salary, and if the Government would do | respect to marriage fees, for it was not that they would confer a great blessing on the country. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."-(Mr. Assheton Cross.) necessary to presume to set out with a fixed conclusion that a total abolition of There was, such fees was requisite. therefore, no reason why they should assume that there would be any difficulty in providing the sums which would be MR. GLADSTONE said, he gathered really necessary for the maintenance of from the purport of the speech to which a moderate staff of diocesan and ecclesithey had just listened, that the subject astical officers throughout the country. had been brought forward with the view The hon. Gentleman went on to say that of giving to other hon. Members an with regard to all contentious business, opportunity of stating their views to the that he would give every possible faciHouse, and that the hon. Gentleman lity for throwing it at once into the would probably end by withdrawing the hands of the Dean of Arches. He (Mr. Motion, and discharging the Order for Gladstone), hoped it would not be prethe second reading of the Bill. They sumptuous, if he reserved his opinion as had now arrived at too late a period of to the desirability of adopting that view the Session for carrying forward any such in its full breadth. As to the class of legislation. He must, however, tender cases concerned with the doctrines and his thanks to the hon. Member for his ritual of the Church, he could at once subclear, comprehensive, and remarkably scribe to the opinion of the hon. Gentleinteresting statement, which showed his man, that there could be no advantage complete acquaintance with the subject, in dealing with questions of that kind in and must say that he was quite prepared a local Court. He had, however, been to accept the proposition of the hon. told by those who had experience, that Gentleman, that there was an urgent in regard to questions relating to the case for legislation in connection with this conduct of "criminous clerks," it was matter. As to the plan which the hon. not to be assumed that they might not Gentleman had sketched at the close of be heard with advantage sometimes in his speech, he had clearly shown that diocesan Courts. And if the principle there were many portions of the Bill was laid down that the Dean of Arches which there would be no disposition to was to become a Judge of the First Inpress, and the general basis of his plan stance, and not to possess the advantage appeared to be a very sound one. The of being a Court of Appeal, then they proposal to create an authority which ran the risk of multiplying the cases would have the power of revising the which would be carried forward to the present rules of procedure in the Eccle- ecclesiastical branch of the Privy Counsiastical Courts appeared to be a very cil. With that reservation, he felt diseligible method of proceeding, and with posed to accept the hon. Gentleman's that view, it would be necessary to con- proposition. When it was said that sider whether it would not be practicable there was a great deal of difficulty, to effect a union between the office of the delay, and cost attending the settlement Dean of Arches and those of the Master of ecclesiastical matters, he thought, of Faculties and the Judge of the Pre- however sanguine they might be in their rogative Court of Canterbury. Looking expectations, and however earnest in at the matter from a certain distance, their desires to diminish them, they and having regard to the necessity of must bear in mind that a certain pormaking some improvement in the position of that difficulty arose out of the tion of the Dean of Arches, it appeared a natural course to ascertain whether there could be united with the office any other provided with salary and not burdened with important duties. He, therefore, heartily approved, if it might be found practicable, with the assent and approval of the Archbishop of Canterbury, to effect an arrangement of that kind. He thought the hon. Gentleman had stated what was rational and fair with VOL, CCXIII. [THIRD SERIES.] nature of the subject-matter which was brought to trial. In regard to questions of doctrine and ritual that was obvious. The necessity arose when that class of cases came forward, for learned investigation into the history of the matter to which they referred, and he agreed very cordially with the hon. Gentleman's hope, that for the future the occasions might be very rare in which either the Church or the public mind was to be distracted H by cases of that kind. Although he trusted that a great deal might be done in reference to these and other cases, both to expedite and cheapen the course of justice, they should never cease to feel the effects of the very peculiar nature of the matters which were brought to trial. He had, however, to take exception to the hon. Gentleman's assumption that this was a question which could only be dealt with by Government, and also to his strong recommendation to the Government to take it up. It would be improper for the Government to hold out an expectation that it could deal with this question consistently with the other demands upon its time. He therefore hoped the hon. Gentleman would not think that he (Mr. Gladstone) was practising the old trick of retorting upon him, if he recommended him to bring forward a measure himself. He had to say, with the greatest sincerity, that there could be no one more competent to deal with the subject; and, if he would do so, the Government would be desirous to render him all the assistance in its power. The only recommendation he would offer was, that