Lords Sitting of 3 March 1914

BARONIES OF DYNAUNT, FITZWARYN AND MARTIN.
Committee for Privileges met: The Attorney-General further heard on behalf of the Crown: Counsel for the Claimants heard in reply on behalf of the Claimants: A witness examined: Committee adjourned to Thursday next.

BARONY OF WHARTON.
Petition of Charles Theodore Halswell Kemeys-Tynte, of Halswell Park, in the County of Somerset, and of Cefn Mably, in the County of Glamorgan, praying His Majesty to be graciously pleased to direct a writ to be issued to summon the Petitioner to Parliament by the name and style of Baron Wharton, together with His Majesty's reference thereof to this House, and the report of the Attorney-General thereon thereunto annexed: Presented (by command); read, and referred to the Committee for Privileges to consider and report.
The VISCOUNT CROSS—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his grandfather.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
London, Brighton and South Coast Railway. [H.L.]
Didcot, Newbury and Southampton Railway. [H.L.]
Midland Railway. [H.L.]
North Eastern Railway. [H.L.]
West Gloucestershire Water. [H.L.]
Leighton Buzzard Gas. [H.L.]
Poole, Sandbanks and Westbourne Rail less Traction. [H.L.]
South Bank and Normanby Gaslight and Coke Company. [H.L.]
Also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:
Butterley Company—(Petition for Bill).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

RAILWAY CLEARING SYSTEM SUPERANNUATION FUND CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Orders made on Tuesday and Thursday last discharged, and Bill committed.
LONDON, BRIGHTON AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]

    NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
    RHYMNEY AND ABER VALLEYS GAS AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    SOUTH BANK AND NORMANBY GASLIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
    Read 2a (according to Order), and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

DIDCOT, NEWBURY AND SOUTHAMPTON RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
LEIGHTON BUZZARD GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  POOLE, SANDBANKS AND WESTBOURNE RAILLESS TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 2a (according to Order), and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
MANSFTELD RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  HULL AND BARNSLEY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]

    LIVERPOOL UNITED GAS LIGHT COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
    NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
    Read 2a (according to Order), and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  ST. GEORGE'S HOSPITAL BILL. [H.L.]
    NOTTINGHAM MECHANICS INSTITUTION (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
    Second Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Wednesday the 11th instant.
    SWINDON CORPORATION (WILTS AND BERKS CANAL ABANDONMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
    Read 2a (according to Order), and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
MABLETHORPE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The Orders made on the 19th of February and Wednesday last discharged, and Bill committed.
BIRKENHEAD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
The Order made on Wednesday last appointing certain Lords the Select Committee to consider the Bill, discharged.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACTS, 1911 AND 1913.
Provisional Regulations entitled—

1. The National Health Insurance (Collection of Contributions, Soldiers) Regulations, 1914. Dated 20th February 1914;

2. The National Health Insurance (Collection of Contributions, Navy and Marine) Regulations, 1914. Dated 20th February 1914;

3. The National Health Insurance (Decision of Questions) Regulations (Wales), 1914;

4. The National Health Insurance (Claims for Exemption) Regulations (Wales), 1914:

Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed. (No. 15.)

PUBLIC MUSEUMS, &c.
Return respecting: Laid before the House (pursuant to Order of the 23rd of July last) and to be printed. (No. 16.)
SOLICITORS BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to Amend the law relating to Solicitors—Was presented by the Earl Loreburn; read la; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next. (No. 17.)

