a EARL RUSSELL: I must confess I at which it has been brought forward, that have been rather perplexed by the speeches I object to the Motion, and that I shall of the most rev. Primate, the most eminent certainly not go into the Lobby with my representative of the Church in this House, noble Friend should he proceed to and of the noble and learned Lord on the division. Woolsack, our greatest legal authority, for there was something so uncertain about them that I could not make out whether they intended to vote for the second reading of the Bill or against it. THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I distinctly said I did not intend to vote for the second reading. EARL RUSSELL: I am much obliged to the most rev. Primate for his explanation. I think it is desirable that legislation should be postponed to the latest possible period. We have seen very critical and agitating questions debated on the Church; we have seen those questions resolved by the highest tribunal-the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; and those decisions, though adverse to the opinion of a considerable party in the Church, have been received with respect, and have decided the legal view of those questions. Now, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack tells us that about November next two important points which are still in agitation will come by appeal before the Judicial Committee. That, it appears to me, is sufficient reason why this House should pause with respect to legislation, and should wait till we at least know upon the highest authority what the present state of the law is upon these important points. It also appears to me desirable that whenever we do legislate the Government of the day should propose the measure, and that they should introduce it with the assent of the Prelates who represent the Church in this House; for it is only in that way that I can suppose an Act will pass which will receive the general assent of the country. I see no reason to doubt that, whether by judicial decision or legislative action, if there be a general assent of parties, those at least who think certain practices desirable, though not essential, will bow respectfully to whatever decision shall be come to. On the other hand, if there be a division-I will not say of political parties, but of Church parties-on the subject, I should be very much afraid that there would be further agitation, which would be very mischievous. I do not object to this Bill or to anything contained in it, if we are obliged to come to legislation as a last resort. It is not, therefore, on account of the Bill itself, but on account of the time THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I have no intention of entering into the very difficult questions involved in the consideration of this Bill, and I am very glad that I gave way to the noble Earl who has just sat down, because I am happy to think that as is not always the case-I entirely concur in the view he has taken as to the course that should be pursued with respect to this question. What I feel is this-and it is a point which has been stated by my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack-that if you come to any decision upon this subject now you will do that which will be liable to be misunderstood. If you vote in favour of this Bill you will hold yourselves tied down to act on the course recommended by the noble Earl, irrespective of the future recommendations which may proceed from the Royal Commission, and irrespective of the information, as to the existing state of the law, which may be derived from the legal proceedings which are likely to occur in November. If, on the other hand, we vote against the Bill, as my noble and learned Friend pointed out, we shall be held up as assenting to those practices of the Ritualists to which I, for one, am entirely opposed, and shall be giving them countenance, which I should be sorry to give by voting apparently in their favour. If, as was supposed by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Carlisle), it be a great object to avoid delay there might be something to say for coming to a decision one way or the other on the question; but the right rev. Prelate knows well, and the noble Earl the Mover of the second reading has himself stated, that he has no intention to press the Bill to legislation this Session. The question of delay, therefore, does not enter into the consideration of the subject at all. I share very much the opinion expressed by the noble Marquess behind me (the Marquess of Salisbury) and the noble Earl near me (Earl Stanhope) of the great inconvenience of coming to a hasty decision with regard to the Bill before us. I think if we decide one way or the other it will give one party a great and unreasonable amount of encouragement, and will create in the other party a proportionate degree or irritation, which will be constantly working up to the time when Friend himself will recollect, that there was no one who last year urged me more than he did to go on with the Vestment Bill, which was more deficient in ecclesiastical authority and other authority than the Bill now before your Lordships. All I can say is that the noble Earl may be quite right to judge as he pleases, but never as long as I live will I repose any confidence in him again. Nothing puts me to so much pain as to appear to be wanting in respect to the noble Earl opposite, but I fear there is no other course open to me than to put your Lordships to the trouble of a division. legislation will be possible. I also think | THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: I hope your Lordships will allow me one or two words in reply to what has fallen from noble Lords in the course of the debate. The object which I have had in view in moving the second reading of this Bill was to obtain the affirmation of its principle, not of its details, so that it might go to the country as a Bill that had been considered and had obtained the assent of your Lordships' House. I understand the most rev. Primate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) to object to the Bill as not having been brought forward with the assent of Convocation. I should like to obtain the approval of Convocation; but I do not think that I am bound, or that any Member of Parliament is bound to wait for the consent of Convocation in any course we may think it our duty to take. Then the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said he did not see how I connected the extracts which I read with the legislation I propose; but I read the extracts because I saw that the statements had been made with great skill, and circulated through the great mass of the people and had caused great