Lords Sitting of 22 July 1898

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLORtook his Seat on the Woolsack at a Quarter past Four of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
  Witnesses ordered to attend the Select Committee.
  WHITECHAPEL AND BOW RAILWAY BILL.
  Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL) POWERS) BILL.
  The Queen's Consent, and the Consent of the Prince of Wales in right of his Duchy of Cornwall, signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  DEVONPORT, PLYMOUTH AND STOKE TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Reported with Amendments.
  EASTON AND CHURCH HOPE RAILWAY (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL.
  Reported without Amendment.
  CLACTON-ON-SEA GAS AND WATER BILL.
  Read the third time, with the Amendments; a further Amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
  CIRCUIT CLERKS OF JUSTICIARY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons.
  VAGRANCY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  Brought from the Commons.
  BLACKBURN CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS, ETC.) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  BRISTOL TRAMWAYS (ELECTRICAL POWER, ETC.) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  BRISTOL TRAMWAYS (EXTENSIONS) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  MATLOCK URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  NEATH, PONTARDAWE AND BRYNAMAN RAILWAY BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  PLYMOUTH AND STONEHOUSE GAS BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  TOTTENHAM AND EDMONTON GAS BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments to be considered on Monday next.
  FELIXSTOWE AND WALTON WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  MIDLAND RAILWAY (WEST RIDING LINES) BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  NEWHAVEN HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  NEWTOWN WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  GLASGOW CORPORATION (SEWAGE, ETC.) BILL.
  The Queen's Consent signified; and Bill reported with Amendments.
  RENFREW BURGH AND HARBOUR EXTENSION 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.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  COMMERCIAL.
  I. (No. 2) (1898): Further reports by Her Majesty's representatives abroad, on bounties on the construction and running of ships paid by the State in the countries in which they reside; and particulars with regard to the granting of preferential railway rates;
  II. (No. 6) (1898): Correspondence relating to the conference at Brussels on the question of sugar bounties.

  CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONERS.
  Forty-second Report; with appendix.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
  I. Metropolitan Division: General Report for the year 1897, by the Reverend T. W. Sharpe, C.B., Senior Chief Inspector;
  II. East-Central Division: General Report for the year 1897, by the Reverend C. D. Du Port, Chief Inspector.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  MUSSEL FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL. (IRELAND) ACT, 1877.
  Account of receipts under the above Act, and payments under section 25 thereof, during the year ended the 31st of March, 1898: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
BILLS ADVANCED.
  PARISH FIRE-ENGINES BILL.
  To be read the second time on Tuesday next. (The Lord Harris.)
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
PUBLIC BILL BUSINESS.

  UGANDA.
  Question put—
  "To ask Her Majesty's Government—

  "1. Whether the Report of the inquiry into the causes of the recent troubles in Uganda has been received; and whether it will be laid on the Table of the House before the close of the Session;

  "2. Whether Major Macdonald now holds any post or office in Uganda;

  "3. Whether it is intended that he should be permanently employed in that country;

  "4. Whether the exploring expedition under his command is now prosecuting its work, or has been abandoned."—(Lord Stanmore.)

  LORD STANMORE: In the absence of my noble Friend the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs I ask your Lordships' permission to post-pone my question.
  Question, by leave, postponed.

  MUSSEL FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Rending of this Bill. It deals with very humble fisheries compared with those which were not long since before your Lordships' House, but fisheries which require protection. It will surprise your Lordships to hear that upwards of £2,000 was recently paid in one village in Kerry for mussels and other shell-fish. The inhabitants of this district and the surrounding districts have thrown themselves into the industry with such extreme and inconsiderate ardour that there is a strong probability of the whole of these shell-fish being exterminated unless some means are taken for their protection. This Bill, which has been drafted by the Fishery Commissioners, has passed the House of Commons, and its object is to give power to the Commissioners to make by-laws regulating the mussel fisheries, and enabling them to provide a close time. The Bill has the full approval of the Government, it is necessary for the preservation of this important fishery, and I hope your Lordships will assent to the Second Reading.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: My Lords, I beg to endorse all the noble Lord has said. Though this is a small Bill, it is a very useful Bill. After the oyster, the periwinkle is the most luscious bivalve in this country, and probably there is no noble Lord who can forget the delight which he experienced in his youth in consuming the periwinkle with a common pin. This Bill at the present moment is a very necessary one. Owing to the rapid inter-communication by railway between Ireland and England, the people in Ireland are beginning to discover the value of these small shell-fish. There is no country like the west coast of Ireland which is more adapted to the cultivation of these shell-fish, and it is absolutely necessary, in my humble opinion, that notice should be taken of the great demand for them, which will increase year by year, and will result in the destruction of these shell-fish altogether unless they are properly preserved. I therefore think that the provisions of

  771
  this Bill for placing them under the fishery inspectors, and for having a close time, are most necessary, and will tend very much to the prosperity of the poorer class of Irish fishermen, whose daughters and sons gain their livelihood by the collection of these various mussels.
  THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of this Bill. Unless it becomes law, these shell-fish will disappear entirely. We know that the tendency everywhere is to kill the goose that lays the golden egg, unless some preventive is put upon it, and I hope your Lordships will see your way to give this Bill a Second Reading.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, I have only to say, on behalf of the Irish Government, that this Bill is considered by them a very useful one, and it is hoped your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
  Question put.
  Bill read a second time (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Tuesday next.

  The House proceeded with the consideration of the Benefices (No. 2) Bill, as amended.

  CLAUSE 1.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 1, line 20, after 'owner,' insert 'as the advowson, and any person who offers any right of patronage for sale by auction in contravention of this section, or who bids at any such sale, shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The words "as the advowson" are only put in to make the clause perfectly plain. The second portion of my Amendment, providing that any person who offers any right of patronage for sale by auction in contravention, of the section, or who bids at such sale, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100,
  772
  is put in to meet the criticisms of the noble and learned Lord on the Front Opposition Bench, who said that there was no penalty in the event of this subsection being broken. I believe the provision of a penalty of £100 on summary conviction has met the noble and learned Lord's views completely.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 2.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 3, line 7, at the end of clause, insert 'and the bishop shall consider any representation made to him in consequence, provided that any objection therein made have reference to a legal ground of refusal.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Salisbury.)
  *THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will be good enough to give full consideration to this little formal Amendment which comes at the end of clause 2. It seems to me that the clause, as it stands at present, rather hangs in the air; no one is told what they are to do or what they may do with regard to this notice which is given in the parishes. Now, the Amendment which I venture to propose suggests that the bishop should be obliged to hear any representation made to him in consequence, provided that any objection therein made have reference to a legal ground of refusal. It seems to me that the general public have a right to powers in regard to institution to a benefice like those that they now possess in regard to ordination. In one way it is much more serious to institute a man to a benefice than it is to ordain him, for if a man is put in legal charge of a parish he cannot be ousted except by process of law. Therefore, it is advisable that there should be no mistake in the beginning of such a connection, and there ought to be full liberty given to everyone who knows of any just cause or impediment against an institution to report it to the bishop, and to insist that the bishop should consider it. I venture to think that we have been all of us a little too slack in this matter of institution to benefices, not only the bishops, but also the patrons and other clergy and parishioners. Testimonials

