HL Deb 05 February 1947 vol 145 cc421-34

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Incumbents (Discipline) Measure, 1946, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. The most reverend Primate said: My Lords, perhaps I should begin by reminding your Lordships that if a Church Assembly Measure is to be presented for the Royal Assent, a Motion to that effect has to be passed not only by both Houses of Parliament but by both Houses in the same Session. In the last Session I moved an identical Resolution to that which I am now moving, and your Lordships accepted it. It was, however, very near the end of the Session, and the corresponding Motion never ca me forward in another place. In this Session a corresponding Motion affecting this Measure, The Incumbents (Discipline) Measure, has already passed through another place in proper form, and it is now my duty to present for the second

Divisions, but I consider that when I am representing, as I am, the wishes of a large number of people as to their future lives, I should ask your Lordships' opinion on this Motion, and that I propose to do so.

On Question: Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided:—

Contents, 10; Not-Contents, 20.

CONTENTS:
Beauchamp, E. Stonehaven, V. [Teller.] Glentanar, L.
Portsmouth, E. Hutchison of Montrose, L.
Selborne, E. Courtauld-Thomson, L. Rankeillour, L.
Fairlie, L.(E. Glasgow.) [Teller.]
Hailsham, V.
NOT-CONTENTS:
Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.) Ammon, L. [Teller.] Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Chorley, L. [Teller.] Marley, L.
Normanby, M. Darwen, L. Morrison, L.
Gorell, L. Pakenham, L.
Addison, V. Hare, L. (E. Listowel.) Pethick-Lawrence, L.
Cecil of Chelwood, V. Holden, L. Shepherd, L.
St. Davids, V. Kershaw, L. Strabolgi, L.
Walkden, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

time this Resolution before your Lordships in this House.

I am in something of a difficulty. Last October I gave a somewhat full description of this Measure, which is complicated, and it took me some little time to describe the various stages of proceeding under it. At the same time I answered one or two criticisms which had been made of the Measure. I do not wish to detain your Lordships unnecessarily by repeating now in detail all I said last October. Indeed, it is not unreasonable to suppose that your Lordships are ready without more ado to say that you have not changed your minds since this matter was before you in October. On the other hand, in another place there was quite a considerable debate upon this Measure, and a strong body of opposition to it, and it finally passed by only a small majority. For all I know, some of your Lordships may wish to raise in debate some of the many points that were raised in another place. But, again, it does not seem to me to be reasonable to make that assumption and, on that assumption, for me, in presenting this Measure for a second time, to answer by anticipation all the possible points which might be raised upon it. I propose, therefore, to move my Motion in a very few words, and very briefly to summarize what I said in the last Session; and then, if it is in order, if any debate follows, I might be able to reply to points which may be raised before the Motion is finally put.

Quite briefly, the Measure deals with those rare but distressing cases in which there is a complaint against an incumbent of serious, persistent or continuous neglect of duty, or of conduct unbecoming the character of the clerk in Holy Orders. The Measure is very largely the work of the House of Clergy in the Church Assembly, who devoted over a long period their constant attention to it. The reason why they did that is twofold: first, that they were more anxious than anybody that there should be an effective system of discipline for use in such cases; and, secondly, that the existing machinery for dealing with such cases was on all hands regarded as unworkable and obnoxious. This Measure was prepared to take the place of the Ecclesiastical Duties Measure of 1926, which in fact is now a dead letter. I think even the critics of this Measure agree that it is a better Measure than the one which it is replacing.

As I said last October, the Church Assembly have spent a great deal of time upon this Measure—something like fourteen years all told. It has been through every conceivable stage. It was referred at one time to every diocesan conference in the country, and their recommendations came back. To deal with it there was an appointed Committee of some eighty members which was the largest there had ever been in the Church Assembly. Every person who had any objection to the Measure himself sat on that Committee, so that the critics had a very full hearing in the preparation of the Measure.