if the hon. Gentleman undertook to introduce a measure, he should do so early in the Session, so as to avoid competition not only with Government measures, but with those of independent Members, among whom, late in the Session, the competition became really formidable. MR. GOLDNEY, in rising to move that the Bill be read a second time that day month, said, he objected to the enormous powers which were to be given under the Bill to the new jurisdiction, and to the total deprivation of the Common Law Courts of the jurisdiction they at present possessed. He hoped to see the time when the mere non-contentious business would be carried on by the registrars the same as in County Courts; and when all the contentious business should go before one of the ordinary Judges, assisted by a jury if necessary. He did not think that the Bishop's secretary was an officer who should be paid by fees at all; and his existing fees, which were principally derived from presentations to benefices, were very heavy, though most of that work done was merely mechanical. The multiplicity of fees payable to unnecessary officials for every step taken by the laity in connection with the Church church building, for instance-had the effect of impeding persons whose feelings and anxieties were for Church extension and increasing the facilities and accommodation of the Church, taking those steps which were necessary to carry out the benefits intended. The present Bill would make an entirely new government for the Church, to be carried on by ecclesiastics, and he should deeply regret to see a measure which would shut out the laity from all action in this matter pass. For that reason he should move the rejection of the Bill. Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day month."-(Mr. Goldney.) DR. BALL expressed his doubt of any private Member being able to pass a Bill of that kind without having assistance from the Government. The Irish Bill was, no doubt, brought forward by private Members, but then Lord Palmerston promised the Government support. He would suggest that a Bill upon the question should be brought in early next Session, and should be referred to a Select Committee composed chiefly of lawyers. After that the Government could see whether they would support it or not; for without that support it would be useless further to proceed with it. The Irish Bill contemplated proceeding by rules and orders prepared by the Church authorities, but only to have force when sanctioned by the Lord Lieutenant in Council. That Bill cheapened, simplified, and expedited proceedings in the Courts, and a great reform was accomplished by it. He did not see how in England they could much cheapen proceedings, except in cases where there were disputed questions of fact; but in such cases, there might be great improvement effected. Therefore, he was decidedly in favour of that portion of the Bill relating to the reform of the procedure by means of a new set of rules and orders, though it did not go upon the same footing as in the Irish Bill. He did not see the use of the system which prevailed in England, but which had never been established in Ireland, of holding a preliminary inquiry. served no useful purpose, while it entailed great and needless expense; and he might take this opportunity of expressing his dislike of a repetition of It evidence in all legal proceedings. He | Session embodying the procedure of the was entirely opposed to visitation fees, Irish Act. Notwithstanding the legis which were really a tax upon a clergy lation of 1854, there was still great and not at all well paid; neither could he unnecessary delay in the procedure of agree with the recommendations of the these Courts, and he agreed in the opiMarriage Law Commission as to mar- nion that the work might be done more riage fees, for he preferred a license to cheaply. But it was an error to suppose banns, on account of the greater security that there was a different set of fees in against clandestine marriages of minors every diocese. There was a table of given by the former, and he thought fees fixed by statute which alone could that if the reduced fee of 5s. customary be legally taken throughout all the dioin Ireland was adopted in this country, ceses; but he admitted that some of a revenue might be raised which, with- them were too high, and that the table out oppression, would supply the revenue was open to revision. He strongly required for this scheme. As to the objected to the proposal to make the clause inserted on the Motion of Lord Archbishops and the Bishops the chief Romilly, providing that the records Judges in the diocesan Courts. By should be brought from the local regis- the proposed arrangement, there would tries and deposited in the Public Record be as many Judges in the EcclesiasOffice in London, it was, in his judg-tical Courts as there were under the ment, very objectionable to remove the documents from the localities with which they were connected, and, indeed, it would be scarcely less absurd to propose that the famous Roman remains at Chester should be lodged in the British Museum. He would offer no opinion on the proposed constitution of a new tribunal by the appointment of a single Judge, except to suggest that the Judge should have something to do besides hearing ecclesiastical causes, because the mind of a Judge naturally expanded when he had to consider a variety of subjects; whereas if he had to deal solely with the cases contemplated by the Bill, he would run the risk of gradually ceasing to be a lawyer and growing into a theologian. In illustration of the advantage of the mind of a Judge having been expanded by consideration of a variety of