Lords Sitting of 14 July 1893

TOOK THE OATH.
The Lord Oriel (V. Massereene.)
MARRIAGE OF HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUKE OF YORK.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): My Lords, I rise, pursuant to notice, to move that a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, congratulating her upon the marriage of the Duke of York. I think perhaps upon no former occasion have testimonies of loyalty and affection towards the Sovereign poured in with greater heartiness or in greater number than on the present occasion. ["Hear, hear."] It is almost unnecessary for me to express the feeling of loyalty which is so universally felt towards the Sovereign as inspired by her long and beneficent reign, during which the country has enjoyed unexampled peace and prosperity. I have also to move a Message of Congratulation to their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales. All your Lordships will feel, I am sure, the greatest pleasure that this bright and cheering event should have taken place in the domestic life of the Prince and Princess of Wales. They have the full and entire sympathy of the whole country, and I am certain that upon an occasion like this it will give to this House the greatest satisfaction to offer to them its congratulations. Lastly, there will be a Message to the Duke and Duchess of York, and I need only say that this House will re-echo the unanimous desire that this union may be the beginning of a long life of happiness and prosperity to both of them. I cannot sit down without adding one word to say that the whole nation must have felt deeply the touching words which Her Majesty was pleased to address to the country. That heartfelt sympathy which she has always exhibited for all her subjects, whether high or low, has, I am certain, awakened in their hearts a feeling which goes even beyond the loyalty which we all owe to the Sovereign.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I rise with great pleasure to second the Motion of the noble Earl. I am sure it will be received unanimously both in this House and in the other, because it represents the unanimous and enthusiastic feeling of the people of this country. There never was a marriage more heartily received by the people, nor one celebrated under better auspices of future happiness, or attended with more earnest prayers. The profession to which the Duke of York belongs is the darling profession of the country, with which most of our glories and traditions in the past are associated, and on which in the case of trouble our existence would depend. It is no small addition to the popularity which His Royal Highness has won by his own personal qualities that he belongs to a profession so deeply cherished by the nation. For Her Royal Highness the Duchess of York there is the deepest sympathy and affection. In addition to the personal charms by which she has won the respect and affection of all with whom she has come in contact, there is also that natural feeling which arises from the fact that she is well-known among us, that she was born in this country, and that she comes of a lineage of which this country is proud. To tender to Her Majesty our most sincere and earnest congratulations on this happy event in her family life, and re-echo with the sincerest sympathy those noble words in which she has addressed the nation, to which the noble Earl has referred in graceful terms; but above all we congratulate her, and we congratulate the nation, that in this marriage we have a hope that Her Majesty will be succeeded by descendants in her direct line who will carry to a distant posterity the recollection of a reign never equalled in the prosperity and blessings which it has shed over the people of this Empire.
  Moved—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty to congratulate Her Majesty on the marriage of His Royal Highness the Duke of York with Her Serene Highness Princess Victoria Mary of Teck, and to assure Her Majesty of the satisfaction felt by this House at an event which is of such deep interest to Her Majesty, and which is destined, as they trust, to secure the domestic happiness of Their Royal Highnesses."—(The Lord President, E. Kimberley.)
  On Question, agreed to nemine dissentiente.
  Ordered, That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
  Moved—
  "That a Message be sent to Their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales to congratulate Their Royal Highnesses on the marriage of His Royal Highness the Duke of York; and to assure Their Royal Highnesses of the satisfaction which this House feels at an event so gratifying to the parental affections of Their Royal Highnesses, and of such promise for the future happiness of their family."—(The Lord President, E. Kimberley.)
  On Question, agreed to nemine dissentiente.
  Ordered, That the said Message be sent to Their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales, and that the Duke of Grafton and the Duke of Rutland do attend Their Royal Highnesses with the said Message.
  Moved—
  "That a Message be sent to Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of York to offer the cordial congratulations of this House on Their Royal Highnesses' marriage, an I an expression of their earnest desire that this union may supply a firmer foundation for Their Royal Highnesses' domestic happiness."—(The Lord President, E. Kimberley.)
  On Question, agreed to nemine dissentiente.
  Ordered, That the said Message be sent to Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of York, and that the Duke of Grafton and the Duke of Rutland do attend Their Royal Highnesses with the said Message.