  773
  have been given much too freely; people have been unwilling to speak because they have been afraid of the charge of libel, and it is on purpose that we may all be a little more strict that we are asked, I suppose, to pass this Bill. We are now going as a nation to turn over a new leaf in this matter of institution to benefices. Would it not be wiser and fairer to the parishioners and others to let them know that this is really the mind of Parliament, and not to leave the clause hanging in the air? In the diocese with which I am familiar, in the last 12 years we have tried this plan, and asked the parishioners if they have any objection to make, and in no case out of some 500 has there been any unfairness or ill-will or disagreeable feeling shown. I venture to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will accept this Amendment or not, and, if not, whether they will tell me, as the law will stand when this Bill is passed, what will be my position in regard to the Queen's Bench, supposing a man came and said, "Here is a valid objection," and I were to say to him, "I will not hear it, because I am not obliged to," and he went to the Queen's Bench for a mandamus to compel me? The other question I wish to ask Her Majesty's Government is one which I should like the Lord Chancellor to answer—namely, whether, under the present law, as amended by this Bill, an action for libel would lie against a man, whoever he was, if he made a complaint to the bishop, which the bishop forwarded to the presentee? I venture to ask these two questions, and also that Her Majesty's Government, if they cannot accept the Amendment, will make some definite statement on these two points.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My noble Friend, who is in charge of this Bill, will tell the right reverend prelate whether the Government are willing to accept the Amendment or not, but, for my own part, it sems to me a perfectly useless Amendment. It infers that a bishop requires an actual Statute to compel him to do his duty. I protest against that on behalf of the bishops, although a bishop has proposed this Amendment. As to the other question, I am reluctant to answer an abstract ques-
  774
  tion on a legal point, but, giving the best reply I can to the right reverend prelate, I would say that a parishioner and a bishop have a common interest in unfit persons not being presented to a living, and a communication of the character referred to would be a privileged communication, with the qualification. I must warn the right reverend prelate that no person could avail himself of this privilege for the purpose of indulging in private malice. If a person is actuated by malice, the occasion does not relieve him from the consequences.
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government cannot accept this Amendment. As the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said, this appears to be a perfectly useless Amendment, and infers that a, bishop requires an actual Statute to compel him to do his duty.
  Question put.
  Amendment negatived.

  CLAUSE 3.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 3, line 9, after 'otherwise,' insert 'sufficient in law.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, the Amendment which I now move is introduced in order to meet a criticism of the noble and learned Lord on the Front Opposition Bench, who pointed out that it would be a wise precaution to insert words to this effect.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 3, line 17, leave out 'appointed by the Lord Chancellor for hearing such causes,' and insert 'who shall be nominated by the Lord Chancellor from time to time for the purpose of this Act.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 3, line 19, leave out 'instituted,' and insert 'constituted.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 4, line 9, at the end of the clause insert—
  "(7) The presentee may appeal to the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council against the finding of fact by the judge that he is unfit for the discharge of the duties of the benefice by reason that his evil life or conduct since his ordination has caused grave scandal concerning his moral conduct, or in respect of matters of law."—(Earl Fortescue.)
  *EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, happily the Amendment of which I have given notice, and which I now rise to move, requires only a very few words of introduction. It was drawn by that eminent ecclesiastical lawyer, Dr. Tristram, and has been approved of by the most reverend Primate. From time to time, Dr. Tristram states, some of the judgments given by such eminent judges as Sir H. Jenner Fust, Dr. Lushington, and Sir R. Phillimore in cases of clerical immorality have been reversed on appeal, but, under this Bill, the unhappy presentee will find himself for the first time in quite a different position to that of any other citizen, inasmuch as he will be debarred from appealing to any tribunal except this newly-constituted one. Dr. Tristram added that Dr. Lushington told him those cases cost him great anxiety. I think that the authority of Dr. Tristram, and the approval of the right reverend Primate, will have their just weight with your Lordships, and that your Lordships will agree to my Amendment.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I am very sorry that Dr. Tristram should have entirely misunderstood what I said. He showed me the clause, and said he understood that
  776
  there was a Peer in the House who would move it. The only remark I made was, "I do not think he will carry it."
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am afraid there is a fundamental difference of opinion between the noble Lord [Earl Fortescue] and the Government on this matter. We think the presentee has been too much, and the parishioners a great deal too little, considered in the past. He appears to think we are effecting a revolution in which the presentee will be too little considered. I agree, my Lords, that we have entrusted a great deal of responsibility to the bishops, but in doing so we have had the unanimous concurrence of all parties in your Lordships' House. Nothing, I think, could have struck your Lordships more than the stress which the noble Earl, the Leader of the Opposition, laid on the responsibility of the bishops during the Second Reading Debate. We have acted on those lines. The responsibility is put upon the bishop in the first instance to make up his mind whether the presentee is a fit person for the cure of souls. He must allege definite reasons for his opinion, if he thinks he is unfit, and an appeal is granted from that refusal to the court constituted under the Bill. That court is formed of the archbishop of the province and a judge of the High Court, and in our opinion that is a tribunal that amply meets all the responsibilities of justice. If that tribunal is not competent to do justice to the presentee, we do not know which one is. To load the Bill by adding an appeal to the Privy Council, would be to defeat absolutely one of the chief endeavours of the Government. In fact, as your Lordships are well aware, Her Majesty's Government do not think the Bill goes far enough in warding off the burden of expenditure which handicaps the bishops sometimes in the performance of their duties. The proposal of the noble Earl is nothing less than to put on the back of

  777
  every bishop, who acted on his responsibility under this Bill, the burden of costs which might accrue to him in the Privy Council. What those costs are the right reverend prelates who sit in this House only too well know, and a case has been quoted in these Debates under the analogous procedure of the Clergy Discipline Act of 1892, where a bishop was mulcted in costs to the amount of £1,600. To accept this Amendment will, in the eyes of the Government, be fatal to the Bill, and I ask your Lordships therefore not to accept it.
  Question put.
  Amendment negatived, without a Division.

  CLAUSE 5.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 4, line 22, leave out 'or,' and insert 'nor.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 7.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 4, line 41, after 'benefices,' insert 'and to any other benefices or livings that are or may hereafter be in their patronage.'"— (The Lord Bishop of Salisbury.)
  *THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the object of my Amendment is simply to put the other patronage of the universities on the same level as the particular benefices and livings referred to in clause 7. I think your Lordships will agree that it is advisable that the universities should have power to elect by a Committee, and not in the present cumbrous manner. I therefore move my Amendment.
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I cannot say that I am very familiar with the case the right reverend prelate refers to. I understand that these livings are very few in number, and that this Amendment is considered necessary by the universities. The words of the Amendment will be a great inconvenience, because, at pre-
  778
  sent, the universities have absolutely no way of deciding on the exercise of the patronage except through the cumbrous machinery of the Masters of Arts of those universities. Therefore, I can see no objection to the insertion of these words. But, if it were possible to have a fuller statement of the case from the university authorities, it would be very useful.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, obviously it would be more convenient that some Committee should be appointed with whom this jurisdiction should rest. The summoning of all the masters of arts for the purpose of determining upon an incumbent for a university living, is a very cumbrous method of appointment. If this were not so small a matter it would have been remedied before.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 8.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 5, leave out from end of line 9 to 'county,' line 10, and insert 'person who has presided as chairman of the last preceding quarter sessions for the county or division of the county in which the benefice is situated.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: This Amendment is to meet a difficulty brought to your Lordships' attention the other day, which would arise where there were several chairmen of quarter sessions or more than one quarter sessions in the same county.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 9.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 6, line 14, before 'any,' insert 'performing.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: This, my Lords, is merely a verbal Amendment.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 6, line 18, after 'Act,' insert 'with respect to procedure.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I may say that this Amendment has actually been carried, but was omitted from the print of the Bill by accident.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 6, line 2, at end of clause, insert as a new sub-section—
  "(5) An incumbent so inhibited shall not be liable to any penalty or forfeiture for non-residence, but section ninety-three of the Pluralities Act, 1838, shall apply as if the incumbent were non-resident, and thereupon section ninety-four of the same Act shall apply, as in the case where the curate's stipend is not less than the whole value of the benefice. The incumbent shall remain liable for repairs, but shall be entitled to retain out of the curate's stipend such amount in respect of repairs during the curate's occupation, and shall be entitled to such facilities for executing repairs as the bishop may, in case of difference, decide to be reasonable."—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, one of the difficulties in working the Pluralities Acts Amendment Act of 1885 consists in the fact that in several instances the incumbent has considered himself justified in thwarting the curate that has been put in in every possible way. The result is that the curate is unable to do the work which he is put there to do. A distinction is made in this Bill between inadequate performance of duties for which the incumbent cannot be blamed, and inadequate performance of duty which arises out of the incumbent's negligence, and if it is difficult to work the Act of 1885, it is obvious that it must be still more difficult to work this Bill if the old difficulty remains; and it is important, therefore, that, as the bishop has the power of
  780
  inhibiting the incumbent from continuing to discharge the duties, the curate should be put into the incumbent's place in as full a sense as if, for the time being, he were the incumbent. He has to discharge the incumbent's duties, and has to do exactly what he would have to do if he were the incumbent. It is important that he should occupy the same position in the eyes of the parishioners, and it is important also that the incumbent should go away from the parish. It is not proposed, in the Amendment that I submit to your Lordships, that any compulsion should be used to make him go. The Amendment in the name of the Archbishop of York, which we find in the same page with my own, proposes that the incumbent should not be allowed to reside within 20 miles from the parish church. That has been proposed before, but the more it is considered, the less it seems to be a workable clause. It would be difficult indeed to give good grounds for interfering so seriously with the liberty of the subject. You might almost as well require him not to come into England. It would be, no doubt, better if he would go abroad, and remove all possibility of his troubling us by his interference. At any rate, he ought to vacate the parsonage house and the residence which is intended for the person who discharges the duty, and for that reason this sub-section is submitted to you. The words—
  "An incumbent so inhibited shall not be liable to any penalty or forfeiture for non-residence"—
  give permission for him to go away, and it is hoped he will go away. If he went away without any words of this kind in the Act, the result would be that he would be liable to penalties of various kinds for non-residence. It is proposed to take away that liability, and let him go away if he will. But more than that is wanting. It is very often difficult to find a house in the parish in which the curate can live, if the parish consists mainly of people who are altogether in the lower ranks of life. In those cases it is very often very difficult indeed to find even lodgings. It is necessary that the curate who is put in should absolutely reside in the parish, and therefore it is proposed that, whilst the incumbent is

