BENEFICES (EXERCISE OF RIGHTS OF PRESENTATION) MEASURE, 1931.

HL Deb 17 June 1931 vol 81 cc186-227

THE EARL OF MIDLETON moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Benefices (Exercise of Rights of Presentation) Measure, 1931, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Resolution which stands in my name was originally in the name of the most rev. Prelate. I have been asked to take charge of it in view of the fact that by it the rights of lay patrons especially are to a large extent affected, and it was thought desirable that someone who was himself a lay patron should take charge of the Motion. I confess that, at first sight, what strikes us, I think, more than anything in regard to patronage in the Church of England is the very strange, perhaps unique, position in which a patron, especially a lay patron, stands. In most of the older Churches, I think, the power to appoint to a cure of souls is in the hands of ecclesiastical superiors. In the more modern Churches the choice of the congregation decides the question. In the Church of England, I believe alone, there is in the hands of one individual, a layman, an unfettered choice as to the clergyman who shall preside over the destinies of a parish for the whole period of his life, subject to health.

Possibly no public function that any man can fulfil is more important than that of deciding who shall preside over the spiritual destinies of a parish for a prolonged period. In the Church of England the incumbent, once appointed, has a freehold for thirty, forty or even fifty years. He is practically immovable, except for such extreme cases of misconduct as would cause his retirement in any walk of life. The position is made the stranger in that there is absolutely no means by which those who live in the parish can themselves have any part or parcel in the selection, or still more in the negation, of an incumbent, or to say who is to be their spiritual superior for the whole of that period. Imagine the case of a man appointed to a parish at a comparatively youthful period of life. His views may be absolutely opposed to those of his parishioners. He may, Sunday after Sunday, preach doctrines which to them are anathema, although not entirely outside the purview of the Church, and yet he is immovable. He may be rector of a parish which changes entirely in its composition in thirty or forty years. From being a small rural parish it may become a great urban centre; yet, provided he carries on the services in accordance with the laws of the Church, though the whole conditions may change, the whole organisation may require change and the equipment may require change, he is immovable. Again, he may become infirm and be unable to deal with most of the needs of a changing parish, but provided he can read the services he is immovable.

It must be obvious to everyone that the position of a patron with unfettered choice in a case of that kind is a very responsible one. I have not the least desire to make, or the intention of making, any sort of reflection upon the general exercise of lay patronage. If it is right, that such responsibility should rest in the hands of one man, I believe that in the great majority of cases it has been exercised with care and discretion. Yet, obviously, there are eases where that result is not achieved, and your Lordships will recollect that in regard to lay patronage, as opposed to clerical patronage, you are certain in the case of a Bishop that he must have some acquaintance with a parish in his diocese, but with regard to lay patrons you have no such assurance. The lay patron may have no connection with a parish or knowledge of anyone in it. The touch which connected him or his predecessors with the parish has long since evaporated, but the power is absolutely in his own hands and irrevocable.

I am tempted to refer to a case in which I was myself the patron. I found myself with a living to give away a few months after I became a member of this House, in a county with which I had no connection, and in a parish in which I had never set foot and of which I did not even know the name. It happened that the property to which the advowson was attached had been sold some fifty years before. I did visit the parish and I did make inquiries, and I did ask the Bishop for advice; but many patrons may not desire or have the time to do that. The patronage may fall to them when they are thousands of miles away, but nevertheless they have to make the appointment. Surely, the tendency would be rather to consider whether the man proposed is in himself a good man and has done useful work somewhere else, and whether in his earlier days he has been known to the patron to be a rising man. That would be sufficient to appoint a man who may be entirely out of sympathy with the particular parish to which he is appointed. In those circumstances I really think an impartial observer will say that it is not the modification of the present system which requires to be justified, but the continuance of the present system unmodified, which would be the case if this Resolution is not passed to-night.

What does the Measure do? To my mind it appears to be an extremely moderate Measure. In the first place the vacancy must be made known to the parochial church council. The parochial church council have then the right to lay before the patron—and surely nobody can question that that is fair—their view of the needs, the conditions, and the traditions of the parish. When the patron makes the proposed appointment the parochial church council, through the churchwardens, have the right to object to a particular name, but they have not the right to propose another name, which would be, I think, an objectionable right, to give them, because it is obvious that the objection to one man might come from a desire to take somebody else known to persons there. It would be in effect transfer of the right. It may be that at that stage agreement would take place, and if it does not there is an appeal to the Bishop, and the Bishop, if either party desires it, is bound to consider the case with the assistance of a panel of four laymen and four clergymen. If again the Bishop, with that assistance, fails to justify the patron's selection, the patron has an appeal to the Archbishop, whose decision is final. These are safeguards which surely ought to be a sufficient guarantee that the patron's views will have the fullest consideration which can possibly be given to them.

It is objected that it is hard upon a clergyman that his character should be made the subject of this prolonged investigation by various bodies. My Lords, this is a red herring drawn across the trail. It is not a question of the clergyman's character but of his suitability. The clergyman's character can now be called in question and dealt with by the Bishop. The clergyman's suitability cannot be called in question at all, and it is only those who are anxious to oppose the Measure who have, I think, taken this point so very strongly. The real danger we are dealing with is simply this, that a man who is perhaps of unblemished character may be unsuitable for the particular parish to which the patron proposes to appoint him. That is a point on which I venture to say that in these rapidly moving days it is almost impossible to put up an argument, to say that it should be the right of any one man to charge any parish for a great number of years with a spiritual head whose views happen to be for any reason at variance with those of the parishioners or whose suitability on other grounds is not applicable to that particular parish.

What are the objections that have been raised? I think I may summarise them on two grounds. There is great suspicion in some quarters as to the interposition of the Bishop. I cannot see how this very carefully guarded Measure provides any justification for that at all. The Bishop is brought in as an arbitrator and peacemaker. If he is not fit to be arbitrator and peacemaker between the patron and the parishioners then I do not think he is fit to be a Bishop at all. He is not master, he has got to sit with eight persons to assist him. He is not even the final arbiter in the matter, the Archbishop is the final arbiter. And if you take the circumstances of an episcopal church, if you have regard to the knowledge which every Bishop ought to have, and probably has, of the parishioners within his diocese, I submit that a more proper selection than the Bishop to fulfil the particular functions which are proposed for him in the Measure could not possibly be made.

But there is also a very strong objection in some quarters on the ground that men of extreme views in the Church will unite to get their own particular men put into parishes, and especially there is the feeling expressed in many quarters that this will give a great stimulus to the Anglo-Catholic Party in the Church. I am not a member of the Anglo-Catholic Party and in the cases which I propose to mention as briefly as I can I am not concerned in the slightest degree whether the Measure will advantage one party or another. I fail to see how it could advantage the Anglo-Catholic Party because if eminent persons or a large body of men of strong Anglo-Catholic opinion combine to propose such individuals for particular cures, the very fact that this Measure is passed will enable the parishioners to defeat them, which otherwise they would not be able to do.

Now, let me ask your Lordships to consider whether such cases as these I am about to describe should be allowed to go on. I am quoting from the last issue of the Church Times. Here is one ease—a rectory, near the Port Sunlight works, in the gift of the Rector of Bebington. I will read the extract: Here there had been sound Catholic teaching over a number of years. The first nominee to be preferred by the Church Association rector of Bebington was a priest who, during the Prayer Book controversy, was joint-secretary of the 'Protestant Parsons' Pilgrimage.' The war memorial—a Calvary in the churchyard—was decried. Daily Eucharist, vestments, sung Eucharist on Sundays were abolished, and evening Communion introduced. Even turning to the East at the Creed was forbidden. The present incumbent, appointed in 1927, was formerly a district secretary of the Bible Churchmen's Missionary Society. I do not suggest one single word against the character of that person, but it is quite obvious that his views are absolutely opposed to those of the parishioners if that is a fair statement of the case.

Take a second case which is going on at this moment. It is described as a well-endowed benefice in the Diocese of St. Albans. The population is 1361. … The services have been of a 'moderate' type. … The living is in the gift of the widow of a former rector. A short time ago she informed the Bishop of St. Albans that she intended to transfer the benefice to the Society for the Maintenance of the Faith. … The Bishop informed the churchwardens.…. —following Section 2 of the Measure which was passed— and in consequence a meeting of the parochial church council was held on Tuesday, at which the following resolution was carried unanimously: 'That this Council hears with regret that the patroness proposes to transfer the advowson of the benefice to the Society for the Maintenance of the Faith. The Council would regret the transfer of the advowson to any society that has for its object the promotion of any particular school of thought within the Church. … The Council therefore implores the Bishop, in order to avoid any disturbance in the religious life of the parish, to suggest to the patroness the great need of sympathetic understanding of the feelings of the parishioners in this matter.' Both those cases prove that the rights of the parishioners will be absolutely disregarded, and increasingly disregarded, if it becomes the object of those who are interested in certain views in the Church, on either side, to get hold of benefices, and to put into them clergymen of an utterly different point of view.

