HC Deb 18 June 1891 vol 354 cc797-8
SIR W. LAWSON

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has reason to believe that there is truth in the statement lately published that the expenses consequent on the last translation to the Archbishopric of York amounted to fully £7,000; and, if this be so, whether he is able to state to the House to whom the bulk of those payments are made?

*MR. W. H. SMITH

If the expression "expenses consequent on translation" includes the cost of the furniture of the Palace at York, and of the charge for dilapidations in respect of previous residence at Peterborough, I cannot give the information asked for; but I have reason to believe that the sum named is an exaggeration. The total amount of fees payable to the Exchequer in respect of the appointment of an Archbishop are about £330, and of a Bishop £220. There are certain other fees as to which I am not informed. The present mode of collecting the fees payable into the Exchequer appears to me to be unnecessarily complicated, and I will consider whether it cannot be simplified and the amount to some extent reduced.

SIR W. LAWSON

May we take it that the statement in the Times was a gross exaggeration; that £7,000 was not paid in fees?

*MR. W. H. SMITH

Nothing at all approaching that sum was paid in fees. A considerable sum was expended by the Archbishop in purchasing the furniture of the previous Archbishop; but the total charge did not amount to £7,000.

MR. LABOUCHERE

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what would happen if a Bishop or Archbishop did not pay the fees?

*MR. W. H. SMITH

Really, Sir, I am not able to answer that.