CLAUSE 10. (Hansard, 22 July 1898)

§ *THE EARL OF SELBORNE
That simply provides, my Lords, that the fees derived from registration should be paid to the officials of the registry.

§ *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.

§ *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?

§ *THE EARL OF SELBORNE
There is one little word I should like to put in— Page 7, line 16, insert 'all' instead of 'of.'