedings ab initio.
The Bill would say, if the noble Viscount had his will, that "The Bishop receiving such a report shall transmit to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who shall, if the Report shall recommend a union, and if the Bishop of the diocese affected and the patron shall signify in writing their approval of the Report, but not otherwise," it shall go forward. Therefore, unless the patron took the trouble to signify his approval the whole thing would absolutely drop. It seems to me that the patron would only have to sit still and do nothing, and by that means he would absolutely debar the whole proceedings soon after the beginning of them. I can hardly believe 606 that this is what the noble Viscount suggests, and I should think he is really unaware of the kind of difficulties that arise in these matters. We have to deal with small parishes, the patrons of which are living quite away, and who, I am sorry to say, care very little about them. The difficulty is to get them to take an interest in the matter. If the patron were really a representative of local feeling and local life in the way that I am quite sure the noble Viscount is, in regard to the parishes that he speaks of, and where such interest as he has described felt by the patron, it is perfectly obvious there would not be the difficulty that is now encountered.
The Bishop of the diocese and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are bound to consider any representations which the patron makes, and ultimately the patron has an appeal to the Privy Council. Therefore through the whole proceedings the greatest care has been taken that the patron shall have his side of the ease considered by his representative, or himself if he desires it, appearing before the Commission to make further statements. In addition to having a representative there, later by notification in writing to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners he can bring forward the objections he holds, and also by making objections to the Bishop, and if all these are overriden he has a right of appeal to the Privy Council.
§ VISCOUNT CHAPLINAfter Clause 4?
§ VISCOUNT CHAPLINWhere does he get that?
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYIn Clause 5 of the Bill, to which an Amendment is going to be moved by the Bishop of Norwich. That Amendment sets out in full the manner of the appeal. The right of appeal is given in the Bill, but the Amendment places it beyond all possible doubt because it sets out in full how the appeal to the Privy Council can be given. All this seems to me to safeguard the rights of the patron absolutely to every reasonable extent that the patron could ask.
I feel that the noble Viscount went a little too far when he spoke of the patron's position with regard to the advowson of 607 which he is patron as being absolutely the same legal possession as the legal possession that he has of any other thing he holds. I think that the law even suggests that there are certain limitations to an absolute free right of that kind. But apart from that, it is of course the whole trust principle that we are trying at this moment to assure—that patronage is a trust and not a question of mere property—and I should be sorry if anything that went out from here seemed to show that this House regarded the power of a patron with regard to an advowson as being precisely similar to that with regard to any other property. It would be unfortunate if that phrase were to get out. I think that I have made it clear to the noble Viscount that the patron from first to last has his interest fully considered as regards power for the appointment of a Commissioner, and his power of protesting afterwards against the report of the Commissioners, and ultimately his power of appeal to the Privy Council. If we are to give him power to stop the whole thing by not answering the letter, I feel that we might as well not go forward with the Bill. I earnestly hope, therefore, that the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment.
§ VISCOUNT CHAPLINIf I understand the most rev. Primate correctly, I should go even further than he would in one respect. I would have no patience at all with the patron who did not even take the trouble to answer a letter or raise an objection. In such a case I would allow it to go by default, and I should be willing to move an Amendment to that effect if it were necessary. Perhaps I said a word too much in describing the patron's position with regard to this particular property when I said—if I did say so—that it was just as legally his property as any other property that he might possess. Of course, I quite agree that there may be, and ought to be, limitations with regard to patronage of that kind. But when the Bill was published there was not this right of appeal so far as I remember, and it is to be given by an Amendment. I only came up from the country late this afternoon, and have not had time since arriving at the House to read the Amendments giving a right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. When the Report shall recommend a union, and if the Bishop of the diocese affected shall signify in writing his approval of the Report, but not otherwise, 608 then they may cause to be prepared a scheme. I was not aware that it was contemplated that there should be an appeal after that to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That is the very thing that I asked for and suggested myself just now as being perfectly satisfactory to myself. If I correctly understood the right rev. Prelate, there is very little difference between him and myself.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYI explained that it was so in the Bill, as we believed—in Clause 5. But in case there could be any doubt about it we have made it perfectly clear in the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWEI am very glad that the noble Viscount has not persisted in his Amendment, which, as he has explained, he only pressed under a certain degree of misapprehension. I think that the remarks made by the most rev. Primate show that there is a quite sufficient appeal, which would protect the interests of the patron to every reasonable extent without giving him an absolute veto in the case of a proposed union.
There is one point, however, on which the right rev. Prelate in charge of the Bill could give me a little information. I notice in the Schedule that the Union of Benefices Act, 1860, is amended in certain respects; and if the right rev. Prelate would look at the proposed Amendment to Section 11 of that Act, I understand that where the united benefices produce a revenue which is regarded as too large for the single benefice, then, by an extension of the power which formerly applied only to the metropolis, surplus revenues may be allotted to any other parish in the diocese. That, of course, is a power that might seriously affect the interests of a patron, assuming, for instance, that both the united livings were in a single patronage and the surplus of their combined revenue was handed over to a parish, possibly in a different county, with which the patron had no connection at all.