To secure this end of a proper discipline in cases of continuous neglect or unbecoming conduct, the Measure contains a multiplicity of provisions and safeguards to secure three things: first, that any frivolous or unsubstantial complaint shall be ruled out before the stage of a regular charge is reached at all; secondly, that no charge shall go forward to the trial of an incumbent unless in the judgment of a ministerial committee of six clergymen, elected by the clergy of the diocese, there is a true bill to be tried; thirdly, that, so far as is humanly possible, there shall be no chance of any miscarriage of justice. The Measure is, I would say, quite strictly a domestic one, concerning the Church in its inner life and in its own discipline. Your Lordships will bear that in mind and not wish, I hope, to quarrel with it unless you see something of a public nature which should lead you so to decide.

Finally, I may say that the Ecclesiastical Committee appointed for the purpose of scrutinizing Assembly Measures did so scrutinize it at great length, and they discussed it with the Legislative Committee of the Church Assembly. I would draw your Lordships' attention to some paragraphs of their Report to this House. They say that any Measure of this nature must necessarily affect the lives of incumbents—that is what it is there to do, when an incumbent deserves dealing with—but they are satisfied that the Measure safeguards the rights of incumbents so far as is practicable, having regard to its objects. The Committee go on to say that otherwise the Measure does not affect the constitutional rights of any of His Majesty's subjects. Finally, they say—and I will read this paragraph in full: On some points of detail the Measure may be open to criticism. The Ecclesiastical Committee, however, are convinced, as a result of their conference with the Legislative Committee, that there is a real need for the Measure and that procrastination rather than improvement will be the probable result of further consideration of its terms by the Church Assembly. Accordingly, the Ecclesiastical Committee are of opinion that it is expedient that the Measure should proceed.

As I have indicated, there are grounds of detail upon which this Measure is quite certainly open to criticism. My own criticism, which I mentioned in October, is that it is so overloaded with safeguards that it will be an extremely cumbrous Measure to work. But even so, it is an improvement on the Measure which is at present the law of the land, and I would therefore ask your Lordships to concur with the Ecclesiastical Committee by confirming your previous decision in this matter, and to agree to the Motion which I now beg to move.

Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Incumbents (Discipline) Measure, 1946, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)

4.13 p.m.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

My Lords, I venture to intervene for a few moments to lend my support to this Measure, which was so clearly and cogently proposed to us on a previous occasion by the most reverend Primate. Speaking as a layman, I must say that I think a Measure of this kind is not only necessary but long overdue. There are, fortunately, but very few cases of what I may call misconduct among the priests of the Church; but where such cases do occur, then surely it is right that there should be a power to deal with them. Your Lordships' have already passed a Bill dealing with those who become senile or debilitated. That passed by common consent. There may be hardships because a priest grows old in the discharge of his office but, quite rightly, it was felt that if he could not adequately discharge his duty to his congregation he should cease to hold office. How much more right and necessary is it that the few cases of those who fall gravely short should be dealt with?

I do not think there will be any difficulty in agreeing what is conduct unbecoming the character of a clerk in Holy Orders. You can raise dialectical points on this but, from time immemorial, there have been in fact no difficulties in administering a similar standard of conduct in His Majesty's Forces. Even the Judges of the Realm hold their position quamdiu se bene gesserit. For the benefit of those on this side of the House, perhaps I may say that that means "for as long as they do not misbehave themselves." Indeed, the only persons who are not subject to such a rule are His Majesty's Ministers, and they are possibly subject to a more continuous judgment and to au even wider tribunal. But, seriously, is it unreasonable that this rule should apply to the beneficed clergy? It has been said by some that it is an encroachment upon what is called the "parson's freehold." That is an expression which I have never been very anxious to defend. When a man is appointed to a living great care is taken—and quite rightly—to see that he is satisfactory, and that he will receive general support. What is this freehold? I do not think it is a freehold. I think it is a sacred trust which he holds, and that the beneficiaries are his parishioners. If he fails grievously in that trust, then surely it is right that he should no longer continue in office.

I have only one criticism to make of this Measure. I think it is, as the most reverend Primate has just said, so hedged around by safeguards that it will be extremely difficult to remove anybody. An offending clergyman is not tried once by his peers; he is tried over and over again, as I read the Measure, by his peers and by associated laymen. He has not one chance of appeal; he has a whole series of chances of appeal. Whether it be at the polls or other tribunals, few of us have so many chances. I think this Measure is weighted in favour of the incumbent, but at any rate great care has been taken to make it fair beyond peradventure. It is not for us to criticize or amend that. What is before us to-day, I think, is the simple principle whether in those very rare cases in which a priest fails, and grossly fails, in his duty and in his trust, there should be a right to remove him. To that there surely can, in this House or anywhere else, be but one answer.