subjects, he might be allowed to refer to the extraordinary moderation, learning, and accuracy of the judgments delivered in the Committee of Privy Council, because they were delivered by men of great intellect, who were trained to apply their minds to the impartial consideration of documents and evidence, and who would do so without feeling; for a thoroughly practised lawyer had no feeling at all, any more than a mathematician had about the problems he was working out. In conclusion, he expressed a hope that, whether the Vicars General were retained or one new Judge for all the dioceses appointed, the tribunal should be a real Court. MR. MONK said, he also hoped that a measure would be introduced next present system, and he believed the number might be advantageously reduced to three. The Bill now before the House would require to be carefully sifted, and should therefore be submitted to a Committee. With regard to the financial part of the scheme, he thought that after the Report of the Marriage Law Commission, it was absurd to suppose that £40,000 would continue to be raised by marriage fees, and he was also of opinion that visitation fees ought not to be maintained. Instead of £70,000, therefore, the amount would probably be reduced to £30,000, which might be sufficient to pay three or four Judges, as he had suggested, and also to remunerate the registrars for performing, in addition to their present duties, those of the secretaries to the Bishop as they did until 20 years ago. MR. BERESFORD HOPE: Sir, I must begin by most sincerely thanking my hon. Friend who has the charge of this Bill for the manner in which he has conducted it to-day. He might have followed the too common precedent of asking us to read the Bill a second time pro formá; and, if so, he would have done that which, however common, is fraught with considerable mischief. Every year that I sit in this House, I am more satisfied that nothing can be so mischievous as to ask the House out of mere laxity, or, perhaps, good nature, to read a Bill a second time, on the understanding that the step is to mean nothing. It always must mean something, and the flabby ambiguity of the contrary assumption never fails to assert itself in some vexa- | privateer, cruising about the wide seas tious result. Either the House agrees of men's opinions for rich prizes of with the principle of the Bill, or it does intolerance and persecution? Besides— not. If it does not, then it condemns itself by the act of colourable agreement, for a second reading which means nothing is playing fast and loose with forms of this House. But a second reading per incuriam may be a reading which is intended to carry some significance, and then the manoeuvre is very like stealing a march in favour of a doubtful and unaccepted principle. But my hon. Friend has had the moral courage to bring this Bill fully before the House with the express statement that he dissents from many of its provisions. He therefore invites us to the consideration of a question which is unripe, indeed, for legislation, but which is quite ripe for the consideration of those who care for the interests of the Church. There is an aspect of it which has been touched upon by preceding speakers, but certainly not dwelt upon with the prominence which its importance demands. They have mainly treated of the formal bearings of the matter. I desire to look at it from the side of expediency, and to ask, what should be the policy as to its tribunals of such a body as the Church of England, which is both a Church—that is, a spiritual corporation, and, at the same time, an Establishment-that is, a member of the State? From this point of view, it seems to me that the ideal of a Church judiciary would be one which should be strict, anxious, and careful, but withal merciful in all questions touching the moral conduct of the clergy; but, on the other hand, tolerant in those matters upon which varieties of opinions are not only inevitable, but essential in a body constituted as we find the Church of England; and that it should be an organization calculated to appease and not to encourage litigation on points of doctrine or ritual where debate can never be stirred up without leaving behind it the roots of bitterness. Now, the fault of this Bill is that it tends to provoke, not to appease, litigation on questions of doctrine and of ceremonial. It creates a Judge at an enormous salary to try a class of suits which, as we have heard, do not amount, on an average, to more than six a-year. What will such a Judge, with a salary of £3,000 a-year, become but a chartered as has been pointed out by preceding speakers-it is a valid objection to the project that we in the Southern Province have already sent a Judge, as the Bill contemplates, in the Dean of Arches, who for the last few years has discharged his anxious duties on the moderate salary of £30 a-year. With this office used to be united the light labour and sufficient stipend of the Mastership of the Faculties. Then re-unite them. But we are told that would not be enough; we must have one Chief Judge for the two Provinces. Why need there be one Chief Judge for the two Provinces? Have the two Provinces been asked their opinion, or is it the crotchet of a theorist? When we recollect that ever since there has been a Church of England, now deep in its second thousand years, there have been two Provinces-united in one communion indeed, but distinct in their habits, and each the heir of an illustrious historywe may be convinced that this is a scheme which has not emanated from the Church itself, but has been elaborated in the closets of some philosophers. At the same time, there is nothing in