  SALMON FISHERY PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  LORD PLAYFAIRmoved, That the Order made on the 13th day of March last,
  "That no Bill brought from the House of Commons confirming any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 27th day of June next,"
  be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read 2a. He said, the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees had examined into the matter, and it was unnecessary, therefore, for him to say anything further.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)said, he had examined into the case, and had no objection to offer to the Motion.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

DISTRESS AMONG THE CLERGY.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYasked the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Earl Stanhope, as an Ecclesiastical Commissioner, whether, having regard to the wide-spreading distress amongst the clergy of the Church of England, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners might be recommended to extend the usefulness of their funds by requiring more than an equivalent benefaction to obtain their grants without regard to population; and that, instead of extending their grants to benefices of £300 per annum, the augmentation standard for the next few years, at all events, should be reduced to £200; and, further, as few men of private means now enter the Church, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should in future restrain the clergy from building or buying parsonage-houses of great cost, and that, if possible, a building limit of some £1,400 should be prescribed? He said he should have thought that with the £100 of tithes below £75 it would not have been necessary to prove that the clergy were in distress, or to justify the words in the Notice respecting the poverty of the clergy; but not only had it been disputed that fewer men of means entered the Church now than formerly, but it had also been stated, by the right rev. Prelate who presided over Chester, that the clergy of the Church of England were self-supporting, and that their private means exceeded their stipends. In the four dioceses of Norwich, Ely, Peterborough, and St. Albans there were 1,336 clergymen whose stipends were under £200 a year net, and of those 223 had no residences. In 1863 the Schedule of Lord Westbury's Act had embraced most of the small benefices in the gift of the Lord Chancellor, and nearly all those had been augmented by that Act. Now there were 433 more, of benefices belonging to the Lord Chan-

  1553
  cellor, under £200 a year net, and 35 under £100 a year, 59 of them without houses, all clamouring to be added to the Schedule of Lord Westbury's Act of 1863. He would say with regard to the houses that clergymen living in towns who had not residences were better without them, for clergymen could better suit themselves by hiring houses convenient to the size of their families, whether large or small. It was not easy to prove either that more or that fewer men of means now entered the Church, but the general belief was that there were fewer. The numbers of those who went to Oxford and Cambridge, and of those who went to the smaller and less expensive Colleges, showed that men of means had diminished. In 1861 350 went to the two Universities, and 173 to the Colleges, such as St. Bees and Lampeter. In 1891 there were 437 University men and 315 non-University men, and the percentage of University men had altered from 67 to 58 per cent., although the total of candidates for ordination had increased. Notwithstanding that, the right rev. Prelate who presided over Chester had asserted in a Pastoral Letter, read in the churches of his diocese, on the 11th of June last, that—
  "The Income Tax Returns are said by a competent authority to show that, in the shape of private means, they (the clergy) bring to the service of the Church considerably more than they receive in the shape of stipend."
  This statement had been taken from Crockford's Clergy List of 1891, and the person said to have been a competent authority was certainly in his lifetime hostile to the Church. Crockford's preface stated that the clergy paid Income Tax upon a total of £9,000,000, and that, as their stipends only amounted to £3,000,000, that proved they were in receipt of £6,000,000 from private means. After Mr. Gladstone's failure, through quoting ill-digested and misapplied Income Tax figures, one might have expected that the right rev. Prelate would have been warned, and would have taken the warning, not to tread on such dangerous ground. An Inland Revenue authority had written to him as follows:—
  "It is not known in the least what competent authority is referred to by the Bishop, or how the Income Tax Returns can possibly show what it is stated they do. Nothing is known at Somerset House of the private means of the
  1554
  clergy, except from claims of exemption or abatement, or for life insurance, and they are not tabulated. My own opinion is that, so far as Income Tax is concerned, it must be the opinion of an incompetent authority founded on figures which are not correctly understood. And I think the statement is likely to do a great deal of harm, if it should lead the clergy and others to infer the possibility of Income Tax Returns, which are of an essentially confidential nature, being made use of for purposes which they were not intended to serve, and for which they ought not to be used."
  It was not clear what object the right rev. Prelate could have had in supporting the editor of Crockford and his unknown authority for the excess of the private means of the clergy over their stipends, since this assertion had been made in the middle of an appeal for contributions to four clerical charities. He asked the First Ecclesiastical Commissioner to require more than an equivalent benefaction to obtain their grants, because for some years Queen Anne's Bounty had not been able to make grants equal to the benefactions, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had been more lavish than Queen Anne's Bounty in building houses larger than were required. He also asked them for the present to restrict their grants to benefices of £200 instead of £300, since the poorer benefices had a prior claim to be augmented; and further to limit the building of houses to £1,400. As an illustration of the poverty of the clergy and of the effect of overbuilding their houses, he might cite the case of a rector who appeared by the Clergy List to have £800 a year, but who now received £619. His obligatory expenses reduced this to £201. He had to pay last year £127 to Queen Anne's Bounty for the mortgage on his house. This house was larger than he required, and cowhouse and stables had to be built, though he could not afford to keep either horse or cow. If certain so-called voluntary expenses, such as Church Rate, school treats, and prizes, which a rector was obliged to incur, were deducted from the balance of his income, this would be further reduced to £167. The rector in question kept two curates, and was not married. Those who said that residences built for the clergy were in excess of what was required could urge the cost entailed thereby upon the incumbents of poor livings, for rates, taxes, and repairs, and for keeping up stables which could not be

