§ THE LORD ARCHBISHOP or CANTERBURY moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House 4 do direct that the Clerical Disabilities Act, 1870 (Amendment) Measure, 1934, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. The most reverend Primate said: My Lords, let me say at once that the desirability of this Measure has been fully affirmed by the Bishops and clergy in both Houses of the two Convocations. There was indeed some difference of opinion in the Upper House of Convocation of Canterbury, but when the Measure itself was presented after careful consideration by a Committee to the Church Assembly it passed the stages both of general approval and of final approval without a division. The Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament has recommended that it should proceed and I understand that it has been approved in another place. I think therefore it may be regarded as uncontentious. That fact does not absolve me from the duty of giving a full explanation of its objects and provisions, but I hope its uncontentious character may render it unnecessary for me to make that explanation either long or tedious.
§ Your Lordships are aware that, I think quite rightly, persons in holy orders in the Church of England are subject to certain civil disabilities. They cannot become Members of Parliament, they cannot follow any other profession—the bar, the law, or medicine. They cannot engage in any other business except teaching, or farming a limited number of acres (that is intended to enable them, if they are rash enough, to farm. their own glebes). Otherwise they are subject to these disabilities. It came to be recognised that certain circumstances might arise in which a man might reasonably claim that relief from those disabilities should be given. Accordingly, from 1864 onwards there were prolonged discussions on the matter in Convocation. Three principles seemed to have been recognised: first, that there should be no question as to what is called the indelibility of holy orders, or the possibility of these orders themselves being relinquished; secondly, that it should be possible by some approved procedure to enable a man to relinquish the exercise of those orders; and thirdly—a point which I would ask your Lordships to note—that some provision should be made by which, with due safeguards and for good reasons, a man who had relinquished the exercise of his orders might be permitted to resume it.
5§ Accordingly an Act, the Clerical Disabilities Act, 1870, was passed. It made provision, under due procedure, by which a man in holy orders could execute and have enrolled a deed of relinquishment of the exercise of those orders, but the Bill originally contained a clause, Clause 7, to which I invite your Lordships' attention. That Clause 7 provided that any person who had executed a deed of relinquishment and desired that it should not be made final could petition the Archbishop, and the Archbishop if he thought fit could cause a. deed of revocation to be similarly recorded, after which the person would become to all intents in law as if he had not executed the deed of relinquishment under the Act. When the Bill came before your Lordships' House in 1870, on the motion of the then Bishop of London that clause was struck out, doubtless because the Bishop persuaded your Lordships to feel that there was a danger lest, if that clause were passed, the clergy should feel at liberty to give up and resume as they pleased the exercise of their orders. The Amendment was agreed to with great reluctance by the House of Commons, and the Bill was passed without the clause.
§ The situation then was that it was clear that no question of the relinquishment of holy orders arose, only the relinquishment of the exercise; yet the law made no provision whatsoever by which a person who had executed a deed of relinquishment could resume the exercise of his orders. There was no prohibition in the Act, and that is important, but inasmuch as the law made no provision for a man resuming the exercise of his orders, it was regarded as presumed that the law intended the relinquishment to be permanent. The result is that cases from time to time occur which I think your Lordships will agree involve a real hardship.
§ Let me give only two of which I have personal knowledge. The first is the case of a singularly high-minded man, well known to me, who in the most conscientious and right-spirited manner, entertaining grave doubts about the faith which he was supposed to represent, felt that he could no longer continue his ministry. He had a wife and family to maintain. He had no wish to be idle. He therefore executed a deed of relinquishment. In the course of time his faith was restored to him, deepened 6 and strengthened, and he at once desired, most naturally, that he might resume the exercise of the ministry to which but for that difficulty he was devoted. Or I may give another case of a clergyman who for conscientious reasons felt bound to join the Roman Catholic Church. Being married he had to live as a layman, but he had to maintain himself and his family. Afterwards for equally conscientious reasons he desired to return to the Church of England, but as the law stood it seemed impossible for him to resume the exercise of his ministry.
§ Now, my Lords, what is to be done in cases of that kind? The principles of the Church of England forbid such a man to be re-ordained, and the provisions of the law seem to contemplate that he may not resume the exercise of his ministry. Consequently, hitherto, when eases like this have arisen, the only thing that such a man could possibly be told is: "You have involved yourself in a situation from which there is no escape; you must abide by the consequences of your act." I think that that is a most unsatisfactory position, and it is the more unsatisfactory because if a man has been convicted by due process of moral offences, even he, by the provisions of the Clergy Discipline Act, 1892, may be restored to preferment if the Archbishop and the Bishop of the diocese allow him to be restored. Can it be just that restoration is permitted to a man who has once been proved guilty of moral offence and deprived, and denied to a man who with the most conscientious motives has voluntarily relinquished the exercise of his orders and desires to resume?
§ I think your Lordships will feel that that is a most unsatisfactory position. This Measure seeks to put it right. Of course there must be the strongest safeguards against abuse. No one would wish that the profession of a clergyman in holy orders should be regarded as an experiment, a matter which a man can give up or resume as he pleases; but I think your Lordships may be satisfied that the provisions of this Measure, which only reproduce the original Clause 7 of the Bill of 1870 and make it stronger, furnish adequate safeguards. In the first place, a man who desires to revoke a deed of relinquishment must petition the Archbishop. The Archbishop is empowered and enjoined 7 to make the most careful inquiry into all the motives and circumstances, and only after being satisfied by such inquiry is he entitled to allow the man to execute an order vacating his original deed of relinquishment. In the second place, even after that has been done it is provided that he is incapable of holding any preferment, even a licensed curacy, for a period of two years, and after the probationary period of two years he is not permitted to hold any preferment except with the consent of the Bishop of the diocese.
§ When it is considered that a man who wishes to resume the exercise of the office must satisfy the Archbishop as to his motives and as to all the circumstances and must go through a period of two years probation, and that even then any preferment must be subject to the full consent of the Bishop, your Lordships will realise, I think, that the safeguards are sufficient. No doubt this is a Measure which will only apply to comparatively few cases, but where hardship exists or injustice is done to individuals we must give heed, and moreover, certain principles must be observed. Although it is a Measure modest in character I trust that your Lordships will be pleased to direct that it be submitted for His Majesty's Assent.
§ Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Clerical Disabilities Act, 1870 (Amendment) Measure, 1934, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.