VICOUNT MERSEY

My Lords, it falls to my lot to support this Motion on behalf of the noble Lords who sit on these Benches, and I do so with great readiness.

4.17 p.m.

LORD MARLEY

My Lords, I am quite certain that the House will be in favour of the objectives of this Measure. The most reverend Primate, however, was good enough to say that he would deal with any problems in the minds of members of your Lordships' House, and accordingly I want to ask him if he will set my mind at rest on one or two matters. In the first place, I think it is not perhaps generally realized that during the whole period of its gestation this Measure has been highly controversial and giving rise to great differences of opinion. It is true that it has emerged from its fifteen years in the womb of the Church in a very much better condition than it was originally, but I must say it is hardly a recommendation that in the second half of paragraph (2) of the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee, which was quoted by the most reverend Primate, it is said: Indeed the Committee are inclined to think that the safeguards may prove in practice to be so numerous and cumbersome as to impair the efficacy of the Measure. It does not seem to be a very strong recommendation, if I may venture to say so, that already they say it may not prove to be efficacious.

The controversy which has arisen on every side in connexion with this Measure does indicate that there is a majority in almost every case who are either opposed to it, or so Luke-warm in their feeling for it that they have abstained from supporting it. It is true, as was mentioned by the most reverend Primate, that there was a very close Division in another place, a Division giving a majority of only 12 in a House, I believe, of 640 members. As a matter of fact, only about 150 members took part, of whom 86 supported and 74 opposed. In the Church Assembly there was the same problem: from the Report of the Committee it would appear that only 11 Bishops supported and 8 Bishops opposed the Measure, while 25 Bishops abstained from voting.

These are important figures. I may be wrong, but I think that shows very doubtful support in the leading and most important part of the Church. Even among the clergy there were more abstensions than there were those who supported the Measure, and the small majority secured in support was only something like 20 out of a total House of about 200 or 300. The laity were, of course, more in support, but even so there were about 120 abstensions. Again, in the diocesan conferences there were a very large number of amendments sent in, practically none of which was included in the final Measure. I think I am right in saying that thirty diocesan conferences sent in something like ninety-five amendments in all, and only six were included.

This Measure will of course go through; and I would not dream of opposing it, because I think it is a very necessary Measure. But the brief analysis I have given does indicate to the Church that it would be desirable to exercise very great discretion in carrying out the administration of the Measure, because of the doubtful support or widespread opposition. I am quite certain that the most reverend Primate, together with those who support him and the whole body of the Church, will have this in mind in dealing with disciplinary problems which will arise in its administration.

There are two possible reasons for the controversy, one of which is that protection is provided for incumbents in con nexion with social and political opinions—this is in Clause 2 of the Measure—but there is no protection provided for political activities. I think that this needs a little definition. For example, if an incumbent has political opinions, that is all right; but suppose he turns those political opinions into political actions. Suppose he takes the chair for the local Labour Party candidate or for the local Tory candidate; is that a political activity which might be used as a cause for disciplinary action? I seem to remember the case of an incumbent who used the Parish Magazine for a series of violent political attacks. Is that a political activity, and might it be the cause of disciplinary action? After all, I suppose that even Bishops in your Lordships' House are taking part in political activity, and what is most desirable on their behalf might be very desirable in the case of some incumbents. I well remember that when I was fighting a Parliamentary election the incumbents very frequently took part in political activities to the advantage of all concerned, and even myself when they were opposed to me.

The only other point on which I feel a little anxiety is the private discussion which may go on between the incumbent to be disciplined and the Bishop who, if requested in writing, may discipline him. It is very well known that sometimes in conversations there are different ideas in people's minds as to what exactly was said, and it would seem to be desirable perhaps that an incumbent, trembling at the whipping block in fear lest the Bishop will inflict upon him one of the many punishments at his disposal, may lose his head—metaphorically speaking of course, because that power is not in the hands of the Bishop—and forget some of his points. Were he accompanied by a friend of calmer disposition, in the circumstances he might perhaps be able to make his point better, and secure justice. This is, of course, important because there is no appeal provided when the incumbent requests in writing that the Bishop shall undertake the necessary disciplinary action instead of one of the other means being used.