Therefore, I ask your Lordships to consider the Measure from this point of view: it is no use denying, especially as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, has given notice of the Motion of rejection, which appears on the Paper, that a legal right on the part of the patron is being modified. But I do protest against the suggestion that, because a legal right is being modified, a question which is one of administrative discretion should be made the subject of judicial trial. It is not a question of trying a man, it is a question of a discretion as to his suitability. I think anybody who considers the question without prejudice will hold that the present position, the unfettered discretion of the patron, is anomalous and indefensible. The modifications proposed are simple; although they would be effective they are not unreasonable. I cannot but feel that, as regards the clergy themselves, if other Churches find no difficulty in obtaining ministers who are willing to submit themselves to popular examination, and even a popular vote, the clergy of our Church need not fear such a proper and modest consideration of their suitability as is involved in the procedure by the Bill.

I earnestly trust that your Lordships will vote in favour of this Resolution. If you should decide to shelve the Resolution, the effect, I think, would not merely be that we shall go back on the opinion of the Church Assembly after many months' consideration: we shall strike a blow at all progress in the Church of England, and we shall for ever, or for a long period, accentuate one of the worst features of the Church of England—namely, a system which is calculated to promote those very divisions which, in the interest of true religion and virtue, the National Church is appointed to discipline. I beg to move the Resolution of which I have given Notice, and I have every hope that your Lordships will give it your support.

Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Benefices (Exercise of Rights of Presentation) Measure, 1931, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Earl of Midleton.)

LORD ATKIN

My Lords, I have to propose that this Measure be not presented, but in doing so I find myself very far removed from the position which the noble Earl has visualised. I do not object in any respect to the principle that it is desirable that the parish should have some further voice in the selection of the incumbent. It appears to me to be an admirable proposal, and if the Church Assembly has agreed to it, I should have thought that nobody could object to it. The noble Earl suggested two grounds for opposition. One was distrust of the Bishop. I see a bevy of right rev. Prelates sitting opposite me, and I may say with sincerity that I have no distrust of them either singly or as a body, but I think I shall be able to point out that in the discharge of their important duties in connection with this particular proposal it is desirable that some safeguard should be added in the interests of the clergy.

The other ground of opposition is the fear lest one party should control the Church. As to that I have no views or predilections one way or the other. I do not stand here at all to deal with any of those unfortunate differences that arise in the Church. I would not have placed this Motion on the Paper if I were not satisfied that, in the result, the proposal in its present form may work grave injustice to the beneficed clergy. In some respects I think it may work injustice to the patrons, but I am free to confess that I should not have troubled myself on this matter had I been considering the interests of lay patrons alone. It is simply in the interests of the beneficed clergy that I wish to call your Lordships' attention to what appear to me to be grave defects in the Measure. What it does is to destroy the effect of the safeguard that has protected the clergy from attacks upon their character from time immemorial, and it exposes them now to having their careers ruined by decisions as to their character and conduct where the nature of the aspersions on their character are secret and unknown to them, and where they have no opportunity of meeting them. If I make that good, I think I can satisfy your Lordships that this is a Measure which ought to be sent back to be amended so that those objections cart be withdrawn. It is quite an easy matter to modify it, and I do not think your Lordships will for a moment consider that this Measure ought to go through if I make good that position.

Before I go into details, may I remind your Lordships of the extreme importance and wide operation of this Measure. I have taken some figures from official figures provided by the Church authorities in their report and I will give them roughly. Roughly the figures are something of this kind: There are 14,000 benefices in the two Provinces. Roughly 1,000 of those are in the gift of the Crown, but rather, I will not say to the annoyance but to the objection of the promoters of the Measure, the Crown has not consented to be bound by it. There are 3,000 in the gift of Bishops. The whole of the remainder are in the gift of private patrons and will be the subject of this Measure; that is, roughly 10,000. Of that 10,000, something under 3,000 are in the gift of different bodies, such as capitular bodies, deans and chapters, a good many are in the gift of incumbents who are incumbents of other Churches, and nearly a thousand or so, though not quite I think, are in the gift of colleges and Universities. All those are subject to the provisions of this particular Measure, so that it is very far-reaching. Therefore, out of the possible 13,999 benefices to which an incumbent might be appointed, he has in respect of 10,000 of them to run the risk of this Measure.

Your Lordships are well aware that the consequence of private patronage is that incumbents are moved from one diocese to another, from one end of the country to another, very often to parishes that have never seen them and know nothing at all about them. The old law as to the selection of a clergyman was undisputed and has remained undisputed up to the present time. The patron had the right to present him to the Bishop and the Bishop had only the right to refuse to institute him—your Lordships kill bear in mind the difference between presentation by the patron and institution by the Bishop—on certain well defined grounds. Questions of belief would enter into it, but the questions that are important now are lack of learning and bad character. If the Bishop refused to institute him, he had to show cause and state his reason definitely for that non-institution in a suit which could be brought either in the Ecclesiastical Court or in the temporal court. In 1898, which is not very long ago, that position was modified and the reasons for refusing to institute were extended. It was thought desirable that the Bishop should have power to refuse to institute for other reasons than bad character alone—for physical and mental infirmity, for financial embarrassment and also for conduct which might have fallen short of conduct which would have justified refusal to institute previously.

When Parliament introduced those modifications in 1898 it was very careful to protect the patron and the parson. It provided that if the Bishop refused to institute on any of those grounds, he must state his reason to the patron and to the parson, and that either of them could claim to have the charges disproved if they chose to disprove them before a Court consisting of a Judge of the High Court and the Archbishop in which the Judge's findings of fact were final and conclusive. The Court was a Court of Record and the proceedings were to take place in public. Those precautions which were put in for the very purpose of enabling the parson to maintain his right not to be deprived of a living except on cause shown, where he knew what the cause was and could defend his character in public, have been removed by this Measure. I have to make good to your Lordships that all that has gone under the provisions of this Measure, and I venture to think that if I satisfy your Lordships of that you will consider that the Measure ought to be rejected at present in order that it may be amended.

I think I can make good a still further point. That is, that not only is that the true position under this Measure, but that it was not understood to be the true position in the Church Assembly when the Measure was passed, and that the Measure went through in the mistaken belief that questions of character did not enter into this Measure at all. Indeed, there was the same misapprehension, if I may say so with great respect, as was expressed only ten minutes ago by the noble Earl who made the Motion. He stated that character was not in question but only suitability. May I try to make that good from the Measure itself? Your Lordships have heard that in the first place the parochial church council may make general representations to the patron without mentioning the name of a particular clerk—apparently a most excellent proposal, confined to the "conditions, needs, and traditions of the parish," and probably quite sufficient to meet the whole needs of the situation. Then a patron has to be allowed to exercise his patronage unless the parochial church council pass a resolution that the provisions of the Measure are to be complied with and inasmuch as unless they pass such resolution they have no voice in the selection of their incumbent at all, the probability is that they always will do that, or will do it in the great majority of cases. Then what is to happen? The patron is not to exercise his right of presentation unless he has conferred either personally or through a representative with the churchwardens acting on behalf of the parochial church council.

At that stage the patron is consulted as to the person he proposes to present, and it is quite certain that the churchwardens will not be satisfied, if they made any inquiry at all, until they know the name of the person who is going to be presented to them by the patron. I presume if they have not heard of him the churchwardens will ask for a little time to make inquiries, and I suppose they will thereupon proceed to report the matter to their friends in the parish and ask what they know about this man. I should imagine that inquiries are addressed to the parish where the incumbent lives, to friends and so on in the parish, in order to ascertain what they do know of this man and his wife and family. Thereupon the churchwardens are either satisfied or not satisfied. I do not pause to deal with the difficulty that arises by reason of the name of the proposed incumbent being bandied about in the parish. There have been objections made by the clergy throughout to such a thing taking place, and I understand that for that reason the representatives of the clergy in the Church Assembly have continuously and firmly refused to allow a representative of the parish to sit on a patronage board in cases where a patronage board is constituted. But I am only dealing now with the question of the Bishop.

