CHURCH MEASURES. (Hansard, 8 December 1926)

§ EARL BEAUCHAMP

My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for giving me an opportunity of expatiating upon the criticism that I made of the Ecclesiastical Committee on the occasion to which he refers. My distrust of the Ecclesiastical Committee, which remains in spite of the defence which has just been made by the noble and learned Lord, is based upon wholly different grounds. It is based upon the ground that, in the particular case which I am about to mention to your Lordships, the Committee did not communicate to your Lordships, as I think they should have done, an important matter of fact. One of the Measures which was presented by the Church Assembly to your Lordships' House and to the other place for confirmation dealt amongst other things with repair of the chancels of the country. Your Lordships will know that in places where there is a Rector he is in charge and has the responsibility for the maintenance, care and repair of chancels. Without a word being said to this House this was transferred to the parish councils, and it is quite clear that in that way a very heavy charge was put upon those councils which certainly, in my opinion, should have received some notice from the Ecclesiastical Committee.

I forget the year in which this happened, but it is quite obvious that a vast change of that kind should not have passed sub silentio either in this House or in another place, and it, is because the Ecclesiastical Committee failed to draw your Lordships' attention to it that, for my own part, I confess that I am still unable to accord them my complete confidence. The noble and learned Lord below me [Lord Muir Mackenzie], who is now, I think, Chairman of that Committee, told us the other day that every Measure that comes before them is carefully examined. That being so, it is obvious that the Committee itself knew what was effected by this Measure and, knowing all that was being done—I will not say that they concealed it from this 1358 House, but they did not communicate to your Lordships a fact of this great importance. It is in those circumstances that I venture to say that it will be difficult for us to have that confidence in the Ecclesiastical Committee which we should like to have until we feel quite certain that they do communicate to your Lordships' House all matters of importance that come before them.

§ LORD MUIR MACKENZIE

My Lords, it is the case that I have the honour just now to be Chairman of the Ecclesiastical Committee. I was not Chairman at the time when the particular Measure passed to which the noble Earl has referred, but I recollect that we had considerable debate upon it and that great care was taken upon the subject. Members of the Committee included very high authorities in the law, and one of them, who, I am sorry to see, is not here to-night, was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wrenbury, who lately made a communication to the Press stating his view as to the scope of the Measures that come before the Ecclesiastical Committee. Personally I do not take so strict a view of the functions of the Committee as my noble and learned friend does, but he certainly was present, and I actually do happen to remember, though I was only an ordinary member of the Committee, that he took part in the discussion on that day. It is perhaps unnecessary to say that, because everybody who knows the noble and learned Lord knows the kind of attention he gives to any work with which he is concerned, and he has always taken very close interest in the Measures that come before the Ecclesiastical Committee.

I do not propose, because I do not think it is any duty of mine, to make any remarks in answer to what the noble Earl has said, with regard to whether that particular provision to which he refers went beyond the proper scope of the Committee's business, or whether it was a point that ought to have been mentioned in the Report. The noble Earl says that it was not mentioned in our Report. I have not looked up the Report and I take it from him that it was not mentioned. I do not think that the matter is of anything like the importance that he gives it, and I have not the least doubt that the view of the Committee was that, although it was a 1359 matter which concerned others besides the Church and the Church Assembly, it was not of such a kind that they, who have no power of amendment, should have thrown back the Measure altogether because it contained that provision. That is all that I think it necessary to say upon that subject.

With regard to what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillimore, I do not suppose there could be any objection to the Return, but as I happen, in my position with regard to the Committee, to be possessed of the information, with the assistance of the gentleman who acts as secretary of the Commission, I can give the information now. It will only take a few minutes and it will appear upon the Records of this House, and be available to anybody. It seems to me the shortest and simplest thing to be done, and I will read the memorandum which I have had prepared, which contains the specific answers to the questions of the noble and learned Lord.

The information is as follows:—The number of Measures that have been submitted by the Legislative Committee to the Ecclesiastical Committee since the passing of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, is thirty. Of these Measures twenty-two have already received the Royal Assent, and two have been approved by Resolution in both Houses and are at present waiting for Royal Assent. Of the remaining six, the Bishopric of Shrewsbury Measure, 1925, was rejected owing to an adverse Resolution in the House of Lords. I think the noble and learned Lord has already stated that the views of the Ecclesiastical Committee were adopted by a large number of your Lordships though an adverse view was supported by a majority of one. The Union of Benefices and Disposal of Churches (Metropolis) Measure, 1925, was similarly rejected in the House of Commons. Four Measures—namely: the Parochial Church Councils (Further Powers) Measure, 1921, the Clergy Pensions Measure, 1923, the Interpretation Measure, 1924, and the Episcopal Incomes and Pensions Measure, 1926, were submitted by the Legislative Committee to the Ecclesiastical Committee, but after communications between the two Committees they were dropped and were not submitted to Parliament for approval. 1360 Of these four Measures, three—namely, the Clergy Pensions Measure, 1923, the Interpretation Measure, 1924, and the Episcopal Incomes and Pensions Measure, 1926—were afterwards re-submitted to the Ecclesiastical Committee in an amended form, and have been confirmed by Resolutions of both Houses.