irritation, and I should be sorry if the great mass of the people, knowing and feeling these things, saw that the House of Lords did not reject those practices, which were so repugnant to them. I confess I am greatly astonished at what has fallen from the noble Earl (Earl Russell), for I can assure the House, and my noble LORD DENMAN said, that if the Question went to a division (as the noble Earl opposite had decided on attempting to carry the Bill no farther than a second reading) it could amount to nothing more than an abstract Resolution, and he thought it very objectionable to send abroad a decision that would carry no au Then a Question being stated, the Question was put, Whether the said Question shall be now put? Resolved in the Negative. COMPULSORY CHURCH RATES ABOLI- REPORT. Amendments reported (according to Order). THE BISHOP OF OXFORD: I propose at the end of Clause 7 to re-insert a clause which was in the Bill when it came up from the other House of Parliament. The Bill as it now stands will, as I think, be productive of this inconvenience, that the churchwardens may incur expense upon the faith of persons undertaking to pay their church rates, who may afterwards make default, and there is no power provided in the Bill by which those persons may be compelled to perform the agreement they have made. Now the office of churchwarden is not a voluntary officeit is an office in which a man is liable to serve even against his will, and from which he cannot withdraw-and you may put a conscientious man, who is endeavouring to carry out the duties he has unwillingly undertaken, in a very unpleasant position if he has incurred expense on the faith that he will be repaid by persons who have promised to pay but have afterwards re fused. I beg to move, therefore, at the end of Clause 7, to insert as follows: Nothing in this Act shall prevent any Agreement to make any such Payment, on the Faith of which any Expenditure shall have been made, or any Liability incurred, from being enforced in the same Manner as other Contracts of a like nature might be enforced in any Court of Law or Equity: Provided that in any Suit or Proceeding to enforce such Agreement as last aforesaid, it shall not be necessary to join as Parties any other Person or Persons than the Party to be made Defendant, and the Churchwardens, Chapel wardens, or Treasurer hereinafter mentioned."(The Lord Bishop of Oxford.) THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In the Select Committee I stated the objections which I felt to this clause, and I will now shortly repeat those objections. It is not a question upon which either side will wish to gain any triumph, for I apprehend we are all anxious to arrive at the conclusion which will be the soundest and safest. In the first place, I think that practically this clause will be of very little use, and for this reason The various sums contributed or promised by individuals will be so small that I cannot believe that any churchwarden would bring an action at law, or file a bill in Equity for the purpose of recovering them. Moreover, the difficulty of showing any agreement to pay would be so great, and the presumption of such agreement arising from presence at a meeting would be so small, and so difficult to bring home, that I think the action or suit would be certain to fail. My next objection is, that I do not think the clause is necessary. It is said that the churchwarden may undertake expenditure on the faith of promises to pay the rate; that when the work is done he will not have the money to pay for it; and that then he will be personally liable. The simple answer is that, under the new state of things which this Bill will produce, the churchwarden must get in his money before he undertakes expenditure, and then he will be exposed to no risk. My third objection is that, while the clause would be of little use and is unnecessary, it might on the other hand have a seriously deterring effect upon those who might otherwise be willing to contribute. If you ask a man for a subscription which he knows is to be purely voluntary, you may hope to receive it; but if you keep a rod in pickle for him behind your back-if you have something in reserve in the shape of an action at law or suit in Equity-he will think twice before he makes any promise. I know that VOL. CXCIII. [THIRD SERIES.] many persons for whose opinion I have great respect attach a value to this clause, but I cannot subscribe to their opinion. THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I cannot hope to add anything to the arguments of the noble and learned Lord; but, as a Member of the Select Committee upon this Bill, I feel bound to support his view. Looking simply and solely at the interests of the Church, I can scarcely conceive that any person should desire that this clause should pass. No doubt the right rev. Prelate sincerely believes that it would result in larger support to the Church; but I think, with the noble and learned Lord, that it would be likely to have just a contrary effect. If it were passed, a large number of persons-even attached members of the Church-would never consent to make themselves liable to this voluntary rate. They might give subscriptions, but they would not promise to pay the rate; and I hope, therefore, that on the grounds stated by the noble and learned Lord, your Lordships will reject this clause. LORD DENMAN said, that if a man wrote down his name as promising to pay a church rate, he might easily be sued in a County Court, and the money recovered at a very trifling expense. Clause negatived. THE BISHOP OF OXFORD: I have another Amendment, to leave out Clause 8 as inserted by the Select Committee, and re-insert the clause which was in the Bill when it came up to us from the Commons. It is quite contrary to all the principles of English law to commit the administration of funds and the general power of deciding on expenditure to parties who by the legis lation of Parliament have had given to them the power of withdrawing altogether from contributing to that expenditure, and who have exercised that power. When parties in the parish say, "We will give nothing towards the maintenance of the Church," I do not see why you should allow those persons to attend the particular vestry which is to manage the funds contributed for that purpose. The Bill, as it stands, will introduce a troublesome element into many parishes. It is said that we ought to be generous and to trust these people. My Lords, this principle seems to have not the slightest relation to generosity. It is simply a matter of business. Those who contribute should surely have the management of their contributions. Nor is there, as far as I can see, any ex 2 G clusion; for those