If the parish are not satisfied, and the churchwardens are not satisfied, then comes the appeal to the Bishop and the provisions in regard to that matter are these. The patron shall be entitled to exercise his right of presentation after obtaining the Bishop's approval of the clerk presented as being suitable for the duties attaching to the cure of souls in the particular benefice concerned, and no presentation shall be valid unless such approval has been given. What is the position of the Bishop? He naturally makes his inquiries. He is not hearing an appeal from the parish merely on points and objections made by the parish. He naturally has to inform himself about the suitability of the man. I presume he makes inquiries in the ordinary course from the people who know the man in his parish, which may be in a distant diocese some considerable way off, and it almost necessarily follows that that information, if it is to be obtained at all, is given confidentially by people who say: "Well, we know something about him but I do not want my name to be used." The Bishop may become acquainted, in cases of that kind, with all the tittle-tattle that from time to time unfortunately does surround an incumbent of a country parish.

The man may be unfit, and if so it would be of course quite right that he should not be appointed, but he may be said to be unfit when he really is fit. There may be charges made against him, as there have been made in the past and will be made in the future against beneficed clergy, which are quite unfounded—charges that the man drinks, charges that the man has been a bad character, charges that the man has had illicit relations with a woman, charges that he uses bad language, even a charge that he swears at a lawn tennis party, which was not very long ago the subject, I think, of censure on the part of a clergyman. But whatever the charges are, it may be said: "He is a very good man, but, either mentally or physically, he is not as strong as he was." It may be said: "He is a very good man, but, unfortunately, his pecuniary position is not very satisfactory, and we hear he has been to moneylenders." It may be said: "Be is a very good man, but do you know his wife?" which is not at all an unusual criticism to make of a clergyman, and she would make the appointment quite unsuitable for the parish.

When those matters come before the attention of the Bishop, what has he to do about them? He is obliged to take them into account. And in respect of those matters, if he has confidential information to which he attaches importance that a man is a person whose character or whose physical or financial position is unsatisfactory, the Bishop not only may, but as I venture to suggest to your Lordships, is bound to consider it when he is considering the question whether that man is suitable to the duties attaching to the cure of souls. If he hears that a man is a drunkard could he possibly pass him as suitable for the cure of souls? The noble Earl seems to suggest that that can be settled afterwards, at this trial before the Bishop and the Archbishop. No Bishop in the world would do such a thing. I do not think he would be justified in doing such a thing, because, obviously, if he had approved after those charges had been made it would be said of him afterwards: "Either you did not believe them, or you ought not to have passed the man at all." Therefore, the question of the character of a clergyman comes in.

Now, it may be quite right that those inquiries should be made. At the present moment I am not suggesting it is not right, but there is not a single provision in this Measure that those charges, if brought to the knowledge of a Bishop, should ever be communicated to the parson himself, or that he should have any opportunity of meeting them, and the result would be that this decision as to approval or disapproval would go through on confidential communications not communicated to the parson, and without his having an opportunity of being heard. I suggest that is in conflict with every principle of British justice. It is a complete annihilation of the existing law protecting the parson, and I suggest to your Lordships that it would be most improper that your Lordships' House, who, after all, sit here to protect the rights of individuals such as the beneficed clergy in matters of that kind, to allow the Measure to go through in its present form.

With great respect, I am not asking your Lordships to reject some great reform which will throw back the position of the Church of England for untold ages, such as the noble Earl suggested. All that is necessary is that this Measure should go back for the purpose of removing these blots upon it, which work injustice to the parson, and that it should come forward again relieved of them. I ask your Lordships with still greater confidence to do that, because I am satisfied that the Church Assembly never for a moment thought that that was the position. I have read very carefully the debates on this Measure and I expect that I am now probably as familiar with them as a good many of the right rev. Prelates opposite. I find again and again the Church Assembly advised by people on whose advice they have a right to rely that the only question here involved, as the noble Earl said, is suitability, and that character is not involved in the matter at all. Character, it is said, can be dealt with under the existing law and there is a clause that protects the law relating to institution and would protect the provision about which I have told you under the Benefices Act.

But the point of what I have been saying, if there is anything in it—and I challenge any lawyer in your Lordships' House or elsewhere to dispute it—is that the question of character enters into consideration of approval before presentation. Presentation is invalid unless there is approval, and the result is that the provisions of the Benefices Act will only arise on objection to an otherwise valid presentation. I think it is sufficient that the noble Earl said the same thing. I have the greater confidence in saying this because it happens that about six months ago, being much moved by this difficulty as I feel it, this violation or possible violation of the principles of justice, I wrote a letter to The Times pointing out what was the objection. I was countered by a letter from a dignitary of whom I speak with the greatest respect—the Dean of Westminster, Chairman of the Committee which had to deal with the promotion of this Measure. He said: "Ah, but Lord Atkin's objections have been raised over and over again in the Church Assembly and have been met over and over again in the Church Assembly by pointing out that the law has not been altered and that the question of character can be dealt with under the existing law." I venture to say that that was a complete misapprehension of the true position.

Then what remains? It is said there is to be an appeal to the Archbishop. If ever I were in trouble and could appeal to the Archbishop, I should know that I should get the most admirable attention and I could appeal to no better body. But there are two things to be said about that, and I say them with great respect to Bishops and Archbishops. It is a very old tag, but it is none the less true in these days, that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. It does not do to give unlimited powers to anybody—Bishops or Archbishops or Judges—unless there are proper safeguards for seeing that the people are properly protected. No Judge is allowed to deal with a question unless he hears both sides. The noble Earl said the Bishop would be an arbitrator between the patron and the parochial church council. Have you ever heard of an arbitrator who did not hear both sides, or who did not allow the parties to know what was the particular charge on which he was arbitrating?

There is one other point I want to make with reference to the appeal to the Archbishop. A man may be rejected for one reason by the parish and the Bishop may have rejected him for another reason, neither of them known to the parson. Then it is suggested he should go to the Archbishop. If the Archbishop decided in favour of the man it would put him in the unfortunate position of going to a parish which had rejected him. I should think that man would much prefer to stay where he was rather than even appeal. Those are some of the reasons which have animated me in suggesting that this Measure should be taken back. It was a proposal that was made, I was glad to see, in The Times newspaper when this matter was called attention to six months ago, and I only wish that it had been taken back for amendment then. It is perfectly possible to amend it. Amendments were suggested from time to time in the Church Assembly and, as I said, it is a particular injustice which, to my mind, has crept into this Measure inadvertently and through a misunderstanding of the true effect of the proposal. Your Lordships sit here, as I say, to protect persons like the beneficed clergy, to help to secure the ordinary rules of justice. It is as a Judge that I have been interested in this matter and I do venture to suggest that inasmuch as the true principles of justice are violated by the actual proposals in this case, until they are amended a Measure such as this should not pass.

LORD WARRINGTON OF CLYFFE

My Lords, would your Lordships hear a few words from me in answer to what has been said by my noble and learned friend Lord Atkin? I should not trouble your Lordships except that I happen to be at the moment the Chairman of the Ecclesiastical Committee before whom this Measure came and I was the author of the draft of the Report which was adopted by that Committee. I say with some hesitation, but I do say, that I think my noble and learned friend has not truly apprehended the duty which in this case is to be imposed upon the Bishop. There is a radical distinction between presentation and institution. It is presentation with which this Measure deals; it is institution with which the Benefices Act of 1898 is concerned. The Measure expressly provides that nothing shall affect the existing law as to institution. That is to be preserved, and one must always bear that in mind. There is this distinction also between those two. The candidate selected by the patron for presentation, until he has received a valid presentation from his patron, has no legal right whatever so far as the benefice is concerned. The patron has absolute liberty at any time if he pleases to change his mind and appoint somebody else. When the man has received a presentation, then, he has a legal right to be instituted to the benefice unless, and until, some disqualification for the holding of a cure of souls is established, and in that case it has to be established before the particular tribunal which is provided by the Benefices Act.

There is another thing that is especially to be noted, and it is this which I venture to think my noble and learned friend has not quite accurately put before your Lordships' House. The reason given in the Measure for the approval by the Bishop of the candidate presented to him is the suitability of the candidate for the cure of souls in the particular benefice concerned. It does not concern his general suitability for the cure of souls in any capacity in the Church. It is confined to his suitability for that particular parish, and you ought to take that expression of what it is that is to guide the Bishop's approval with the fact that the first thing that has to be done when the vacancy is declared is that there should be prepared in the parish a statement of the conditions, needs and traditions of the parish, a copy of which is to be sent to the patron and to the Bishop; the obvious intention being that those two provisions are to fit in together, that information is to be given as to the conditions, needs and traditions of the parish and that on that the opinion of the Bishop is to be founded.

LORD ATKIN

I am very sorry to interrupt my noble and learned friend, but does he suggest that, if the person presented had, for instance, been convicted of drunkenness, the Bishop could not consider that as a question of suitability?