the provincial constitution itself to militate against a personal union of the offices of Chief Judge without legislation. There is nothing to prevent the two Archbishops from respectively appointing the same person to the analogous office in the two Provinces. But look at this Bill. The two Archbishops are jointly to appoint one Judge. Well and good. But if they differ as to their man, who is to decide between them? Are they to toss up, or to draw lots? And then their appointment is to be confirmed by the Queen. Now, with the highest respect for monarchy, I cannot see why a novel Prerogative should be conferred upon the Crown. It has never before claimed the right of granting or withholding its sanction to the appointment of Ecclesiastical Judges, and these are not times to stretch the Prerogative in that direction. Does this sanction mean that if the two Archbishops differ the conflict is to be settled by the Prime Minister? If so, on what principle is he to carry out his decision? Is the discord to be compromised by a harmless nonentity being promoted, or by Church differences being dragged into the political arena? a quiry. Humanum est errare, and it is no disrespect to the high office of a Bishop to face the contingency. It is, happily, a very rare one; but it has existed. Yet this Bill, which professes to reconstitute the whole system of ecclesiastical procedure, and which provides for the trial of criminous clerks, omits to make any provision for the trial of criminous Bishops, and thereby stands self-condemned. So much for the proposal of creating new ecclesiastical jurisdiction in a Judge at a salary which, if he is a conscientious man, he can only earn by fomenting, not by appeasing, Church litigation. The Bill is, if possible, more objectionable in another detail. By it the Prelates are, in the first instance, to be their own Judges, and the highly paid lawyer only figures as assessor or I pass to another point. The Bill substitute. He must be a bold man who neither repeals nor re-affirms the Church can expect to carry the assent of this Discipline Act; but it deals in the most House to a proposition which runs so vague and nebulous way with the whole counter to the whole spirit of the age. system of appellate jurisdiction, and In all other branches of the Judiciary breaks down entirely when it comes to the principle is to delegate decision to the chief point. The Court of Appeal the jurisconsult, and to invoke the ex- in the Bill is the Court of Appeal at pert to advise. In the Ecclesiastical present existing-that is, the Judicial Courts we are brought in face of contro- Committee of the Privy Council. Well versies where judicial experience has to now, upon the whole, I am not prepared moderate between theological prepos- to propose any new Court of Appeal as sessions; and yet the proposal of the Bill a substitute for the present system. I is to put the theologian and not the jurist have no thought of doing so; but I venon the Bench-to make the partizan- ture to make one suggestion of reform— expert Judge, and the jurisconsult ad- a reform that has been steadily growing viser. A Bishop, in proportion as he is in favour from day to day with all who a good and earnest Bishop, must feel have calmly and impartially considered the difficulty of acting as an impartial the question-that is, to strip the JudiJudge, because all his feelings and sym- cial Committee, as a Court, of its illusory pathies will be those of an advocate in claims to be in any respect a spiritual favour of what he personally believes are body, founded on the presence in it of a the "higher law" interests of religion. minority of selected Prelates, and to Therefore, to put the Bishop or Arch-leave it as a tribunal of lawyers constibishop upon the judicial bench is to place upon it the advocate, the administrator, the executant, the partizan, where the Judge is wanted. It may be argued that a check is provided in the provision of the one assessor Judge being common to both Primates. This is, how-ing, and you may leave it the highest ever, wholly delusive. The respective Archbishops may have been appointed by two different Prime Ministers, and may be champions of two rival schools of theology; while the business of the learned gentleman, with £3,000 a-year, will be to say Amen to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Amen to the Archbishop of York alternately, and that very possibly upon incongruous rulings of virtually similar questions. Another great deficiency of the present Bill is, that while it provides for the Bishops being what they had better not be namely, Judges-it makes on provision for trying the Bishops themselves, if, unhappily, the opinions or the conduct of a Bishop should invite judicial in tuted to judge the questions which come before them from a legal, and not from a sentimental, an expedient, or a doctrinal position. Let the Committee become a court of lawyers, to interpret documents according to their legal bear resort of ecclesiastical controversy. But I find nothing at all of such a reform in this Bill. The same select number of Prelates will still be Members of the Committee. For these Prelates, officially and personally, I have the highest respect. But just because they are efficient as Prelates, they cannot be efficient as Judges. If they are hardly qualifiedas I have argued-to sit in their own provincial or diocesan Courts, still less can they be qualified to form a part of the highest Court of Appeal. If the Judicial Committee are in want of experts to advise them upon any question of theology, they need not be limited to the two Archbishops and the holder of the See of London-they may have |