The question I desire to ask is this. I assume that the omission of the words "of the patron or patrons of the benefices proposed to be united and of the vestries of the parishes to be affected thereby" does not prevent the final appeal, even on that point, which the patron might desire to 609 make to the Judicial Committee; and that it does not mean, as it might appear to mean, that that power is absolutely given and is not subject to appeal.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICHI think there is a good deal in what the noble Marquess says, and if at a later stage he proposed to move an Amendment in that direction I certainly should not be one to find any fault with the proposal. The union of the two small benefices might produce such an income as might be wholly inappropriate to the purpose, and in that care it seemed wise to take power to deal with it. But I have no reason to imagine that that would be done, or that any other step would be taken, in an outrageous or inconsiderate sort of way, and certainly every scheme, whatever the clauses and provisions, would be subject to the final appeal, which. I hope to move as an Amendment to the existing Clause 5.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWEIf that is so, it seems hardly necessary in my opinion to alter the terms of the Schedule. I could, of course, consider the point with some of my friends before Report if it is desirable to do so. But personally I should be quite content with the final appeal to the Privy Council.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 5:
§ Orders in Council.
§ 5. It shall be lawful for His Majesty in Council to make and issue any Order or Orders for affirming the scheme, and for uniting the, benefices and parishes proposed to be united to the extent and for the purposes recommended in the scheme: Provided always that if any petition or statement is lodged by way of protest, or any appeal is made against the scheme, or any part thereof, under this Act, no such Order or Orders in Council shall be made or issued until such petition or statement has been duly considered, or the parties to such appeal have been duly heard.
§
Amendment moved—
Leave out clause 5 and insert the following new clause:—
§ Appeals to His Majesty in Council.
§ 5.—(1) After the scheme and consent shall have been certified as aforesaid public notice of I such certification shall be given in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time, and any person who has in accordance with this Act made objection to the draft scheme may appeal to His 610 Majesty in Council against the scheme, or any part thereof.
§ (2) If no appeal is so made within the period of one month after the date of the said public notice it shall be lawful for His Majesty in Council to make and issue any order or orders for affirming the scheme, and for uniting the benefices and parishes proposed to be united to the extent and for the purposes recommended in the scheme.
§ (3) If any appeal is so made, His Majesty in Council may order and direct that such appeal shall be heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the said Judicial Committee shall make report to His Majesty in Council thereupon and may propose to His Majesty in Council to affirm, vary, or dismiss the scheme certified by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or to return the same to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for alteration or amendment and His Majesty may affirm, vary, or dismiss the scheme accordingly or return the same to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to be reconsidered as to any parts thereof.—(The Lord Bishop of Norwich.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe noble Marquess might be well advised, if he is interested in the point which he indicated a few moments ago, to consider with some of his friends the exact wording of this Amendment in relation to any claim made by the Schedule. I merely throw out that suggestion.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clauses 6, 7, and 8 agreed to.
§
EARL GREY moved to insert a new clause after Clause 8. The noble Earl said: I have been asked to move this Clause by my friend the Bishop of Ipswich. He gives me as an instance where the Clause would be useful the following. He says—
We have a scheme in Ipswich to take an old city church, with no population, for diocesan purposes; the nave to be our diocesan hall and the chancel to be a kind of Bishop's chapel for intercession, institutions, private confirmation and the like.
And in a further letter he also refers to the fact that this Amendment was suggested to him by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I believe that the right rev. Prelate in chargeof the Bill is not unfriendly to the objects aimed at in this new clause, which, there is a general feeling, would be in the direction of giving facilities. If the right rev. Prelate does not like the wording of this clause, I would not wish to press it.
§
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause:
§ "Provision as to church within united parish and not being parish church.
§ "9. In respect of any church left standing within the united parish and not being the parish church, the scheme may provide that the same, except the chancel, may, with the consent of the bishop of the diocese within which the united parish is situate, be used for any ecclesiastical, educational, or charitable purpose in connection with the Church of England."—(Earl Grey.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDONThere is not the slightest objection to this clause; in fact, there are one or two churches which are being used in this very way now in the Diocese of London to the benefit of every one.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Remaining clauses agreed to.
§ Schedule:
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICHI move my first Amendment to the Schedule. I do so as the result of the speech made the other day by the noble Viscount, Lord Bryce, when he expressed some hesitation as to the desirability of taking power to pull down churches. Your Lordships will observe that the Amendment limits the power of pulling down churches to those situate in a city or municipal borough. We are all aware that in a good many cases it may be desirable to pull down a church in a large city in order to secure the vacant space for a public garden or some other necessary object. In the country the position is different, and I readily accepted the suggestion made by the noble Viscount in the direction of safeguarding country churches. Under the existing law there is provision made for pulling down country churches, and that law will not be disturbed.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 12, after ("omitted") insert ("and the following words shall be inserted: Provided that no scheme made under this Act shall authorise the pulling down of any church not being situate within a city or municipal borough").—(The Lord Bishop of Norwich.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH moved to omit from the Schedule the 612 following word, from "16" to "sinecures"—
| Act. | Section. | Marginal Note. | Modification. |
| Union of Benefices Act, 1860 | 16 | Appeals and protests against scheme. | For "benefices" there shall be substitutel "benefice or benefices, sinecure or sinecures." |
§
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 19, leave out from ("16") to ("sinecures") in line 21.—(The Lord Bishop of Norwich.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Schedule, as amended, agreed to.