  1555
  used. There was a case lately where £1,400 had been spent by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for a house where the benefice was only worth £85 a year; and stables had been built, and more rooms than the incumbent wanted. It had been built away from the road in a wet field, and two winters ago the cellars were full of water. It had been said that this clergyman had private means; and he had asked him how much. He replied, £28. How far would that go for a horse and gig? The Commissioners' Office, however, was not to blame for this site; for the Bishop's Secretary had given the Bishop's approval of the site. Nobody expected the Bishops to visit these sites themselves; but it seemed that the Archdeacons were to blame if a bad site was selected, and the expenditure not restricted. On the other side it was argued that without good houses men of means would not take these poor livings, and also that a roomy house would enable the incumbent to take private pupils. It was not reasonable, however, to expect that men of means would bury them-selves in small, out-of-the-way, rural parishes; for it was in such parishes that these poor livings were mostly to be found, and there were but few incumbents who were fit to take pupils: and since competitive examinations, the crammers got all the pupils. He could only see two remedies for the poverty of the small benefices. One was that, wherever practicable, those benefices not exceeding £100 a year should be united to an adjoining benefice. He believed that some right rev. Prelates complained that lay patrons would not assist to promote this consolidation. As this measure was for the benefit of the Church, it would only be right that the Bishops should yield a point and meet their lay patrons more than half way. If they were to offer them two presentations out of three in the case of the uniting of a benefice, the lay patrons would not be likely to refuse their consent. He was afraid that the fault of the Prelates was that of the proverbial Dutchman—"giving too little and asking too much." The other remedy he suggested was that the Lord Chancellor should add a new Schedule to the Act of 1863, and that the right rev. Prelates should take powers under the
  1556
  same Act to dispose when they thought fit of their poorer benefices. The proviso, "if they thought fit," would leave them free to make any conditions they pleased in the conveyances: for instance, that if the property were broken up and sold, which had given the landowner an interest in the well-being of the parish, and which had induced the right rev. Prelate to part with the patronage, it should revert to him. Conditions might also be made that the advowsons should not be parted with without their consent. In short, there was no limit to the conditions which might be imposed for the benefit of the Church to prevent the livings falling into bad hands. With regard to right rev. Prelates not being able to make arrangements with lay patrons, he might mention that in his own case, at the request of the former Bishop of Bangor, he had joined with him in uniting two parishes, but had not received an equivalent number of presentations to the values of the livings. If he had stood out for his rights, he supposed he would have been called impracticable.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, he had the fullest sympathy with the feelings which had prompted the noble Lord's question, for no doubt many of the clergy were now in distressed circumstances, and it was very important that the funds in the Commissioners' hand should be extended as far and as widely as possible. He regretted that circumstances had prevented the right rev. Prelate, who presided over the diocese of Chester, from being in his place, and, therefore, as to that part of the noble Lord's question he could not give any reply. In every diocese in England, as far as he was aware, the present distressed state of the clergy was receiving anxious and serious consideration. The noble Lord had asked three questions—first, as to whether the Commissioners, of whom he (Earl Stanhope) himself was one, did not always require larger benefactions than the grants which they offered. That had been long considered, and, indeed, was acted upon some years ago, but it had been found that it did not work well, and that it was detrimental, because discouraging to those who were disposed to offer benefactions to the Church. The Commissioners were very much disinclined to alter a system which was well-known to the public, and