  781
  allowed to quit the residence and become a non-resident incumbent, the section of the Pluralities Act of 1838 shall be applied, which applies to non-resident incumbents. There it is laid down that if an incumbent be non-resident, the bishop shall have the power to assign to the curate the residence of the incumbent, that he may reside therein, and he has it without payment of rent. The bishop may assign to him, also, four acres of glebe, but there he is required to pay rent for it if it is so assigned to him. This is the wording of section 93, and, further, in the same case, section 94 of the same Act is made applicable. Section 94 puts on the curate, if he resides in the parsonage house, the payment of rates and taxes. It is reasonable that the curate should pay the rates and taxes which would otherwise have to be paid by the incumbent who is not allowed to occupy the house. Further, it is not reasonable that the incumbent, whilst incumbent, should be liable for repairs during the time he is excluded from the house, and, therefore, in accordance with section 92 of the same Act, the incumbent shall have the power of deducting from the curate's stipend a sufficient amount to cover the repairs all through the time of the curate's occupation of the house. I assure you, my Lords, it is really of importance that we should be able to assign the residence to the curate, because, in the first place, it is very often very difficult otherwise to provide that the curate shall reside in the parish; and, in the second place, because, if the incumbent remains in the parish, it is constantly found, where he has been convicted of negligence, that it is highly probable he will continue to interfere largely with the discharge of the duties which the curate is put there to fulfil. I am confident, if you want this Bill to work satisfactorily, the power which I propose ought to be given to the bishops and the responsibility of applying the law should be left with them. I hope your Lordships will be willing to accept the Amendment.
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, the Pluralities Act of 1838 provided that, in the case of continuous or recurrent absence from his benefice, an incumbent might have a curate
  782
  appointed to do his duty, and his own louse of residence—the house of residence of the benefice—assigned to that curate for his residence; and careful provisions are included in the sections of that Act for distributing the burden of rates, taxes, repairs, and dilapidations. No doubt the case against a non-resident incumbent as set forth in the Act of 1838 is one of very serious neglect indeed; he must have been guilty of wilful and persistent negligence. Those words were not used in the Act, but I think I shall be carrying your Lordships with me in saying that the incumbent whose case is considered in the present Bill must have been guilty of wilful and persistent negligence. Therefore, my Lords, it does not seem to Her Majesty's Government that the Act of negligence which is being considered in this Bill is of a less serious kind than that set forth under the Act of 1838, but rather the contrary. As the provisions of that Act have apparently been very carefully considered in the Amendment of the most reverend Prelate, and as the section as to the payment of rates and taxes has been applied to the cases foreseen by this Bill, and provision has been made for repairs, Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to refuse their assent to this clause. I may say that it would scarcely have been possible to accept a clause like this if it had not been for the constitution of the court under this Bill. It is a very serious thing, after inhibiting an incumbent, however wilful he may have been in his neglect, to assign his residence to the curate who is put in to do his duty, and such a provision would, I think, have been very carefully scrutinised, both in your Lordships' House and in the House of Commons, if there were not ample security that the negligence of the incumbent must have been certified, if necessary, by a judge of the High Court. It stands to reason that a judge of the High Court, in considering a case brought before him, will naturally bear in mind the penalties which attach to negligence. I am, therefore, prepared to assent to this clause.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "After clause 9, insert the following new clause—
  "Where, after the commencement of this Act, on the bankruptcy of an incumbent, or in aid of any writ of execution against his property, the benefice of that incumbent is sequestrated within twelve months after his institution, or where such sequestration, if issued after that period, continues for the space of one whole year, or where the incumbent incurs two such sequestrations in the space of two years, the benefice shall, unless the bishop otherwise direct, become void, and section fifty-eight of the Pluralities Act, 1838, shall apply in like manner as if the benefice had become void under that section."—(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
  *THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I rise to move the insertion of this new clause after clause 9. The proposal is one of some importance, and it was not by any wish of mine that it was not made in Committee. It was postponed until now at the request of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. This clause, I believe, will prove to be one of the most practical, and one of the most useful, clauses that the Bill contains. It is based upon the principle which underlies this attempted legislation throughout—the principle, namely, that those who are entitled to primary consideration are the parishioners, rather than the patron or presentee. Whatever the rights of property that exist, either for the patron or for the incumbent, they are really subordinate to the deeper and larger interests of the parishioners as a whole. We have heard in the course of this Debate of scandals arising from, sometimes the immorality, sometimes the physical inability, or physical disqualification of the incumbent or would-be incumbent, and attention has been rightly drawn to the public harm that does occasionally arise in such cases. I believe that if we could look into it we should find that, taking the Church of England as a whole, more mischief has arisen from insolvent incumbents than from the very rare instances of moral scandal which have occurred. It is to meet this difficulty, if we possibly can, that I ask your Lordships to accept this additional clause. As the law now stands insolvency is followed by sequestration of the incumbent's benefice, and the alienation to other purposes of funds
  784
  originally devoted to the maintenance of spiritual work in the parish. That is a condition of things which I wish, if we can achieve it, to render practically impossible. There are two ways in which it is possible for sequestration to come into force. There are sequestrations issued by the bishop on his own authority, and on his own motion, in which the intention is simply to benefit the parishioners and to use the money for the spiritual good of the parish; as, for example, when a vacancy occurs, or when an incumbent has been inhibited, and so forth. In those cases no private end is served, and all the money is used for the purposes for which it was given. But there is a second class of cases in which the bishop acts simply in an official capacity at the bidding of a court of law, and in such cases the money is not used for the good of the parishioners, but for the payment of the creditors of the incumbent. There are various modern Acts of Parliament under which provision has been made that in such cases there must be enough money reserved to pay a bare stipend to the curate appointed to minister in the parish during sequestration. It may be the incumbent himself who is appointed as curate-in-charge, but the living is in any case sequestrated in order that there may be a balance over the curate's stipend, and that that balance may go to the liquidation of the private debts of the incumbent. Those who are unfamiliar with the facts would be surprised to learn what experiences any bishop could furnish as to how long this unhappy state of things may continue, and how great a calamity may happen to a parish in consequence. I will give your Lordships two instances. I select them, not because they are by any means the most flagrant, but because they are cases with which I have personally had to do. The first instance is one in which a large parish of 8,000 poor people has been under sequestration for some 13 years. About 13 years ago the incumbent was found to be bankrupt, his liabilities amounting to a very large sum indeed, and arising, I am told, simply from reckless speculation on the Stock Exchange, or elsewhere. A large number of sequestrations were issued against him, and for 13 years that has been going on, and thousands of pounds have already been paid to the