I hope therefore—and this is the only hope I express in this connexion—that these powers will be used with great discretion. And, bearing in mind the controversial nature of the acceptance of the proposals on the part of those who were responsible, may we have an assurance from the most reverend Primate that there will be very great care taken against any great injustice in its application?

4.28 p.m.

VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS

My Lords, I would like to say a few words in support of the last speaker. I do not wish to repeat all his arguments, but I would like to ask the most reverend Primate if he would point out to the ecclesiastical authorities concerned the long list of opposers to this Measure in another place, and ask them to consider not only the arguments of the noble Lord who has just spoken but also the arguments which were there given. The last speaker did not mention one important point about the debate in another place, which was that the final vote was taken just before one o'clock in the morning, and in point of fact the result might have been even narrower if a larger number of members had been present to listen to the debate and realize what weighty objections were being offered. I would especially ask the most reverend Primate to lend his good offices in this matter and bring these points to the notice of his colleagues who have to administer this otherwise most necessary piece of legislation.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

My Lords, so far as I can understand the noble Lord, Lord Marley, I gather that his doubts as to this Measure arise on two points. First, he doubted whether this really had the backing of Church opinion, pointing out in his speech that in certain of the divisions in the Church Assembly there was a high percentage of abstentions and also a high percentage of opponents. In regard to the abstentions, I would remind the noble Lord that the time of gestation—the extremely long gestation—of this Measure, was the time of the late War, and attendance at the Church Assembly suffered in the same way as did attendance at Parliament, for reasons which I am sure he will recognize. In regard to whether this Measure really has the support of the Church, I can assure him that few Measures have ever received such careful or thorough consideration as this has.

I would ask your Lordships to remember that the Church Assembly differs from Parliament in that it is a Parliament of three Houses, whereas we are a Parliament with only two, and for any one House of the Church Assembly to decide by a majority against any point in any Measure is sufficient for that point to fall to the ground. Therefore in the Assembly you need to have a degree of unanimity greater than is necessary in Parliament, for the simple reason that it is more difficult to get three people to agree on any one point than it is to get two. Apart from that, this Measure has been referred to the diocesan conferences of England. Just consider what would happen if in the case of an Act of Parliament we were ever asked to refer it to the county councils. Your Lordships would find the delay intolerable, and if it came back from the county councils with their support your Lordships would not accept the plea that the Measure had been insufficiently considered or that it had not the backing of public opinion behind it.

The truth is, my Lords, that this Measure has been more carefully considered, I suppose, than any other which I can remember. Moreover, there is no matter on which the laity feel more keenly or deeply. We all admire and honour our clergy immensely, and I think most men feel the great strength that the system of the parson's freehold has in the past brought to the Church. That is not saying that it is incapable of amendment or improvement. The freehold of the parson, however, does lead, in exceptional cases, to devastating situations in particular parishes where a priest, either through senility or any other cause—without committing any crime, without committing any act on which you could impeach him for a breach of the law or a breach of the Ten Commandments—by his conduct forfeits that public respect which is absolutely necessary for the success of his mission.

That is the very difficult case with which the Assembly has tried to deal in this Measure. The solution is that the incumbent shall be tried by his peers, which I think is a good solution. His peers know the difficulties which face any incumbent; and indeed they are very real. There is no body of men more jealous of the reputation of the clergy than the clergy themselves. Therefore, my Lords, we laity are well content that this matter should be judged as laid down in this Measure by the clergy, and I agree with what has been said, that the safeguards contained in this Measure against any possible injustice to any individual are so full that injustice is very unlikely to occur. I can assure the noble Lord that a question such as that of taking the chair at a political meeting is not the sort of questions that the promoters of this Measure have in mind. They are matters of a very different nature, and, as I have already said, are best dealt with and best decided by the clergy themselves under the safeguards proposed by the Measure. I therefore hope your Lordships will pass the Measure.