LORD WARRINGTON OF CLYFFE

I think you will see that I have not forgotten that that may have to be considered, apart from the other objection to which I have already referred. The Benefices Act, on the contrary, does contain a list of disqualifications which, if established, would reflect upon the character of the candidate for institution and upon his suitability to hold any office whatever in the Church. That is perfectly general and is not confined to the particular benefice in question. In that case it is obvious that it is his character that is attacked and that it is just that the question should be tried by a tribunal. Provision is made by the Act accordingly.

Now I come to the practical question. Let us see what is really likely to happen. In the first place, it is extremely unlikely that the patron would wish to present any person against whom any such charges as those specified in the Benefices Act were made, or, if he presented him in ignorance, to persist in that nomination after he knows of it. But of course it is quite possible that the patron might still persist in pressing for the presentation of his candidate, and the Bishop will then have to consider what position to take up. What is he to do? I am speaking in the presence of a large number of right rev. Prelates, and I therefore speak with great diffidence in touching upon what seems to me should be the course the Bishop would pursue in particular circumstances. The difficulty might arise in one of two ways. If the charge against the man's character, a charge contained in the list specified in the Benefices Act, 1898, is the only suggestion of unfitness on the part of the candidate, then I think the obvious course for the Bishop to pursue, the course which would do justice to the candidate, would be to allow the presentation to go through, reserving to himself the right to oppose the institution—a right given to him by the Benefices Act, 1898. That would leave the man's character entirely unblemished, so far as the proceedings under this Measure were concerned, and it would leave that question to be settled by the proper tribunal under the Benefices Act.

The more difficult question, I quite admit, arises if charges against character are mixed up with, suggestions against the suitability of the candidate for the particular benefice. In that case, I admit that the only position which the Bishop can take up, if what I am calling the suggestion of special unsuitability has been made out, is quite different. He could not honestly say that he considers the candidate suitable for the particular benefice and allow the presentation to go. I think he would be compelled in those circumstances to withhold his approval, but at the same time he could make it perfectly clear that he does not accept the proof of the more general suggestions, that he does not act upon them and that he has decided the question which this Measure asks him to decide quite irrespective of any such suggestions as those. I think in those circumstances I may very fairly say that some misapprehension has crept into my noble and learned friend's mind as to the real meaning of this Measure. The real meaning, I think, is that the function of the Bishop is to consider only the cure of souls in that particular benefice and the qualifications of the candidate in reference to that particular cure of souls. I may, perhaps, just add this. I do not pre- tend to know the exact statistics under the Benefices Act, but I believe that the instances in which process has been taken under that Act are exceedingly rare. I say so with great pleasure, because it reflects great credit upon the clergy of the English Church.

I want to say just a few words, and only a few, in direct support of the principle of the Measure which is before the House. It is now eight years since there was passed by the Church Assembly, and accepted by Parliament, a Measure called the Benefices Act, 1898 (Amendment) Measure, 1923. By passing and accepting respectively that Measure, the Church Assembly and Parliament expressed their disapproval of the trafficking by purchase and sale in the cure of souls. By that Measure it was provided that no right of patronage should be transferred after the occurrence of two vacancies. Unfortunately, the unforeseen result has been that during the permitted period there has been increased activity in this traffic. Still more unfortunately, I think it is notorious that patronage has been in many instances acquired by persons belonging to or representing one or other of the two parties in the Church, with the deliberate intention of using that right of patronage with a view of imposing their own views on those parishes where, at the present moment, the views of the opposite party prevail.

I myself saw and was going to refer to the incident which was mentioned by the noble Earl who moved this present Motion. I will say nothing more about that, but on several occasions I have seen, in a paper which purports to, or rather does in fact express the views of one of those two parties—whether under the authority of the leaders thereof or not is quite immaterial—statements and items of news, treated obviously as a subject of triumphant congratulation, that such and such advowsons have during the last few days been acquired. I do not say to which of the two parties that paper refers. It is quite irrelevant, and I am not here as the advocate of or on behalf of either of those two parties. What I do urge upon your Lordships is that by whomsoever the parishioners, with their own traditions to which they have been accustomed, are threatened with the reversal of those traditions, it is but just that the very modest protection which is provided by this Measure should be given to them. I hope that this House will accept the Motion made by the noble Earl.

THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH

My Lords, I rise to say that through all its stages I have opposed the progress of this Measure in the Church Assembly, for the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord who is urging you to reject it, but I am not without hopes, as the noble and learned Lord himself suggested, that if this Measure were returned to the Church Assembly it might come back to this House in a form in which your sense of justice would approve of it. It has been before the Church Assembly in a great many forms and it has gone on improving. The last state of this Measure is very much better than its earliest state. One most important change has been made, and it is that whereas in the earlier stages this Measure was to be imposed upon all parishes, now any parish which pleases—and I think there will be very many—can contract out of its provisions.

At the same time I cannot feel that a wrong becomes a right because it only applies in a reduced number of cases. I believe that this Measure is still unjust to individual clergymen, and therefore I believe that it puts individuals into a humiliating position. If that is so it is humiliating to the whole body of clergy. At the present time we are anxious to increase the number of young men seeking ordination, and we shall not do that if they feel that they are joining a profession which is being discredited, by the movement of the Church itself, in the public mind. We have just listened to a most interesting speech, but the difficulty which lies behind that speech and all the arguments which rest upon it, is this, that it is perfectly impossible to draw a clear and sharp line between definite charges, such as can be dealt with under the Benefices Act, and charges which are not formulated under that Act and yet may very well operate in the minds of parishioners churchwardens, church councils and even Bishops.

It is said that as all this is previous to institution, and even previous to presentation, a man has no rights in the matter. I cannot hold that view. The presented clerk may not have any legal and technical right, but I believe he has the right of every Englishman concerned with an appointment to have an opportunity of hearing what is said against him and of rebutting it. To say that such a right only arises when a man has been presented, and to say that he may not defend himself unless the charge is something that can be heard under the Benefices Act, I do not believe is really accurate and true. There may be great prejudice against a man without any triable charge being formulated against him, and I go so far as to say this, that he has a right, if not a legal right, to know what people are saying and to clear himself when an appointment is being put more or less within his reach.

My Lords, you have to remember this, that you cannot get first-rate men for all the benefices in the country. A great many will have to be staffed by mediocre men, and it is a mistake to proceed upon the assumption that there are plenty of first-rate men ready to accept benefices. Some of the poorer benefices are very difficult to fill. More than that, a clergyman is at a disadvantage compared with any other professional man, for he has no other career open to him. Therefore he ought to be treated with extreme considerateness and extreme tenderness. He may not be the most suitable man. He may be said to be unsuitable for a benefice; but if you press that to its logical conclusion some of our clergy will find themselves disqualified for all the livings that are likely to be offered to them, and unable to undertake any other calling in life in place of the clerical profession, which puts an indelible obligation upon them.

And supposing a man is rejected because he is thought to be unsuitable for one benefice. Will that be secret? Will it not follow him when the time comes for him to be considered for another benefice? Of course, it ought not to. People will no doubt say: "This man was unsuitable for benefice A, but he is just the man for benefice B." But I cannot help thinking that the parochial church council and the churchwardens and others will say: "Yes, is not that the man who was rejected and whom the Bishop thought ought not to be appointed to such and such a place?" It may be frivolous, it may be wrong, but, human nature being what it is, I believe that this conviction on the charge of mere unsuitability will put a black mark against a man, and dog his future career.

The noble and learned Lord has also pointed out to us what a misfortune it would be to a man when he comes to a new parish if his qualifications and career have been canvassed beforehand, and he knows on his arrival that a section of his future parishioners are against him and wished that he should not be promoted to that benefice. Personally, I would far rather rely upon the growing public opinion—because it is growing among patrons—to remedy these unfortunate occurrences. If such a Measure is required the noble and learned Lord is quite right in saying that it could be amended by the Church Assembly along: the lines that he indicates. But, as it, stands, I think it is against the elementary principles of English justice, though it may avoid conflicting with any actual Statutes or decided cases in law.

The simpler these things are the better. The more complicated we make our ecclesiastical administration the worse it will be for the growth of spiritual life in the parishioners. There is a large number of patrons at the present time who do consult the parishioners, but who always remember that the parishioners are not always the best judges of what will be best for a parish—certainly not always those who occupy an official position in the parish. It has just been mentioned that the Amendment to the Benefices Act, 1898, was accepted in another place and accepted here. Is not that itself an extraordinary evidence of the way in which patrons are now alive to their responsibilities, and refuse to look upon advowsons as money transactions, and of the way in which they are more and more coming to view them as grave responsibilities?