  785
  creditors, while 8,000 poor people in the parish have been obliged to put up with the ministry of successive curates, who receive the mere pittance which is allowed to be provided for them out of the sequestration money. So far as I know, that state of things is likely to go on, if the incumbent lives, for another 13 years. This is not an unusual case, and our desire is to make such cases impossible in the future. The other instance, to which I will call your Lordships' attention, is that of a country parish of only 500 people, which was sequestrated 20 years ago. The incumbent has long been absent. He lives, I believe, in Africa, and a considerable sum of money is annually paid over out of the living to the incumbent's personal creditors. For 20 years that has been going on, and the results may be better imagined than described. It would not be difficult to multiply instances in town and country of cases such as the two I have mentioned. It appears to me that the principle which renders such a condition of things possible is radically wrong, and the practice is little less than monstrous. It is absolutely contrary to the intention of Parliament. Long ago, in 1571, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, an Act of Parliament was passed to prevent incumbents from charging their benefices for the good of their creditors outside. These are the words of the Act of Queen Elizabeth—
  "That the livings appointed for ecclesiastical ministers may not by corrupt and indirect dealings be transferred to other uses, be it enacted … that all chargings of such benefices with any pension or with any profit out of the same … shall be utterly void."
  That provision has been practically evaded during many generations past by the practice of sequestrating a benefice, and enabling an incumbent thus to discharge what we may call alien debts to the infinite detriment of the parishioners, and, I think, to the misfortune, in most cases, of the man himself. Happily, during the last 30 years at least, public opinion has been steadily rising to the view that the whole system of sequestration—long-continued sequestration, at all events—for the payment of the debts of an individual incumbent is an iniquity that ought no longer to be borne. It is for that reason that
  786
  I ask your Lordships to accept the clause, which runs as follows—
  "Where, after the commencement of this Act, on the bankruptcy of an incumbent, or in aid of any writ of execution against his property, the benefice of that incumbent is sequestrated within twelve months after his institution, or where such sequestration, if issued after that period, continues for the space of one whole year, or where the incumbent incurs two such sequestrations in the space of two years, the benefice shall, unless the Bishop otherwise direct, become void, and Section 58 of the Pluralities Act, 1838, shall apply in like manner as if the benefice had become void under that section."
  The wording of that clause is not new; it is based upon a clause in the Act of 1838, which dealt with non-resident incumbents. In its original intention it is happily now not much required, nor is it often put into practice, because the scandal of persistent non-residence, which was terribly common in the year 1838, is now virtually come to an end. But, besides that, I am not responsible for the wording of the clause as it stands. It is a clause which was carefully drawn up and inserted in the Bill which was introduced into the House of Commons in the year 1896. In that year, as your Lordships will remember, the Bill passed a Second Reading in the House of Commons, and was referred to the Standing Committee on Law. In that Committee it was discussed clause by clause, and this clause received long and careful consideration. The Bill passed through the Standing Committee on Law, and went back to the House of Commons, though from pressure of business, in the long run, it failed to pass. I commend that fact to your Lordships, as showing what consideration this clause has received at the hands of those best qualified to judge, and I earnestly hope that it may be incorporated in the present Bill. The only objections that I have heard to it are these: some people have said that it will be hard upon the creditors, and others that it will be hard upon the incumbents. How can it be hard upon the creditors? If the clause were to be made retrospective, then I admit that it might be hard upon the creditors. Is it hard upon the creditors of an officer of the Army, or of a civil servant, that he is unable to sequestrate

  787
  the annual sum due to him, in order that certain debts, quite apart from his public work, may be relieved? If the clause were retrospective—if you intended to take away the security upon which creditors have given money, or allowed credit—I quite admit that it would be hard upon the creditors. But it is not so. After this, all that will be necessary for the creditor to do will be to take care lest he give undue credit either by lending money or by allowing Bills to remain unpaid to incumbents over whose benefices he will hold no power—whose livings will not be able to be sequestrated if this clause passes. Then we are told that it is hard upon the incumbents themselves, and on that point I should like to say a few words. In the first place, I believe it will be a genuine benefit to incumbents in straitened circumstances that they should not have the somewhat vague and unlimited credit which the possible power of sequestration seems to give. A man who is not very careful, who is somewhat impecunious, who has large obligations, may be even benefited by the fact that his living cannot be sequestrated to obtain credit, and that it is therefore absolutely out of his power to obtain that credit. It is said there are occasional instances where a man, from no fault of his own—perhaps from having been a trustee—has found himself insolvent; and, that as he is not blameworthy, it would be exceedingly hard that the power of sequestrating his benefice should be taken away. In an argument of this description the story of the Glasgow Bank case does very great service; it has been used over and over again as an instance of the kind of way in which an incumbent might find himself liable, through merely having been trustee, to pay large sums of money. It is true that any such case as that would be very hard upon the incumbent. But is it better that the responsibility of paying those debts should fall upon the parishioners rather than upon the incumbent? If it is hard upon the incumbent to be thus placed in a position of difficulty, it is certainly even harder upon the parishioners, who, at all events, neither directly nor indirectly, either by carelessness or negligence, or anything else, can be regarded as being responsible for the debts thus incurred. That is the first answer I should like to give to those who say that this clause would be
  788
  hard upon the incumbent. If it is hard upon him—and it is no harder upon him than it is upon other men—that he should be unable to anticipate his income by means of sequestration, surely it is equally hard upon the parishioners, who in the long run are the people called upon to suffer. But, besides that, this clause says—
  "The benefice shall, unless the bishop otherwise direct, become void."
  Therefore, it will always be possible for the bishop, in an exceptional case of hardship, where it is felt that there was no fault, and that real gain would result from allowing sequestration to continue and the incumbent to remain in possession, to make such arrangements as are necessary for the protection of an innocent man. This seems to me to be quite a sufficient answer to the complaint that this clause would act harshly upon an incumbent, if it were to become law. But I can appeal on this particular point to an unimpeachable authority. If there is one body in England which is competent and certain to safeguard the interests of the incumbents in England it is the Lower House of Convocation. Whatever may be its shortcomings in other respects, no one will impute to it that it is careless of the interests of the incumbents who vote for its members, and who largely constitute the body. Now, my Lords, this actual clause was introduced by me into the Upper House of Convocation, and was sent down to the Lower House. It was there considered, and without one dissentient voice, the Lower House asked that it might become law. That is a most important point to consider when we hear the allegation that the clause will be hard upon incumbents. The incumbents have spoken by the voice of the Lower House of Convocation, which is their authorised means of speaking, and that House has spoken with public spirit and with wisdom in asking that this clause should become law. I have therefore neither scruple nor hesitation in asking your Lordships to add this clause to the Bill.
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: There is no doubt that a case such as the right reverend prelate has so eloquently described is a glaring scandal. I know of a