  1557
  which had worked so well. At the same time, he might tell the noble Lord that really larger benefactions were frequently received, though not asked for, to meet the maximum grant of £700 from the Commissioners. The question of distribution was considered every year by a Committee of the Board specially appointed to consider the subject of benefactions. The whole subject of the making grants to meet the benefactions offered was carefully considered and weighed by the Committee; but it had not been thought advisable, even if it had been possible, to make any alteration this year, the circulars and public notices having already gone out. With regard to the second question, as to restricting grants to benefices of £200 instead of £300, that was a matter which concerned the same Committee. He might, however, state that it was only in very populous places indeed where they had property that the Commissioners had raised the income of an incumbent to £300 a year. Any living with a population not exceeding 500 would receive only a maximum of £200 per annum. It would be impossible to lay down a hard and fast line to govern all cases. Each case must be considered on its own merits, and each case was dealt with in the discretion of the Committee. With regard to the noble Lord's third question, he quite sympathised with the noble Lord's desire that excessive sums should not be expended upon parsonage-houses, but the Ecclesiastical Commissioners at present were not allowed by Statute to vote more than £1,500 for building each parsonage-house, exclusive of the site. No doubt the £1,500 had been exceeded, not by the Commissioners but by private subscriptions. Then in cases where persons interested in the Church had given a handsome house, and the Bishop of the diocese had approved of it as a suitable parsonage-house for the incumbent, the Commissioners had no control in the matter, and they were not disposed to look a gift horse in the mouth. It was notorious that a good parsonage-house, in the South of England certainly, was a great attraction in obtaining a suitable incumbent. Expensive parsonage-houses were often exceedingly difficult for clergymen in poor circumstances to maintain, and the Commissioners did all they could to discourage
  1558
  extravagance in building, but at the same time they had to assure themselves that a suitable house was provided.

  RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR) BILL.—(No. 191.)
  Commons Amendments considered (according to Order).
  LORD PLAYFAIRsaid, in explanation of the Amendment made in the other House, that it was in the same spirit, though not perhaps quite so complete as they had proposed. The operation of the Bill when it left their Lordships' House was restricted to those railway servants who were directly or indirectly engaged in the traffic of the lines; but the Commons had inserted an Amendment excluding from its operation only those railway servants who were engaged in clerical work and in the Companies' workshops. As the Commons' Amendments were approved by the Government, he begged to move that they should be agreed to.
  Moved, "That the Commons' Amendments be agreed to."—(The Lord Playfair.)
  LORD BALFOURsaid, it was permissible to the Members of their Lordships' House who had put in the previous Amendment to think that the words now suggested, and agreed upon, he believed, mainly by negotiation, were not so satisfactory; but under the circumstances he did not propose to offer any objection to the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he had thought it desirable to ascertain what was the view taken of the matter by the railway authorities, and he had been informed that, although the railway authorities would have preferred the Bill in the form in which it left their Lordships' House, they had no desire that their Lordships should enter into a conflict with the other House upon the subject, and they, therefore, were willing to accept the Commons' Amendments to the Bill. He desired, however, to congratulate their Lordships upon the change in the Bill, because unquestionably as it left the House of Commons it was inserting the thin end of the wedge of the State prescribing the hours of labour for grown men. Their Lordships could not

  1559
  be too careful in refusing, as far as in them lay, to commit themselves to such a principle as that. A man who, for the sake of advancing himself in life or for the good of his family, desired to work 9 or 10 hours a day, if the law of liberty was to prevail in this laud or wherever public liberty was not abolished, should not be prohibited from so doing. He, therefore, thought they had done good service to the State, and he hoped that whenever a measure came before the House affecting the liberties of grown men their Lordships would put down their foot firmly, as they had done on this occasion.
  Motion agreed to.
  Commons Amendments agreed to.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (POOR LAW) BILL.
  Report from the Select Committee, That it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
  Moved, That the Order made on the 13th day of March last,
  "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Friday, the 16th day of June next,"
  be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read 2a; agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed.

  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (NEWENT, &c.) BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to
  LAW OF COMMONS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law relating to commons—Was presented by the Lord Thring; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 200.)

  METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Moved, That the Order made on the 13th day of March last
  "That no Bill brought from the House of Commons confirming any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate shall be read a second time after Tuesday, the 27th day of June next,"
  be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read 2a; agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 176.)
  House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendments proposed by the Select Committee, made: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next.
  House adjourned at five minutes past Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.