The noble and learned Lord has pointed out that the Crown refuses to assent to this Measure. Why is that? I suppose the Crown is well advised in the matter and the Crown believes that it is better for the Crown patronage to be exercised as it is at present. If the Measure is really so very necessary, is it to be thought that those who exercise Crown patronage are in such a much better position than all other private patrons for learning what may be the requirements of a parish? To my mind the exclusion of the Crown itself condemns this Measure.

Now I have a further remark to make which has rather a wider relevance than the Measure which is before us. We are all aware of the position that we occupy under the Act of 1919. We cannot amend Measures in this House; they can only be accepted or rejected. The Ecclesiastical Committee do not have the case really argued before them. They can only deal with the limited issue put upon them of deciding whether the Measure is generally expedient and whether it does, or does not, conflict with the rights of His Majesty's subjects. I believe that in this House we want something else. I believe that we want a small Committee—I do not at the moment go into detail as to how it should be constituted—to look into these Measures, and see what are the weak points in them, and how they might be improved.

When that Committee has reported, then the House would say: "We must not amend the Measure, we must reject it, but, if the Church Assembly is ready to consider these amendments that we propose, then we should be glad to entertain it again." I am doubtful whether the Ecclesiastical Committee is exactly the Committee to carry out that work. When one remembers the great improvements made in this place in legislation that conies up from another place, I think that we could definitely improve these Measures within the four corners of the Enabling Act. This is a case in point. If the noble and learned Lord were able with a few others to address Ids mind to this Measure we might be able to say to the Church Assembly: "We are with you in what you are trying to do; we believe that you are not doing it in quite the right way; we believe that you are inflicting incidental injustice in a way that you have not intended, but a clause here, a provision there, would make it a good Measure, which we should be glad to accept."

I will, in conclusion, give one illustration of the kind of thing that is in my mind. It fell to my unhappy fate not long ago under one of the Measures of the Church Assembly to proceed against a clergyman in the Diocese of Norwich who, I thought, was not properly fulfilling the duties of his benefice. I could only act under the Measure. That Measure gave the man no appeal until someone else had been appointed to do his work, to be paid out of his income—an extraordinary provision, but that was the Measure. It also arranged that the appeal, when it was heard, could only be heard by a special Court, which could only sit in special circumstances. No one was to blame, but the parish was left in a state of confusion for nine months because the Measure was so badly drafted. When the matter came up before the tribunal, the Judge of the High Court who was a member of that tribunal criticised it and said that, the provisions were very difficult to understand.

As it is, the Church Assembly is constantly sending forward amending Measures. If only by some such small scheme as I suggest this House could apply its eye to the weak points of those Measures and then return them to the Church Assembly, saying: "In their present position they will not work, but with those improvements they would," I believe this House would discharge a far more effective function than merely fulfilling its limited duties under the Enabling Act of saying: "We pass it" or "we reject it." I am against this Measure but I shall be delighted to see it made to work well by some such amendments introduced into it as the noble and learned Lord has indicated to us.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

My Lords, I hope I may be forgiven if I bring back your Lordships' attention not only to the question that is before the House but also to the great interest in this matter which pervades the laity of the whole Church of England. There was no matter which so greatly interested the layman of very nearly all parts of the country during the period when what is commonly known as the Enabling Act was under discussion, as the hope that by means of it there would be some reform of patronage of such a kind as to give to the lay people of the parish some effective voice in relation to the appointment of the incumbent. I need not elaborate that further. The noble Earl who moved the Resolution laid great stress upon it and made the issue plain. Accordingly, it has been the effort of the Church Assembly throughout its whole existence to arrive at some substantially agreed measure dealing with this point.

It has been before the Assembly for no less than ten years. It first appeared as a clause in the Parochial Church Council (Powers) Measure. It was removed from that and introduced into one or two subsequent Measures, each one of Which failed because it was felt to involve either hardship or injustice to the clergy, which the noble and learned Lord who opposes the Resolution has thought to be still present in the Measure now before your Lordships' House. It is very noticeable therefore that the House of Clergy which had exercised so close a vigilance over the matter was entirely satisfied with this Measure. It is also most noticeable that in spite of the correspondence in The Times, to which the noble and learned Lord referred, no agitation was set on foot or conducted by the clergy of the country in opposition to this Measure, after the noble and learned Lord had in that way drawn attention to what in his understanding was a flaw of a vital kind in the Measure as drafted. The clergy have not been lacking in vigilance they have been watching the matter with great care, and there is every reason to imagine that they find themselves now substantially satisfied.

They have been eager to meet this natural desire of the laity that the lay folk of the parish should have some effective voice in the choice of the ineumbent. How was that to be done? The noble and learned Lord threw out the suggestion that enough would really have been secured by the provision with which this Measure opens, that there shall be a period of delay before presentation is made, during which the parochial church council may make representations to the patron. I find it hard to imagine that the noble and learned Lord really supposes that such patrons as were indicated in the speech of the noble Earl would be seriously influenced by those representations. In each case, and they stood upon two sides, they were patrons holding themselves bound under conscience to prefer to benefices men of certain convictions. It is scarcely open to them to pay serious attention to the kind of representations which for the most part they would receive.

There were two possible methods of proceeding in principle. One was either to abolish private patronage altogether or to modify it so profoundly as to abolish it in essence. The Church Assembly was clear that whatever might commend itself to a Church which was fashioning some new system for itself, private patronage is so deeply rooted in our history, so closely bound up with the position of the Church in many parts of the country, especially in our villages, and has also in so high a degree the advantage of variety in the type of patronage for which it makes room, that it was desirable fundamentally to maintain the principle. If that was to be maintained, then the only way that was genuinely open to the Assembly was to introduce some supplementary discretion alongside of the discretion of the patron. That is what has been done. A great deal of the argument of the noble and learned Lord, so far as I can understand, would collapse if he had not made the assumption that the patron would already have informed the clerk that he intended to present him. If the patron is sensible, he will do nothing of the kind. It will be entirely the patron's fault if he involves the clerk in this kind of dispute, by bringing him in that way forward in advance. He will take soundings with representatives of the parish in all probability before he at all disturbs the man in the place in which he is at present working.

I must bring your Lordship's back, if I may, to the point most rightly insisted upon by the noble and learned lord, Lord Warrington of Clyffe, upon which everything in essence turns—namely, the complete distinction between presentation and institution. What happens now? A patron very commonly consults the Bishop before he makes a presentation. The Bishop may make any inquiries he likes concerning the name submitted to him and may put before the patron any information he receives. The patron then decides whether to proceed or not. His discretion is absolute. If the patron makes the presentation, whether he has consulted the Bishop or not, the discretion of the patron remains absolute until the moment of institution. He can withdraw the presentation without showing reason for doing so up to the last minute. During the whole of that time he is open to receive representations of any kind concerning the presented clerk. It is in that process that this Measure takes operation. It definitely accepts that position and provides that where the parishioners so desire the Bishop shall definitely lay these points before the patron, having the right to prevent the presentation from being made in the last resort if he thinks fit. But at this moment the Bishop can make, and very commonly does make, representations to the patron concerning the name that is in the patron's mind. Throughout that process the discretion of the patron is absolute. If you are going in any way to protect the rights of the parishioners without absolutely invading the right of the patron, I see, and the Church Assembly has been able to see, no way of doing it except by adding a supplementary discretion to that of the patron.

That is the principle that lies behind this Measure. Therefore, the difficulties which have been outlined are difficulties with which we are already familiar in very large measure. It is often quite hard for the Bishop to determine whether or not he shall put before the patron news that has come to him concerning a man the patron thinks of presenting or who has been presented and is awaiting institution. Sometimes the Bishop may think it right to put that information before the patron, and the patron can then withdraw the presentation. He may, of course, consult the clerk in question before he does it; but he need not consult him. He may prefer that he should not bring into the parish anyone about whom such rumours exist, apart from their truth, because the canvassing of the rumours would itself be damaging to the spiritual work of the parish for which he is making provision. Therefore I am unable to see that this Measure does affect in principle the position of the present law. It does supplement discretion where there is already a discretion which is absolute, and it really makes it requisite that there should be discussion with certain persons in the exercise of that discretion at a stage which is discretionary now.

I was very glad to hear the statement of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Warrington, with reference to what he would take to be the duty of a Bishop who should receive information damaging to the character of the clerk under this process. It is quite true that a Bishop might find himself in a difficult situation if he knew that there was a charge levelled against a man of such a kind that it ought to be dealt with under the Act, and that on all other grounds he would feel bound to approve the appointment. But I do not think the difficulty is insuperable. It would appear to me that the Bishop ought in such cases to certify to the patron that he saw no ground of objection to this appointment except such a ground as ought to be considered on the point of institution. He, therefore, would allow the presentation to go forward if the patron persisted, but give notice that he would have to hold an inquiry and perhaps refuse institution, and leave the matter to be determined in the Courts.