  789
  case in point which will verify the experience of the right reverend prelate; a teeming population with a large church and a rich living—the incumbent wandering over the globe—the whole living in the hands of creditors, and a small sum rescued from the annual instalment paid to the creditors in order to pay the curate struggling to provide ministration to the spiritual needs of that teeming population. That is only one case of many which could be quoted by the right reverend prelates who sit on that bench, and who have only too extensive an experience of cases of this kind. If that was the only class of case that we had to consider under the head of sequestration, I should be able with the greatest possible satisfaction to accept the right reverend prelate's clause exactly as it stands now. Indeed, I do not see, even apart from the reservation that I shall presently have to make, on what logical basis this law of sequestration stands. Here is a provision being made for the cure of souls in a certain benefice. It certainly never was in the mind of any pious founder that he should enable some future incumbent of that benefice to indulge in such extravagances that the living had to be sequestrated for 10 or 20 years in order to satisfy that incumbent's creditors. It is an entirely indefensible system, but I am afraid that the four corners of this Bill would not suffice for complete revision or abolition of the law of sequestration. It is a very complicated matter. There are, I believe, no less than seven different kinds of sequestrations, one of which, at least, is a necessary and thoroughly right one—I mean the sequestration which follows vacancy. But, my Lords, the case is not absolutely simple. Besides these extravagant incumbents on whose behalf I do not imagine one of your Lordships would raise a word, it is to be remembered that in this time of agricultural depression and general deterioration of the value of livings there are cases of sequestration, and I am afraid a good many of them, which cannot be attributed to any simple fault on the part of the incumbent. He may have been unwise, but he has not been guilty of any speculation or of any extravagant tastes. There are cases, my Lords, where a man has run into debt, and where his living has been sequestrated
  790
  owing to the fact that the value of the living has been continually declining, and he has been really striving unwisely, from the best of principles, beyond his means to support the spiritual needs of the parish; or he has contributed largely to the payment of curates and to other matters of church work, church schools, and so on, without sufficiently realising the dangerous position into which he was getting. There are other cases where a man has really been made a bankrupt, and his living has been sequestrated owing to the sum he has had to pay in respect of dilapidations on entering into his benefice. This is the class of case which is quite of a different character to the case of extravagance or of speculation, and Her Majesty's Government think that such cases must be considered, and that, as this Amendment stands, men who are getting into that position at the present moment, and who, rightly or wrongly, have relied on the income of their benefice to extract them out of the temporary dilemma into which they have arrived, ought to have their cases considered. Further, that it would not be defensible that such men, who are striving to do their utmost to rise above the financial wave, should be liable to complete deprivation. That, I would remind the right reverend prelate, is what his Amendment amounts to, but I say that such men should not be liable to lose their benefices altogether—to lose any chance of recovering their position—and I think should not be liable to see themselves turned out without any benefice, and to see their wives and families ejected from the residence of the living. Therefore, my Lords, what Her Majesty's Government are prepared to do, if the right reverend prelate will alter the form of his Amendment, is to accept this clause if it is made applicable to the case of incumbents presented or collated after the commencement of this Act. That, no doubt, unfortunately, would leave the evil of which we complain in the case of extravagant and speculative incumbents untouched for some time to come, but it will avoid the very great injustice of the possibility of men who have got themselves into this position through neither extravagance nor speculation, being turned out of their benefices, and it will act as a great warning to them in

  791
  the future. It will deprive them of this artifical credit, which, they should remember, was not theirs to use, and it will prove a support and a strength to them in the future. It will, I believe, minimise the possibility of their getting credit which is beyond their means to pay, and will act not as a hardship, but as a safeguard against their getting, in the future, into such a position as I have described. There is one further Amendment that the Government would wish to see. At present the discretion of the bishop is negative—unless he intervenes this clause is to take effect. Her Majesty's Government would like to see the position reversed, and that the clause will not take effect unless the bishop should direct that it should; thus there would be a direct responsibility on the bishop of distinguishing between cases where the incumbent is wholly to blame, and in cases where there may be extenuating circumstances which the bishop could take into account, and which will accordingly go in mitigation of the severity of the sentence he might otherwise think it his duty to pass. If the right reverend Prelate will accept these alterations, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to accept the right reverend Prelate's clause as a very valuable addition to what I believe will be a Bill that will operate very largely to the discipline and efficiency of the Church. The clause would run thus—
  "In the case of incumbents presented or collated after the commencement of this Act, if on bankruptcy, or in aid of any writ of execution against property, the benefice of any such incumbent is sequestrated within twelve months after his institution, or if such sequestration, if issued after that period, continues for the space of one whole year, or if any such incumbent incurs two such sequestrations in the space of two years, the benefice shall, unless the bishop otherwise direct, become void, and section fifty-eight of the Pluralities Act, 1838, shall apply in like manner as if the benefice had become void under that section."
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Certainly, as far as my opinion goes, I think that the clause which the noble Earl has signified his willingness to accept, is better than no clause at all; but I am afraid that I do not agree with the basis on which he has founded his argument. He seems to me to consider that this Amendment of the law had
  792
  in view the punishment, as it were, of the clergy; my view is, that the idea of it is to safeguard the interests of the parishioners. No doubt it is right that where you have to pass a law which has for its object the safeguarding of the parishioners, you should consider fairly and reasonably the position in which the incumbent may be placed; but I regard the wish to put an end, or, at any rate, to modify the law of sequestration, as being based entirely upon this: that it is wrong in principle and in practice that money which exists for the purpose of providing for the spiritual needs of the parish, should go to satisfy debts which the clergyman has incurred. I thought that the right reverend Prelate was wise in leaving a discretion to the bishop, because there may be cases undoubtedly where a certain amount of indulgence might be properly allowed, and I do not think you ought to frame the law so that it is necessary for the bishop to take notice of these "hard cases." I feel great sympathy for the clergy who may have found that their incomes are not as large as they anticipated, and therefore they have fallen into difficulties. But, although I feel that sympathy, yet I think that that does not meet the case. They may have expended the money in lavish charities or in adornment of their churches, which are unnecessary. Pray do not misunderstand me. I am speaking from any point of view of ritual. They may have done any of those things, or they may have done other things which they would wisely have abstained from; but because they have done these things I see no reason why they should be exempt entirely from the necessity which, I believe, is felt by all, that the interests of the parish should be first considered. What I feel is that the noble Earl's Amendment will be extremely little followed; because, if you consider what a very long time it would be before any very large number of the clergy would come under the effect of it, I think such a postponement as he recommends would be most unfortunate. I regret that the noble Earl is not able to accept the Amendment which the right reverend Prelate has told us was actually approved of by the Lower House of Convocation, which undoubtedly represents the feelings of the incumbents of livings. I

  793
  think it right to make that observation, but at the same time, I think that a little is better than nothing at all, and that the introduction of the principle into the Bill will be valuable, even though, in practice, it will have very small effect.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I should like to ask the noble Earl to reconsider the change which he proposes to make in the latter part of the Amendment of the right reverend Prelate. As the original Amendment stands, the clause is to come into operation unless the bishop otherwise directs.
  "The benefice shall, unless the bishop otherwise direct, become void."
  That, of course, leaves with the bishop a discretion; but, unless he sees reason to interfere, the Act is to come into force. Now, my Lords, the noble Earl in charge of the Bill proposes to make the operation act in the very opposite way, and he proposes that the clause shall not come into force unless the bishop says that it is to come into force. Well, that may be right, but I only ask the noble Earl to consider what a very serious duty he is imposing upon the bishop. Think of the amount of appeals that will be made to the bishop! Think how hard it will be for him in one case to say, "Well, yes, I am sorry to say so, but I think in this case I must insist on the law," and in another, "Yes, I think in that case I shall be able to abstain from interfering." It seems to me that the proposed change of the noble Earl throws upon the bishop a very unnecessary hardship, and throws upon him a duty which I think he should not be called upon to undertake. I would just ask him—and I thought that the noble Earl who spoke before me was going to raise that point—whether this is not a point which he should seriously consider before he asks your Lordships to adopt the Amendment in its changed form.
  THE MARQUIS OF LOTHIAN: I do not wish to repeat the arguments which have been already made use of, but I feel very strongly that it will be a great mistake if the Amendment, as altered by the noble Earl, is to be given effect to. I very much prefer the Amendment of the right reverend Prelate. I cannot help think-
  794
  ing that there are a great many Members on this side of the House who are willing to accept the noble Earl's first proposed Amendment, but not the second one. I only rise, my Lords, to say that because I think it would be a great mistake if the second Amendment of the noble Earl to the Amendment of the right reverend Prelate was given effect to.
  THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I do not think that the noble Earl opposite who last spoke has sufficiently considered what the operation of this clause will be if turned into cast-iron machinery from which there is no power of escape.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: That is not what I proposed. I proposed to leave the latter half of the right reverend Prelate's Amendment as he proposed it, whereby the clause would come into force unless the bishop otherwise directed.
  THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Then I do not think it is worth talking much about, the difference between the two is extremely small. It is merely a question of considering the finer feelings of the bishop, and I do not think it matters much whether the bishop says it is to have effect, or whether it is to take effect unless the bishop says no. I do not think the results are worth the consideration of the House. I should very much demur to anything which would not give a direction in one form or another to the bishop, because you must remember that in cases which happen not unfrequently, where a clergyman goes into a living weighted already with debts incurred at the university, and goes through life weighted with those debts—unhappily a case which is by no means unknown—he becomes the absolute slave of the money-lender, into whose hands he has fallen. If the money-lender is able at his will to bring this machinery of sequestration into effect, that machinery would pretty well destroy the chances of future existence for the clergyman. If the bishop cannot save him, if he thinks right to do so, from the severe operation of the law, the result will be that the clergyman must do whatever the money-lender pleases. The money-lender