4.38 p.m.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

My Lords, I am grateful to those who have spoken in favour of this Resolution and for the courteous way in which the noble Lord put to me a certain question which I have already in part answered. It is perfectly true that around this Measure there has been a great deal of controversy of one kind or another. It has been rather hydraheaded: the moment you hit off one head, another grew and you never quite knew where the body of the hydra was. It must be some comfort to the critics of the Measure that the Ecclesiastical Committee said that the safeguards were so numerous as to impair its efficiency, but I should not myself take that ground because I think that in necessary cases it will work. But in every great controversy there comes a time when a decision has to be made; in this country the decision is made finally by a vote, and the result of that vote is taken as conclusive. Both in another place and in the Church Assembly itself there were the necessary votes, which is our democratic way of putting a term to controversy, and I come to you with the deliberate decision of the Church Assembly that they wish this Measure to pass.

I do not think that anything is gained by inquiring as to why so many Bishops were absent, because it can be only pure guesswork. I ventured to say in October that some felt that as to some extent they would be administrators they would rather leave the Measure to the other two Houses. The really important thing is that the laity, by a majority of 81 per cent. of those present, voted in favour of the Measure; which does show the real opinion, because it is the laity who suffer when these un fortunate cases occur. May I just refer very briefly to a particular point which the noble Lord raised? When the Measure went to the diocesan conferences many of them sent in points which they decided they would like amended. Some of them were accepted. All the points—and this is the important thing—were very carefully considered, and those which commanded the general assent of the revising body were accepted. The general intention of the diocesan conferences, however, was that the Measure should go forward, after due consideration had been given to what they had to say. That due consideration was given.

May I say just a word on the point that the Measure ignores political opinion but not political activities. That is a most subtle point which, when it was raised, took all of us in the Church Assembly by surprise. If I may venture to say so, this is the first time in history that the Church Assembly has ever inserted in a Measure a clause to protect anybody from attack on the ground of his political opinions. The Church Assembly were themselves supremely anxious that that lever should not be used against an incumbent, and therefore went to the trouble, as they thought, to exclude it altogether, putting in "political opinions." It really took us very much by surprise when we were then attacked for not having excluded political activities.

Things such as taking the chair at a political meeting were exactly the sort of things which the Church Assembly wanted to exclude, but it would have been extremely difficult to have put in the word "activities," because the phrase would run "social or political opinions or activities." There are certain social activities which are extremely undesirable. I suppose that to join a group of people every night and to get drunk with them is a social activity. Therefore one cannot just exclude every social activity, nor, I would say, in passing, can one really exclude all and every form of political activity, because political activity might itself be such as to conflict with the proper discharge of a parson's duty. In that case, he ought to be liable, under this Measure, for a proceeding. This is a free country, and I assure the noble Lord that in the Church, as outside, we recognize the right of a man to his own opinions and to the free expression of them. The clergy and the ministerial committee are men of common sense, and they will not in the least wish to veto any political activity which naturally goes with political opinion.

That brings me to the last matter to which I wish to refer. The noble Lord has urged that discretion should be used in the administration of this Measure. I feel that criticisms which have been made of it have been based on a supposition that the Bishop, to begin with, and the ministerial committee, the clergy, and even the special tribunals, are going to be bereft of any common sense. The fact is, I think, that we are all sensible men, and we are dealing with a matter which distresses us immensely. It distresses us to think that we might be unjust to any single person, any incumbent, for it is a grave matter to inflict a judgment on any of our brethren. But we are also most anxious to see that no parish suffers. Your Lordships may be certain that nothing will be done under this Measure, by the Bishops or by the clergy, without most anxious, deep and grave thought. I have no kind of fear that any case will arise under this Measure which will be frivolous, unsubstantial, or improper in any kind of sense.

I do not think that this is the last that will be heard of clergy discipline in the future. I hope that the Church may find a better system of Ecclesiastical Courts than it now has. In this respect we suffer from a heritage of the past. One knows that the Church would welcome some revision and some better ordering of the system of Ecclesiastical Courts. When that time comes, I hope that this matter of discipline may take another form. Meanwhile we have to act in the position in which we now are, and I would ask your Lordships to say, not that this is a perfect Measure or a perfect system of discipline, but that it is an improvement on that now in force, that it is the wish of the Church to have this Measure, and that you desire to encourage them to attack a thing which, though rare, when it occurs is a very serious evil.

On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

4.45 p.m.