It is quite true that you cannot bind the Bishop to do that. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, said it was quite easy to devise amendments to the Measure, and I do not doubt that the noble and learned Lord would put forward amendments of great interest, but the fundamental difficulty in amending the Measure so as both to retain what it is aiming at and to avoid what the noble and learned Lord is fearing was stated by the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, when he said that it is impossible to draw a definite line between questions of suitability and questions of character. It must be a matter of discretion, and it is not possible to give real legal limits to the exercise of discretion when the law deliberately permits discretion. At the present moment there is discretion in the hands of the patron. This Measure adds a supplementary discretion at a stage which is discretionary now. I cannot believe that the clergy who allowed this to pass in the Church Assembly in the final stage without division consider that their body is being humiliated, nor can I conceive that any young men of the sort whom we desire to attract into the Ministry are going to be repelled because extra care is being taken that they shall not be imposed upon people who are unwilling to receive them.

I recognise that there has been no objection expressed to the main principle, but only to the point which I have endeavoured to deal with. I do not think that the argument adduced by the right rev. Prelate concerning the action of the Crown is in any way relevant; and certainly we have understood that the action taken by the Crown in the matter was due to an objection to any restraint upon the Royal Prerogative and to nothing else. But, however that may be, the question that is before us is for the decision of your Lordships on the merits of a Measure which is not very lengthy and is quite easily mastered. The point on which I wish, therefore, to lay stress is this, that at this moment the appointment depends upon the exercise by the, patron of a discretion which is complete, and that the clerk has no opportunity now of defending himself against allegations that may be made to the patron. The patron may even withdraw the presentation after it has been published without giving any reason and without hearing the clerk. We are adding a supplementary discretion of the same kind alongside of that of the patron with the object of protecting the parishioners where they ask that they may be so protected. That is the whole spirit of this Measure. I believe it is its whole effect.

THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER

My Lords, I would not like to give a silent vote against this Measure. My vote might easily be misunderstood. To my mind you are aiming your blow not at your enemy but at your friend. There is no doubt a grave scandal has arisen in the Church through the transfer of advowsons to party trusts. I ask myself whether the Measure you are passing will have the effect of increasing or decreasing this scandal. To my mind many private patrons will give up their patronage. Some will sell it, many will give it away when they find the increased trouble and difficulties that it will give them. You must remember that it is often very difficult indeed now to find a clergyman to take a living. We shall have often to go not once but many times through this process of asking the churchwarden if you ask the clergyman himself first of all, as the most reverend the Archbishop of York said, he will clearly become very indignant. You will therefore first consult your churchwarden; you get his approval; you ask the man; he refuses; and again the same process has to be gone through. I am afraid that the only people who will not mind the difficulty will be the trusts, and, therefore, with great reluctance, I am forced to vote against this Measure merely because I wish to oppose the trusts. I wish to make it as difficult as possible for livings to be transferred from private patrons to the trusts, and to make it as easy as possible for private patrons to administer their patronage.

LORD BUCKMASTER

My Lords, may I be forgiven for just a few moments, if I attempt to express the difficulties that I feel in appreciating the arguments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin. I did for nearly two years exercise the responsible duty of administering Church patronage on behalf of the Crown. In those cases I realised one thing clearly, that if you appointed a man who was an Anglo-Catholic to a village which for centuries, it may be, had been strongly evangelical, you would sterilise the whole spiritual life of that place, and I realised at the same time that if I took the opposite course and appointed an Evangelical to a place that was wedded to Anglo-Catholicism, I should simply be creating strife where I desired to do something that might heal. What was the result? I made precisely the inquiries which the noble and learned Lord says are an act of injustice.

I first enquired about the character of the parish. I then enquired about the ecclesiastical tendencies of the proposed nominee. I then made the most careful inquiries I could about his character, which, it seemed to me, was as vital as the other things; but I naturally did not communicate with him. If the noble and learned Lord be right, I was doing a most horrible injustice, I was trying a man behind his back. I was trying him upon charges he knew nothing about without ever giving him an opportunity of saying a word in his defence. But that is inseparable from the exercise of all patronage. If you take the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack, he has to exercise patronage of the highest order—the patronage of appointing the Judges of the High Court and the Judges of the County Court. How is it done? Supposing when he is about to appoint a man that appears in every way a fit person to be a County Court Judge somebody says to him: "Well, he is a good fellow, but do you know he has been addicted to drink?" The Lord Chancellor is bound to make the most careful inquiries as to whether it is true and he has to form his own judgment without being able to call upon the man charged to say whether he does it or not.

I cannot see why it is worse in this case than in a case like that. If you are going to appoint to anything so solemn as the cure of souls, anything of such high responsibility as the administration of justice, it is your first duty to sift by every means in your power the character of the man you are going to appoint. I cannot understand why it is said when that is done by the only man by whom it can be done, by inquiry without bringing the man to answer a charge, it is a cruel thing to do, or why you should be denying the first principles of British justice to a man who has the right to be heard. I cannot understand that any man put forward for such a post has any right to be tried. The question is one for the people concerned as to fitness for the post he is going to fill, and this Measure, as I understand it, merely adds to existing powers the opportunity of getting what I desire always, and that is the opinion of the people in the parish to which the man is going to be appointed. I sincerely hope that this Measure will pass.

LORD MERRIVALE

My Lords, if I may interpose for a few minutes, as my noble and learned friend has spoken about Lord Chancellors and the legal aspect of this matter, there are one or two words I should like to say. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Buck-master, has said that it will be a cruel thing to bring a man to answer a charge which is made against him without his knowledge. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord has considered whether it will or will not be a cruel thing to find him unfit for presentation upon a charge made without his knowledge and without hearing him. That, to my mind, is the gist of this matter. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, has spoken of the conscientious way in which successive Lord Chancellors have exercised their duties as patrons. Every one is grateful to a Lord Chancellor who has exercised that duty, if I may respectfully say so, in the way in which most of us know the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, did, and in which Lord Chancellors have commonly done it. This is not a question of responsibility of the patron. Every patron with any sense of conscience at all will bear in mind the solemn business which is in question; that it is the cure of souls.

The question is, whether the Bishop—any Bishop—because somebody has said he does not think the clerk is fit for presentation, may put a veto upon the presentation without hearing the clerk. That is the question and it really does not need any argument to show that a public person in a responsible position in this country who has the power to deal with matters affecting the whole future of a man in the sacred office of Clerk in Holy Orders, should not exercise it in the manner which is proposed here in private. It is said that there is an appeal to the Archbishop. Nobody, of course, undervalues that, but once you have got a declaration from the Bishop where are you? You have no business, I say to your Lordships, to involve a Clerk in Holy Orders in difficulties of that kind, and the notion that this will be a private affair is to my mind one of the vainest notions I have ever heard. The parish will ring with it as soon as it is discussed, and it must he prejudicial to the man. I have ventured to say these words because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buck-master, gives his support to this Measure.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

My Lords, I am very grieved to find myself of a different opinion from the speaker who last addressed your Lordships, but as I am strongly of that opinion I should like to explain my position to him. This matter has been discussed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, exclusively on the theory that this is going to be machinery for dealing with specific charges of immorality or unsuitability of that kind—nothing else. That is not the grievance that is felt at this moment in the Church. The grievance is a very real one. At the present moment there are, as the noble and learned Lord said, in 10,000 out of 14,000 parishes at least the power of a single individual, without consulting in any way any single person in the parish, to ascertain what is the prevailing opinion in the parish, without taking any step of that kind, to appoint a man who, however excellent, may be quite unsuitable for that parish. That is the grievance, and it is a very real grievance, not a theoretical grievance.

We have all known of cases where you go into a church—I have been into such a church myself—where there is a clergyman who may be a most admirable person but who is carrying out services utterly unsuitable, obviously unsuitable, for that parish. The result is that the church is nearly deserted. Only a few people are to be found in it and the whole influence of the church is destroyed. That is happening its a number of cases all over England at the moment, and it is this grievance which we have to deal with. A case came before me only the other day. A young man succeeded to an estate which carried an advowson with it. Without consulting anyone in the parish, without consulting either the churchwardens or any of the leading people in the parish, he sold that advowson to one of those trusts that exist for promoting a particular brand of ecclesiastical procedure. In fact, he sold it to a trust which was the opposite to the general tendency of the parish. From that moment there was an agitation which went on for years until it was ultimately settled in that case by the intervention of the Bishop, I am glad to say. The people said: "It is a monstrous thing. Here, without consulting us, we have foisted upon us a clergyman utterly repugnant to our wishes." That is a real grievance and it ought to be dealt with.