  795
  is his master, and it is a slavery from which he cannot escape. I remember a case where a man came into a rich living, heavily burdened with debt. I think he held that rich living, heavily burdened with debt as it was, for more than a quarter of a century, but there was no sequestration from, beginning to end; there was the threat of sequestration hanging over him from first to last, and the whole value of the living came into the moneylenders' hands and the condition of that parish was exceedingly deplorable. I do not see my way out of a difficulty of that kind, excepting by some such Measure as is proposed by the right reverend Prelate, and by leaving to the bishop a kind of paternal power of either enforcing or diminishing the weight and sanction of the law. In that way I hope that this clause may do a great deal of good. I think you will have complaint of hard cases—that due notice has not been given—that you are interfering with the rights of property which are really vested, and which, as the law stands, were rightly vested; but on the whole, I think that the clause, as proposed by the Government, is the safest clause to take, and that it will be a very considerable advance on the state of things that exists at present.
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: The noble Marquess said in the course of his remarks that he does not think it a matter of grave importance whether it should be left to the bishop to take the enforcement of the clause or whether the clause is left to operate unless the bishop otherwise directs. I think, however, if the noble Marquess were a bishop and had to enforce the clause, he would feel that there was a very considerable difference, and, if the noble Marquess thinks it is a matter of no importance, then surely there can be no reason for altering the clause as it stands. If it is of no great importance, then leave it as it has been proposed. Certainly the bishop would very much rather have it in that form than in any other, and further, there is this to be said: it leaves the incumbent in a state of suspense—in a state of suspended animation. The bishop may delay his decision, he goes on, and the sequestration goes on, and this sort of thing may go on for no one knows how
  796
  long, and the incumbent never knows when the bishop may come down and say, "Now the law must be enforced." If the Government do not think it is a matter of great importance, I hope they will be willing to leave that part of the clause alone. I am not objecting to that part of the clause which postpones the operation of the clause by applying it only to those who are instituted after this Bill has been passed into an Act, although there is a good deal to be said for it, I am sorry for it; but so far as the other alteration is concerned, I really think it would be very much better to leave it alone.
  THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Under the new regulation I had better ask the leave of the Lord Chancellor before I speak again. I wish that the right reverend bench would let us know whether the Amendment of the right reverend Prelate represents their views, because if that is the feeling of the Bench I do not think the Government ought to refuse.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I think that the Bench is entirely unanimous, so far as I know, in this respect, and very much prefer that they should not have to inaugurate the law, but rather that it should be allowed to take its ordinary course. The noble Marquess has spoken about the "finer feelings" of the bishops. I think your Lordships would wish the bishops still to retain those finer feelings. They are one of the few classes of society which possesses them, and anything which would prevent those finer feelings from being seriously outraged would, I think, be a public benefit.
  Question put—
  "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 10.
  "Page 6, line 24, after 'Act,' insert 'and the application thereof for the remuneration of the officials in the registry in respect of such registration and inspection.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: That simply provides, my Lords, that the fees derived from registration should be paid to the officials of the registry.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Line 30, after 'made,' insert—
  "For the purpose of framing rules under this section the judge nominated by the Lord Chancellor for the purposes of this Act shall be added to the said Rule Committee if not already a member thereof.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The insertion of those words is necessary in order to make certain that the judges appointed by the Lord Chancellor shall be members of the Rule Committee.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "At the end of clause 10, insert—
  "The fees paid in respect of proceedings in the court under this Act shall be paid over to the common fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who shall, out of such common fund, defray all the expenses of and incidental to the sittings of the court and the remuneration of its officers, and all expenses which are necessarily incurred in the execution of this Act in such proceedings: Provided that no portion of the fund destined for the relief of necessitous incumbents shall be applied to the payment of the aforesaid expenses.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: One word in this proposed addition has not been printed properly. In the clause on the Amendment Paper it says in the third line from the bottom, at the end of the line, "portion of the," whereas it should be "portion of any." The Amendment would then read—
  "The fees paid in respect of proceedings in the court under this Act shall be paid over to the common fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who shall, out of such common fund, defray all the expenses of and incidental to the sittings of the court and the remuneration of its officers, and all expenses which are necessarily incurred in the execution of this Act in such proceedings: Provided that no portion of any fund destined for the relief of necessitous incumbents shall be applied to the payment of the aforesaid expenses."
  798
  This Amendment is put down, my Lords, to meet the case of the expenses incurred under this Act—the expenses of the court and other expenses incurred in bringing this Act into operation. A good deal of debate has taken place in the various stages of this Bill on this question, and the Government proposed to throw on the Ecclesiastical Commissioners not only the expense of the court, but also the costs of the bishops. But, on behalf of the bishops, the most reverend prelate expressed his dislike and disapproval of that proposal, and in the Amendment that is now before your Lordships' House that proposal is not renewed, but the Government retain the very strongest conviction that the expenses of this court must be provided for in this Act if this Act is not to be a farce, and in their opinion no fitter fund than the common fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners can be imagined for such a purpose. It is quite true that the purposes to which that fund are already allotted are of great importance to the Church; but it is difficult to imagine any purpose more important than the proper working of the courts under this Bill. Therefore, I may say, with the consent of the most reverend prelate—that is to say, that he will not oppose the Amendment—this charge of the expenses of the court in all particulars is put upon the common fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and the last words—
  "provided that no portion of any fund destined for the relief of necessitous incumbents shall be applied to the payment of the aforesaid expenses"—
  have been put in to meet the spirit of the criticism of the most reverend prelate. I am perfectly aware that the common fund is not divided into specific portions. I am perfectly aware that the money that is annually voted to the relief of necessitous incumbents is not an ear-marked fund, but on the other hand, bearing in mind the strong appeal of the most reverend prelate the other day, the Government have put in these words as a direction to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners that in annually apportioning the common fund they shall remember that any expenses which are charged to the fund under this Act are to be taken from those portions of the apportionment that would not