who, after declining to | ple in almost every parish who are rather pay, renew their contributions return to indifferent to their connection with the the list of managers of the church funds Church. You would say to them in the by the act of contributing. Then it is second year, when they had ceased to consaid that we ought to keep the old ma- tribute to the voluntary rate, "You must chinery going, and that there will be a not come into the vestry.' Is it the policy break if this clause is re-inserted. But of the national Church, which says, "We in the country parishes there will be no are the ministers of all for godly things, break. The farmers and ratepayers who and if you separate yourselves from us that are willing that the church rate should be is your fault, not ours; we would have you continued as a voluntary impost will vote if we could,"-I say is it the policy of the for it and pay. The new vestry will there Church, when a man is doubtful and waverbe the old vestry, because the old vestry ing in his allegiance, and from some motive will be repeated through the voluntary or other, perhaps from sheer inability, has ratepayers. In the towns, where the rate contributed nothing towards the maintenhas ceased to be enforced, subscriptions ance of the Church, to say to him, "You must always fail, because there are always are a defaulter, and you shall not come those who wish to be on the list of con- in?" I have no doubt that the clause tributors upon the cheapest possible terms sent up to us by the House of Commons and who give an insignificant amount, was prepared in a spirit friendly to the others will not give more, and thus the Church; but we must not let our judgment subscriptions will be brought down to be biassed by that fact. I think we ought nothing. I think that the management not rashly to change the existing machiof the voluntary rate should be committed nery of the Church, and as no one has to those who give towards the voluntary demanded a new vestry it will be best to rate; and while freely admitting that men give up the compulsory church rate, and may honestly take different views on the adhere to the old vestry. subject, I must ask your Lordships to decide the question by a vote. Moved, to strike out Clause 8 and insert (No one to vote who has not paid.) "No Person shall have any Right to vote upon any Question as to making any such voluntary Rate, or to vote or act, as Churchwarden or Chapelwarden or otherwise, in or as to the Disposal of Funds raised by any such voluntary Rate or by such voluntary Contributions as aforesaid (the Rector, Vicar, Perpetual Curate, or other Incumbent of a Parish or Ecclesiastical District excepted), who shall not have paid up his voluntary Rate for the last preceding Occasion on which such a voluntary Rate as aforesaid shall have been made, or paid a voluntary Contribution in aid of the same Fund which in Amount is not less than that of his voluntary Rate." (The Lord Bishop of Oxford.) THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: As the Bill came up to us from the other House, the vestry was to make the voluntary rate. In the Select Committee it was shown that such a clause was unworkable, and the Committee therefore reverted to the old vestries. That is a point which mainly influenced my own opinion; and, as I am authorized to say, the opinion of my most rev. Brother (the Archbishop of Canterbury) and my right rev. Brother (the Bishop of London). To insert therefore the clause now proposed would be to destroy the old vestry, which in a former clause we have established. There are a number of peo EARL RUSSELL: I quite concur in the statement of the most rev. Prelate. I believe that, instead of disagreeable con sequences following from the plan proposed by the noble and learned Lord, very disa greeable consequences would follow to the Church from the clause adopted by the House of Commons. There are many Dissenters who will be quite willing to subscribe if you do not make any invidious distinctions, such as, I think, are made by the plan proposed by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford.) On Question, That the Words proposed to be left out stand Part of the Bill? Their Lordships divided: - Contents 46; Not-contents 13: Majority 33. Leigh, L. Stanley of Alderley, L. Truro, L. Vernon, L. NOT-CONTENTS. Bath, M. [Teller.] Oxford, Bp. Salisbury, M. Salisbury, Bp. Derby, E. Nelson, E. [Teller.] Delamere, L. Denman, L. Gloucester and Bristol, Chelmsford, L. THE BISHOP OF OXFORD proposed to amend Clause 8, at line 20, by inserting these words: THE BISHOP OF OXFORD said the office of churchwarden was one of observation and report, but not of original power; but for the first time it was proposed to give the church wardens absolute power to settle matters as if they had direct authority; which was an entire evasion of the ecclesiastical law of England. The churchwardens might be Dissenters, and yet it was proposed to give them a wholly new power in regard to the appropriation of a fund to which they might refuse to contribute. He therefore proposed an Amendment, the effect of which was to make the clause provide that money might be applied to such purposes as might be agreed upon by the churchwardens and the trustees. Fitzwalter, L. "If any churchwarden makes default in paying a church rate for which he is rated, a treasurer who shall not have made such default may be elected in his stead, and shall possess all the powers appertaining to such churchwarden in respect of the church rate." He said, as the clause stood, a man who conscientiously dissented from the payment of the church rate, might be called upon to collect and administer it, because the office of churchwarden was not a voluntary one, but one that was imposed com-likely that the churchwardens would refuse pulsorily. The Amendment did not substitute a treasurer for him unless it was found expedient to do so. On all principles of liberty we ought to allow the possibility of a treasurer being appointed by the parish when a man who conscientiously objected to acting in this matter had been appoin ted to the office of churchwarden. THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, the Amendment did not discriminate between a churchwarden who conscientiously objected to pay the rate and one who did not pay it for any other reason. In either case the parish was to appoint a treasurer, but there was no machinery provided by which the parish could meet in vestry and do this; and, supposing that difficulty got over, there was a chance that the treasurer so elected might be a Dissenter; and so Dissenter after Dissenter might be appointed until the vestry got a treasurer who was qualified and would act. Amendment negatived. |