This Measure comes before us after ten years' consideration by the Church authorities. The most rev. Primate told us that it comes with the approval of the clergy as represented in the House of Clergy of the Church Assembly. Surely they are not likely to condone a great injury which is going to be so humiliating and indeed so dangerous to their brethren. It comes before us with the unanimous approval of the other House of Parliament. The noble and learned Lord's criticisms were before the world, but not a single member of that House thought it desirable to raise the point in that House. That is a tremendous authority for us. We are told that we can send the Measure back and that it can be amended. The noble and learned Lord is quite confident that he can so amend it as to remove all possible injustice, and that he can do what apparently for ten years the authorities of the Church Assembly have been unable to do. He will be able immediately to draft amendments which will put the whole thing right and remove any possible objection to the Measure. I think the noble and learned Lord is a little sanguine. I think if he drafted amendments somebody could be found to point out some obscure possibility of injustice. He quite admits that we should deal with the grievance that we all desire to deal with. He desires to deal with the anomaly that at present parishioners have no voice at all in the appointment of the clergyman. He quite admits that in the ordinary case we all know of, the case I ventured to describe, this Measure would be quite adequate.

He has no criticism, but he says that it might be used in another way, that it might be used, in fact, to deprive the clergyman—this was his main point—of those safeguards which are given to him under existing legislation. It is not for me to argue that question of law, as to what the effect of the Measure may be, but one great authority has expressed the view that he is wrong and that in all cases that would come under existing legislation the safeguards provided by that legislation will still remain. But if I suppose that a definite charge—that is the case that he puts—a definite charge of some kind is made against this clergyman, he asks what will happen. The churchwardens, without consulting the man at all, are supposed to accept that charge. It will go to the Bishop, and the Bishop will accept it! All the assessors—he left out the assessors—all the eight assessors who, on the demand of either party, could sit, will accept it, and it will go to the Archbishop and he will accept it! Not one of them, in this case of a specific and definite charge, will take the trouble to have further consultation, or to consult the clerk! I can conceive many cases in which it would not be right to consult the clerk but, in the cases which he has in view of a perfectly definite charge which he ought to be given the opportunity of meeting, I cannot believe that there is any risk whatever of such an injustice as he suggests.

After all, there is surely great force in what Lord Buckmaster said just now. If you are going to give discretion, you must give discretion. There is great force in what the Bishop of Norwich said. You cannot absolutely define the cases which are really cases of administration, where it is not right to consult the proposed clerk, and cases of judicial decision where it is. You must leave that to the discretion of somebody. Here the discretion is very carefully guarded. It seems to me that, if your Lordships were now to say, not because you are against the principle of this Measure—for your Lordships are all in favour of the principle of the Measure; there is not one of you who has spoken who is not in favour of it—but because you think it might be better drafted, that there is a possibility (I think a very obscure possibility) of injustice if it is so used as it is not intended to be used by high dignitaries and after adequate advice—if on that ground you are to reject a Measure that has come up to you from the Assembly, you are really destroying the whole principle on which the Enabling Act was based.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

My Lords, I will not stand between your Lordships and the Division except for a very few moments. There are two rights in question in this Measure: the rights of the clergyman who may be presented and the rights of the parishioners to have a voice in the choice of the man who for his whole lifetime may have the cure of souls in that parish. This is a matter on which, as one who has the honour of being Chairman of the House of Laity, I say that the parochial councils feel quite intensely. They have an intense desire to be given by the Church Assembly and by Parliament a voice in the selection of the men who are going to occupy the livings in the parishes in which they work. But they have no desire whatever to do an injustice to the clergy, whom they honour and respect. The reason why this matter took ten years to go through the Church Assembly was that we were trying to adjust those two principles. Again and again the House of Clergy, who are the direct representatives of the clergy of the country, sent the Measure back to a Committee for further consideration, but at the end the very representatives of the clergy, elected by them for this purpose, came to the conclusion almost unanimously, if not unanimously, that a proper adjustment of the two rights had been made and that no injustice to the clergy would be done. That is why this Measure passed the House of Clergy and the Church Assembly without a division.

Then it went before the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament. With all respect to the right rev. Prelate opposite, the Bishop of Norwich, I do not think it is the case at all that the arguments we have heard to-day were not heard in the Ecclesiastical Committee because, unless I am greatly mistaken, Lord Atkin himself is a member of that Committee. All these arguments came before the Ecclesiastical Committee and were rejected, and the Committee recommended Parliament to pass this Measure. Finally it came before the House of Commons. What happened in the House of Commons? In a full House the Measure was passed unanimously, without a Division.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SANKEY)

My Lords, I should not have troubled your Lordships on this matter had it not been for the speech of my noble friend and predecessor on the Woolsack, Lord Buckmaster. I wish to say at once that I agree with every word that he said, and I say so for this reason. Had I been asked to pass any judgment upon this question two years ago, before I obtained any experience as Lord Chancellor in ecclesiastical patronage, I should unhesitatingly have voted on the side which my noble and learned friend Lord Atkin supports, because I think that theoretically there is a great deal to be said for that side, especially, if he will allow me to say so, in the way in which he presents, as he always does, his legal arguments. But practically the inquiries to which my noble and learned friend so much objects have to be made by those who are responsible for the exercise of patronage. They are always made and they have always been made, and I beg to assure your Lordships that unless those inquiries could be made in that way the exercise of the patronage of the Lord Chancellor would be almost impossible.

Let me come, if I may, to a second point. First and last, I am not a politician; I am a Churchman, and I am concerned—forgive me for putting my views quite bluntly—for the greatest Possible freedom for the Church of England. Therefore I am anxious to support anything that the Church Assembly does when the matter has been thoroughly debated. There may be some wide questions upon which the nation is entitled to be consulted—for example the revision of the Prayer Book, though I have my own opinion upon the decision which was arrived at in that case. At the same time, with regard to the internal administration of the Church, I believe that the Church should be allowed to exercise so far as possible its own rights in the matter.

See what you are doing. One of the arguments is that this is an injustice to the clergy. But is it? They were represented in the Church Assembly, and the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, told us how this Measure was passed. Finally, to the question of what is practical and of the right of the Church Assembly, I want to add a, third observation. I say, standing here, that if there is one thing in the Church of England at present—I use strong words—which is discreditable, it is the purchase of these livings by party trusts, and I would be prepared to run almost any risk to try to prevent and to put an end to that system. It is because I think that this Measure will enable us in some way to deal with that, and put an end to it, that I am very much in favour of it, and am prepared to take the minimum risk which Lord Atkin thinks to be involved in this Measure.

THE LORD AROHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

My Lords, I have no wish to detain you, but perhaps it is not unreasonable that as Chairman of the Church Assembly, and as occupying the position that I do, I should venture to say one or two words before the Division, if the noble and learned Lord presses his Motion to a Division. Let me say at once that this modest measure is based upon the existing system of patronage in the Church of England and, like many English institutions, it is perhaps more easy to justify in practice than in theory. I have found myself that it works surprisingly well, that the variety of patronage is a great stimulus to the diocese, and that it brings in men who otherwise might not be appointed, and is very favourable to the just independence of the English clergy.

So far as this Measure is concerned, I would be content to let things be as they are, and I confess I look with some degree of apprehension upon the new duties which this Measure will throw upon the Bishops, whose duties are onerous enough as it is. But, my Lords, let me recall to your minds, although I think after the discussion it is really unnecessary, that the system of patronage, well as it works on the whole, has two grave defects which, at present, are quite unremedied. The first is this point of the unsuitability of a man, who may otherwise be of unblemished character, to the traditions, the character and the needs of a particular parish The existing law leaves that wholly untouched. The Benefices Act, 1898, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, so repeatedly called attention, does not come within the zone of this particular problem, and it is a problem which is continually pressing. It is a problem which deals, not with good men merely, but with good men who are, if one may use popular language, misfits, out of place in the particular parish. It is precisely men of that kind, very admirable in themselves, who are responsible for the continuous friction, disturbance and unrest in the parishes of this country.