  799
  otherwise be allotted for necessitous incumbents. It is a direction which expresses clearly the meaning of the Government, and that meaning is meant to meet the appeal of the most reverend Prelate; and if by any chance it does hereafter result in some kind of division of this fund, it might not be an altogether inapt result of the wording of this clause. In order to mitigate as far as possible the expense to be put upon Ecclesiastical Commissioners, it is thought fair that the fees which are paid into court under this Act shall be paid to the common fund, upon which the whole expenses of these courts will henceforth be chargeable.
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I have no objection to make to the Amendment as a whole, but the last three lines—
  "provided that no portion of any fund destined for the relief of necessitous incumbents shall be applied to the payment of the aforesaid expenses"—
  will, I am afraid, be a little hampering, because, as the noble Earl is aware, the amount that we generally have to distribute at the close of a year is about £150,000. It has been that for two or three years, and will be for a few more, and very likely may go on being that amount, or perhaps it may be a little more; but of this £150,000 no part is allotted or destined for the relief of necessitous incumbents. The allotment is made after we have ascertained two things—first, what is the exact amount that we have to distribute, and, secondly, what are the circumstances of the applications that are made to us to apply the money in one way or another. We go through the cases, we decide that we will allow so much for local claims, we afterwards give relief to poor incumbents, we allow so much for the augmentation of the livings of poor incumbents, and we allow so much for populations without sufficient ministry. But there is no fixed sum for any of these matters—they are allotted for the particular circumstances of a particular year, and I do not see very well how this can work, so as to secure that the portion which is to go to population cases shall be the only part that shall be affected by the clause up to the point where these
  800
  words come in. I think that either the words will have no operation whatever, or else they will be simply hampering, and in that case I would rather have them out. I cannot say that they are so mischievous that I shall vote against the clause as a whole in order to get rid of these few words, but I think it is better that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should be quite free in their discretion in applying the money as they have hitherto applied it. If the fees of the court are to be paid over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the amount that remains for the Commissioners to make up will probably not be a very large sum.
  THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: The most reverend Prelate is the indirect author of the words by his eloquent and passionate attempt to stamp upon the proposed clause of the Government the reproach of enmity to the poorer cleray, and a tendency to assist the already over-furnished bishop. I do not agree with the most reverend Prelate. Still, if you can attach a sentimental ground of attack to any measure of any kind, you tie a tin kettle to its tail, which may injure it in its future progress. There are places more sentimental even than this House, where I fear such a reproach would have had a terrible effect, and, in order to safeguard the provision from a renewal of that animated and eloquent appeal to which we listened the other night, and from the more decided effects which might follow it elsewhere, I confess I had rather that the clause remained in. I am quite open to the suggestion that it does not mean very much, and that its practical effect will not be very great, but it is one of sentiment and feeling, and those are things which always appeal to a British Parliament.
  THE BISHOP OF RIPON: May I venture to ask whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have any fund which is destined or earmarked for the relief of necessitous incumbents. I think they have a fund for relieving necessitous in-

  801
  cumbents, which is a very different thing indeed?
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: There is one little word I should like to put in—
  "Page 7, line 16, insert 'all' instead of 'of.'"
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill ordered for Third Rending on Thursday next, and to be printed as amended. [No. 175.]

  COMPANIES ACT (1867) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  Read the second time (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
  BODIES CORPORATE (JOINT TENANCY) BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the second time (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE COURTS BILL.
  *LORD BELPER: This is a very small Bill, and deals with a very small point which was overlooked in the Bill brought in last year by the Home Office. That Bill amended a clause in a former Act, and it was afterwards found that it had altered the arrangements with regard to the application of the fines which were applied under a former agreement. That was not intended, and this Bill is merely for the purpose of making it clear that these fines should be applied in the way proposed.
  Motion made.
  Question put—
  "That the Bill be read a second time."
  Agreed to.
  Read the second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next.

  HABITUAL INEBRIATES BILL.
  *LORD BELPER: The Bill which I have to ask your Lordships to read a second time this evening is one which proposes an amendment in the law with regard to the treatment of habitual inebriates, who have been convicted either of serious or minor offences caused by drunkenness. The question of the habitual drunkard has been one which has attracted a considerable amount of attention in the country, and more than one Resolution and Bill has been brought before Parliament with regard to this subject. No less than three Committees have dealt with the question. In the first place, there was the Committee which was appointed by the late Home Secretary, Lord Llandaff, which was the Committee on the treatment of inebriates in 1873, and of that Mr. Wharton was Chairman. There was also the Scotch Committee on Habitual Offenders, which was appointed in 1895, and there is the Prison Committee which was appointed in 1895, also dealing with this question, and which confirmed the conclusions which had been come to by the other Committees. It will also, perhaps, be within the recollection of your Lordships that Lord Herschell brought forward a Bill on this question—three years ago—and the only reason that I refer to it is for the purpose of making it quite clear that the present Bill, which I have now the honour to ask your Lordships to read a second time, does not, as that Bill did, refer also to the case of inebriates who have not been convicted of any offence. This Bill proposes, as I said, to deal only with those who have brought themselves under the criminal law, and are habitual drunkards, and it proposes a curative treatment, with a sufficiently long detention in a reformatory to give them some chance of being successfully treated. My Lords, I think I may mention, as this is a somewhat new Bill, that it has passed through the House of Commons, not only with the assent, but with the general approval, of both sides of the House, and it did not even give rise to that difference of opinion which so many questions which are to deal with drink are calculated to excite. I think that any of your Lordships who have paid any attention to this question,

  803
  and especially those who have assisted in the administration of justice, especially in courts of summary jurisdiction, will have been well aware how inefficient and unsatisfactory the present law has been; that it has not been successful in deterring these offences of drunkenness from being repeated, and that, in fact, it is a matter of common notoriety that the class of people who are committed for drunken offences will come back repeatedly charged with the same offences. I do not wish to labour the matter at all with regard to the bringing before you of any evidence upon this point, but I think that I ought, perhaps, very shortly to refer you to a few of the facts which have been laid before the Home Office, and also before this House. There was a Memorial presented, I think, to this House some two years ago, and Lord Herschell referred to that in the speech which he made in the introduction of the Bill in 1895. That Memorial contained some very startling facts, but I will only refer to one or two of them. One was this: that out of 33,000 women who were sent to prison for drunkenness, 11,000—not less than 33 per cent.—had 10 convictions recorded against them. In one of the London prisons, at the time that the return in question was being prepared, there were 105 women who had been committed from 40 to 133 times in the course of the year, and there was one woman who had actually had 400 convictions against her, besides which her husband had also paid £200 in fines in connection with the same sort of case. My Lords, it is not only in the very large and populous places like London that these cases seem to occur. We have had, at the Home Office, a large number of requisitions from different parts of the country asking for legislation in this matter—by corporations, by boards of guardians, and by other authorities. I think there were some 50 of such applications in the first two months of this year. In small towns the cases seem to be quite as frequent as they are in other places. In one town, with a population of 12,000, six persons had been convicted of being drunk, who were described by the police as habitual drunkards; against three of these there had been 20 con-
  804
  victions for this sort of offence. In another case, in a town of about 25,000 population, there were 11 such persons convicted, of whom nine had over 20 convictions against them; and in another town of about 30,000 population there were 15 persons, of whom 11 had been convicted 25 times, and one had 76 convictions against him. There is also a rather striking return from a large union in London, in which they stated that 230 persons had been admitted to the insane wards during 1897 who were suffering from alcoholic excess. In all these cases alcohol is said to be the sole cause of the mental disturbance, and in many other cases which are not mentioned it is a contributing cause; and the guardians assert that they have been put to an expense of £1,000 owing to these particular cases. Then, to give you only one more fact, and to put to you the general result, I find that in the police returns for the year 1896 there were 23,300 people who were classed as habitual drunkards; 261 of these were proceeded against for indictable offences, and 23,000 were proceeded against summarily. These figures will give your Lordships some idea of the number of cases which may possibly have to be dealt with under this Measure. That, practically, is the case for the Bill. I think your Lordships will agree that these figures are sufficiently startling to show that the present law is not satisfactory, and that it requires some amendment. I would venture to point out, my Lords, that it is not surprising that the law is not satisfactory, because these people who have been indulging repeatedly in drink are practically in a state that they cannot be said to have any moral responsibility, and they cannot practically control themselves, or resist again indulging in these excesses which so often bring them within the clutches of the law. Now, my Lords, with regard to the proposals in the Bill, I will only, in the first instance, state that its provisions are founded on the Reports of those Committees which took the evidence of expert witnesses upon this matter, and which practically confirmed each other, and came to the same conclusion, that the only possible way of dealing with these cases is detention sufficiently long in a reformatory, under

  805
  some curative treatment. The Bill proposes that there shall be two sorts of reformatories established. In the first place, the Secretary of State may establish inebriate reformatories, which in this Bill are called State inebriate reformatories. These will be for the reception of the most serious case of offenders—those who have been convicted under the first clause of the Act of indictable1 offences, punishable with imprisonment or penal servitude. And with regard to these State inebriate reformatories the Secretary of State will make—
  "regulations for the rule and management of any State inebriate reformatory, and for the classification, treatment, employment, and control of persons sent to it."
  The other class of reformatory is called certified inebriates' reformatories, and they are for the purpose, in the first instance, of dealing with cases of those who are habitual inebriates, and who are convicted of minor offences, and these certified inebriate reformatories may be established either by private means or by councils of counties, or by councils of boroughs, but before they are certified as inebriate reformatories they will have to conform to whatever conditions the Secretary of State thinks it desirable to put upon them. With regard to the two classes that this Bill proposes to deal with, the first class deals with the cases of those who have, upon indictment, been found guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment or penal servitude. In the first instance, it will have to be proved that the offence was committed under the influence of drink, or that drunkenness was a contributing cause to the offence; and if the jury find the prisoner guilty of the offence they will also have to find whether he was an habitual drunkard under the description of the Act of 1879. In that case he may, in addition to or in substitution of any other sentence, be detained for a period not exceeding three years in a State inebriate reformatory, or other certified reformatory. The other eases which are dealt with in the second clause are the cases of offenders who are found guilty of any of the offences in the first schedule of this Act. That schedule contains all the ordinary cases of being guilty of drunkenness and dis-
  806
  orderliness, drunk while in charge of any carriage, horse, or steam-engine, failing when drunk to quit licensed premises when requested, being drunk in any street, and being guilty of riotous or indecent behaviour, and other things of that sort. With reference to this class of person, it will have to be proved that the offender is an habitual drunkard, but in addition to that he cannot be convicted under this Bill unless he has, within 12 months preceding the date of the commission of the offence, been convicted summarily at least three times of the same or a similar offence. He will also be charged on indictment unless he himself wishes to be dealt with summarily. My Lords, I think you will see that with regard to both of these clauses there is sufficient security that no man will be put on his trial, and be likely to be subject to this detention for this long period, unless it is absolutely proved that he is an habitual drunkard, and that he has not been reformed within the last 12 months, because, as is provided for in the second clause, he cannot be convicted unless he has been similarly convicted at least three times within that period. With regard to the other provisions of the Bill, I do not think I need trouble your Lordships at any length. With regard to the certified inebriate reformatories, the Bill proposes, by clause 5—
  "The Secretary of State, on the application of the council of any county or borough or of any persons desirous of establishing an inebriate reformatory, may, if satisfied as to the fitness of the reformatory and of the persons proposing to maintain it, certify it as an inebriate reformatory, and thereupon, while the certificate is in force, the reformatory shall be a certified inebriate reformatory within the meaning of this Act."
  There is also a power taken for the Secretary of State being applied to to contribute to the maintenance of the inebriates in certified inebriate reformatories. The Act applies not only to Scotland, where the evidence was quite as strong as it is with regard to England, but also to Ireland. It was not originally intended to refer to Ireland, but it has been made to refer to Ireland on the express and general wish of those representing Irish constituencies in the other House. The only other part of the Bill to which I need

  807
  refer is with reference to clauses introduced for the purpose of making some necessary and desirable amendment of the Habitual Drunkards Act, 1879, which experience has found can be usefully amended to make it work more smoothly. My Lords, I hope I have said enough to convince your Lordships that it is a desirable thing that some attempt should be made to deal with this very serious question. I do not know whether there are any of your Lordships who would be inclined to object to this Bill. I cannot conceive that there is anyone who can consider that the present state of the law is a satisfactory one, and if there is any opposition to a Measure of this sort, I think it can only be on the ground that it is a somewhat novel procedure that is now being proposed. At the same time. I may venture to remind your Lordships that it is on the lines of the Reformatories Act, by which juvenile offenders are treated in a similar way, and kept under detention a sufficiently long time to make them forget the evil courses on which they have embarked, and though this is a Bill dealing with people of more mature age, and not with those of tender years, yet I think it will be at once admitted that if they are repeatedly guilty of such a series of offences as is shown in the cases which I have quoted to your Lordships, and if it is certain that they have no power or control over their own actions as far as drink is concerned, it is not only the right but the duty of the State to protect them from the consequences of their own actions, and also to protect society from these repeated cases of drunkenness and disorder which the present law does not seem to be able to deal with. I hope that you will give a Second Reading to this Bill, which is founded, as I have pointed out to your Lordships, on the experience and on the investigations of those who are most qualified to form an opinion upon this difficult subject.
  Motion made.
  Question put—
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Motion agreed to.
  Read the second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next.

  BOROUGH FUNDS BILL.
  "Where a Bill or a part or parts or clause or clauses of a Bill is or are withdrawn under this Act, no further expense shall be incurred by the council or mayor or chairman of the council in or about the promotion of the Bill, or part or parts or clause or clauses so with-drawn; but, subject as aforesaid, all costs, charges, and expenses incurred by the council or mayor or chairman in or as incidental to the preparation and promotion of the Bill, up to and inclusive of its deposit in Parliament and withdrawal (if withdrawn), and in or as incidental to the taking of a poll under this Act, shall, when taxed by a taxing officer of me of the Houses of Parliament, or allowed under the Borough Funds Act, 1872, be charged on and payable out of such one or more of the public funds or rates under the control of the council (and if more than one, then in such proportions) as the council, having regard to the nature and objects of the Bill, may determine to be just and proper."—(The Earl of Beauchamp.)
  *LORD AMPTHILL: The noble Earl in charge of this Bill has asked me to move the Amendment which stands in his name. In doing so, perhaps I may be allowed to say two words of explanation, The Amendment which your Lordships we asked to insert in the Bill originally formed part of the Bill, but while the Bill was passing through Standing Committee it was accidentally omitted, owing to circumstances which I need not trouble your Lordships by relating. I understand that the noble Lord who represents the Local Government Board is willing to accept the clause, and I trust your Lordships will do so too.
  Motion made.
  Question put—
  "That the clause be added to the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill ordered for Third Reading on Monday next.

  COLONIAL MARRIAGES (DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER) BILL. [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read the third time on Thursday next.
  NATIONAL MONUMENTS IN CHURCHES BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGE ESTATES BILL.
  The House went into Committee on the Universities and College Estates Bill.
  The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)in the Chair.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Viscount CROSS): My Lords, there are one or two Amendments to this Bill on the Notice Paper.

  CLAUSE 4.
  "Page 2, line 35, leave out from the first 'the' to the first 'the' in line 38, and insert 'annual amount required for the repayment of the money exceeds one-half of the net annual value of the land after deduction therefrom of the rent reserved by the beneficial lease.'"—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  "Page 3, line 4, after 'expedient,' insert 'provided that the aggregate amount required to be repaid or replaced by a university or college in any one year in respect of money so borrowed or applied shall be not less than the average annual amount so repaid or replaced during the five years ending the thirty-first day of December, One thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight.'"—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill, as amended, reported to the House.

  CIRCUIT CLERKS OF JUSTICIARY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Read the first time, and to be printed. [No. 177.]

  VAGRANCY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  Read the first time; to be printed; and to be read the second time on Monday next. (The Lord Belper.) [No. 178.]
  House adjourned at 6.45.