To give an illustration, I remember receiving a presentation from a most excellent private patron. I pointed out to him that the parish was one where, owing to the past, incumbency, there was need of a younger man who could get in touch with the young lads and youth of the parish. He appointed a most excellent relative of his own, so pious that I could envy his piety, but a man who was partly deaf and hardly able to walk from his vicarage to the church. In another case the patrons presented to a quiet country parish a priest who came from a town parish, somewhere in London, accustomed to the most advanced form of teaching and ritual. I remonstrated with the patrons, but they persisted. I remonstrated with the man who was presented, but he persisted, and the result was that as there was no ground upon which I could refuse to institute him, a quiet, country parish has been plunged into division, difficulty and disturbance.

These are the cases which your Lordships will have in mind if there is to be a Division, and let me emphasise what has been already said, that the need of dealing with this question is rapidly increasing and is becoming more pressing at this time. As Lord Warrington has pointed out, owing to the curious result of legislation passed by the Assembly and concurred in by this House, restricting the sale of advowsons, the price has gone down so rapidly that they have become the prey of partisans, although I hope it is a matter which will be partly checked by a Measure which you have been asked to pass. Here your Lordships are dealing with patrons who have no knowledge of the place itself, and have no concern except to see that the parson agrees with the opinions that they themselves hold. This question of unsuitability is one which cries out for reform, and brings with it the other necessary reform of giving the parishioners some reasonable voice in the choice of their own parson. I do not think I have heard anyone question the wisdom and justice of attempting to meet this other defect.

I do not myself think that the more controversial part of this Measure, in Clause 3, will be called into operation as often as might be supposed. I think there are many parochial church councils which will not pass the resolution which brings the clause into operation. I think there are others who will think it belongs to their dignity that they should put into operation this clause, in order to have a conference with the patron and give or withhold their consent to his proposals; but I am confident that in the great majority of cases the parochial church councils will be willing to give their consent, which means not merely to the appointment of the particular person whom the patron wishes to present, but to the patron making any presentation.

I do not propose to detain your Lordships while I deal with most of the criticism that has been offered. Something has been said about too wide discretion being given to the Bishops, but you cannot find means of checking unsuitable appointments without giving discretionary authority to some body of persons, and I submit that there is none whose knowledge of local conditions is greater, none whose responsibility is greater, than the Bishops, who are ultimately responsible for the cure of souls in all the parishes of their dioceses.

I will confine myself, in my closing words, to what really is the pith of the criticism which quite naturally, and in many cases quite reasonably, has been brought against this Measure. It has been said by the noble and learned Lord who moved its rejection that it deprives the clergy of existing rights—that we are taking from them some right which they at present enjoy. May I repeat that this Measure deals with the procedure which occurs before the clergy have acquired any legal right at all in the matter? It all comes in the confidential stage which precedes the formal presentation of the clerk to the Bishop, and no clergyman has now any legal right to be presented until the moment comes when he is formally and definitely presented to the Bishop. Then, of course, a very different state of things arises. The man's name is known, it is "posted" in the parish. If the Bishop decides that he cannot institute him it involves, quite obviously and publicly, the gravest possible censure, either upon doctrinal or moral grounds. And the procedure which is quite fitting for the case when a man has been definitely presented is inappropriate when you are dealing with the confidential stage, in which you are discussing whether or not he is suitable to be presented at all.

It is true—that follows on what I have just said—that the clerk whose suitability is being discussed has not the right of appeal to a Court of Law which the clerk has whose institution the Bishop has refused. Here again you remember that we are dealing with questions of opinion and discretion which are not suitable for submission to a Court of Law. There is no question within the realm of fact with which a Court can deal, nor any question of law. It is simply a question of whether or not it is desirable that a certain person's name should be submitted for presentation. I quite honestly admit that it is impossible to separate questions of moral character from questions of suitability. If there is doubt about a man's moral character of course that largely determines the question of his suitability. And it is just there that the difficulties occur. But I can only say this, as has already been pointed out, that at the present time if a Bishop knows—and he has special means of knowing—whether there are unsatisfactory features about a man's moral character, he will of course communicate it to the patron. And I should like to say here—because I think it is somewhat remarkable—that in twenty-three years' experience I have never known a case in which a private patron has presented to me a clerk whom I should have been able to refuse institution on any of the grounds specified in the Benefices Act. And I believe that almost every patron will be grateful if he is told before he has reached the stage of presenting the clerk that there are circumstances about his life and character which would make him unsuitable for appointment to the cure of which he is the patron.

If it be the case that a patron, in spite of such knowledge, persists, if it be the case even that he insists upon the Bishop consulting his body of advisers, and that therefore the matter is so far taken out of the region of confidential communications, then I would ask your Lordships this very simple question. After all, the clerk in question is only undergoing the same treatment as is meted out to every person whose appointment is being considered by any body of responsible governors or electors. A schoolmaster has his name considered by the body of governors. The matron of an institution has to be considered by the governing body of the institution. Of course, there, too, questions of character, if they are known, arise, just as much as questions of suitability. But there is no grievance felt there. I do not suppose that my brothers of the clergy are any more conscious of a grievance if, at this preliminary stage of considering whether or not men are fitted for particular benefices, they have to undergo the same risk which others undergo when they are being appointed to any office which involves the consideration of their general fitness and character and the like. And I would submit that if these questions have to be considered in regard to a man's suitability for the post, say, of a schoolmaster, they are surely the more permissible when the question is suitability for the cure of souls of the people.

My last point is to emphasise what has already been pressed by more than one speaker. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, for his espousing of the rights of the clergy.

It is a sign of sympathy of a distinguished layman for the clergy. But, after all, the real representatives of the clergy are in the Church Assembly. It may perhaps sometimes be said with some show of justice about the representatives of the laity in that Assembly that the basis of representation is somewhat small, and that the members of the House of Laity in the Church Assembly cannot be regarded as really representing the laity of the Church of England. That cannot be said of the House of Clergy, for they are the proctors elected by all the clergy of the country, and I hardly know a case where a clergyman who is entitled to vote for election of a proctor does not exercise his vote. And therefore these men in the House of Clergy are directly representative of the parochial clergy of the Church of England.

They have again and again during the long ten years contested provision after provision in successive Patronage Measures because they thought they were unfair to the clergy. At last they have reached the point at which they felt that their grievances were removed, and your Lordships will bear in mind that, if you vote, as I hope you will, for the Measure, so far from inflicting a hardship which the clergy will resent, you are passing a Measure to which the representatives of the clergy, careful throughout of this very point of their special rights, have given their approval. Therefore I hope, my Lords, that you will be ready to give this Measure your approval to the extent that you allow it to be submitted to His Majesty, for I think that, in spite of some inevitable risks involved in such legislation, it will meet the point, and I do not know how otherwise the particular point of unsuitability will be met. If it does mean here and there a risk of possible injustice to some particular individual, I would ask your Lordships to bear in mind the great need of the main principle for which the Measure stands, and therefore I hope your Lordship will allow it to be submitted to His Majesty.

On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?—

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 18.

CONTENTS.
Canterbury, L. Abp.	York, L. Abp.	Devonshire, D.
Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Parmoor, L. (L. President.)	Wellington, D.
Bath, M.	Chester, L. Bp.	Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)
Normanby, M.	Gloucester, L. Bp.	Dickinson, L.
	Lincoln, L. Bp.	Doverdale, L.
Bathurst, E.	Liverpool, L. Bp.	Ernle, L.
Grey, E. [Teller.]	London, L. Bp.	Gainford, L.
Lucan, E.	Manchester, L. Bp.	Heneage, L.
Malmesbury, E.	Oxford, L. Bp.	Kirkley, L.
Midleton, E. [Teller.]	Rochester, L. Bp.	Lawrence, L.
Selborne, E.	St. Albans, L. Bp.	Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)
Spencer, E.	St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich, L. Bp.	Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)
Stanhope, E.		Methuen, L.
Bridgeman, V.	Sheffield, L. Bp.	Noel-Buxton, L.
Cecil of Chelwood, V.	Southwark, L. Bp.	Passfield, L.
Chelmsford, V.	Truro, L. Bp.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Cobham, V.	Winchester, L. Bp.	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Cowdray, V.	Worcester, L. Bp.	Sackville, L.
Mersey, V.		Sandhurst, L.
Novar, V.	Aldenham, L.	Snell, L.
	Clinton, L.	Stanmore, L.
Bristol, L. Bp.	Cottesloe, L.	Warrington of Clyffe, L.
Carlisle, L. Bp.	Daryngton, L.	Wharton, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Argyll, D.	Exeter, L. Bp.	Faringdon, L.
	Norwich, L. Bp.	Hanworth, L.
Chesterfield, E.		Hylton, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)	Atkin, L. [Teller.]	Leconfield, L.
	Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]	Leigh, L.
Mount Edgcumbe, E.		Merrivale, L.
	Carnock, L.	Redesdale, L.
Bertie of Thame, V.	Danesfort, L.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.