MONEY-LENDERS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, in moving that the House resolve itself into Committee on this Bill, I desire to make a short personal explanation. In commenting, in the course of the speech which I made the other day on the Second Reading, upon the practice of a money-lender who is in the habit of issuing forged testimonials, I suggested that the Public Prosecutor ought to have taken action, and in a moment of what I
358
suppose might be termed rhetorical exuberance I made use of this phrase—
"What is the use of passing Acts of Parliament and having Public Prosecutors if in cases of this kind no interference takes place."
I submit that this was obviously a rhetorical exaggeration of small importance, and I should not have thought it was worth any particular notice, but I am given to understand that it has caused grave offence and constitutes a serious aspersion upon the Public Prosecutor and his Department.
That being so, I desire frankly to express regret, and all the more so because I have myself benefited in the past by the assistance of the Public Prosecutor. I admit that I am under certain personal obligations to him, and I am also aware that in many money-lending cases he has shown considerable activity. The fact is that I committed the not uncommon error of interpreting an Act of Parliament in what I thought was its obvious sense. I thought that the course which should be taken in consequence of the wording of this particular Act was perfectly clear; but now I am given to understand that the Act is by no means so simple as it appeared to me and would presumably appear to other laymen, and that there are considerable difficulties in taking advantage of it. I suppose that everybody, here or elsewhere, who makes a speech either forgets something that he wanted to say or interpolates something he did not intend to say, unless he adopts the precaution, which is frequently taken here, of having the whole speech written out on paper beforehand and then reading it much as one would a lesson in church or an essay addressed to the Social Science Congress or some body of that kind. But I confess that personally I consider that it is attaching undue importance to unofficial members of Parliament to seize upon an expression in a speech and attribute such enormous importance to it. However, I have thought it right upon this occasion to express regret. In conclusion I only desire to observe that if any high legal official or anybody else chooses to express, either in a burst of forensic indignation or under other circumstances, any doubts as to my utility, I should bear the charge with absolute equanimity. All that I desire to point out finally is that this proves most emphatically in my opinion that the Money-lenders Acts are badly in need of revision and amendment.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Newton.)
THE EARL OF DESART: My Lords, I should like, with the permission of the House, to say one or two words. Feeling some jealousy for the reputation of the Department of which I had the honour for many years to be at the head, I was somewhat concerned on reading the statement which the noble Lord made the other day, and I took steps to inquire as to the particular case to which he alluded, and having investigated it I do not think that it is a case in which either the Act of Parliament or the Director of Public Prosecutions is to blame. The obstacle to a prosecution was that there was neither evidence, nor a prosecutor to put into the box. I do not want to labour it, but I hope it will be accepted by the noble Lord that, as a matter of fact, there could not have been a prosecution in the particular case to which he referred.
In this instance my noble friend, having ascertained that what he had said had given pain and was not altogether well founded, has, as any one who knows him would have expected, frankly withdrawn the statement. But this matter goes a little deeper than the noble Lord has put it. The noble Lord said that he should not mind what was said about him, but he is in a different position from that of a public servant. A public servant has no opportunity of replying at any time to a statement of this nature, and by the rules of the Service he is most properly precluded from writing to the newspapers or giving interviews. There is no doubt that such observations in Parliament do give pain, perhaps less to the head of the Department, who can hold his own better, than to those under him, who feel the slur and know that it cannot be publicly met. There is another aspect of this matter. I was not at the time head of the Department. But there was for a period of a year or two what one might almost call a pre-concerted attack on the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions soon after its institution. These attacks were made generally in Supply in the House of Commons, when there was no opportunity of replying, and the effect was that the attack grew like a snowball. When the Press noticed these things they always referred back to the attacks in Supply about this, that, and the other, until they made what appeared to be a serious case out of a number of small items, each one of which could have been dealt with at the time had there been an opportunity. Therefore I
360
think any one who speaks in Parliament ought to remember the fact that a public servant has no means of replying; and if there is an intention to attack a public servant, some notice should be given so that the Minister more or less in touch with the Department might be enabled to give an explanation. I do not remember attacks having been made in this House, but I recollect attacks elsewhere which are to be regretted. It is because I feel rather deeply as an old public servant the reputation of the Department in which I have served that I have occupied your Lordships' time by making these few observations.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, what the noble and learned Earl has just said makes it unnecessary for me to add more than a few words. I think the noble Lord in charge of this Bill has acted wisely and handsomely in disclaiming any notion of making a criticism on the individual action of Sir Charles Mathews. The points to which I should take exception in what the noble Lord said are quite other. I think he is too modest about his own importance in connection with this great question; and I think, further, that he is too sanguine that Acts of Parliament are just as plain matters as the public are apt to take them to be. The position of the Public Prosecutor is a very difficult one. He has to consider all sorts of circumstances of which outsiders know nothing, and everybody who knows Sir Charles Mathews is aware with what conscientiousness and public spirit he enters into the discharge of his duties. The task is, as the noble and learned Earl has just pointed out, a difficult one, and we are bound to repose considerable confidence in the official entrusted with it and regard him as possessing considerable latitude. I am glad that the noble Lord has said what he has, because it is quite plain that he meant to cast no reflection at all upon the action of Sir Charles Mathews.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.

SCHOOL PROVISION AT WARRINGTON.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I beg to put to my noble friend Lord Beauchamp the Question standing in my name—viz.: To ask whether the attention of His Majesty's Government has been called to the answer given by Mr. Pease in the House of Commons, on April 3, 1913, as to school provision and over-crowding at Warrington—
"That there would shortly be opened two schools of 1,260 and 420 places each, and that in addition the Board had proposals before them which would add 4,000 places to the school accommodation of Warrington."
Whether it is the case that by the Return of Schools up to July 31, 1913, there have been closed in Warrington, since July, 1912—

Christ Church, Church of England B.

181

Total 664 places.

Sankey Bridges, Infants

212

Warrington Trinity, Church of England

271

What is the stage of progress of the 4,000 places proposed to the Board of Education; whether Mr. Pease is aware that there are still seven schools and fifteen departments in Warrington where the yearly average attendance exceeds the accommodation; and what steps the Board of Education are taking to prevent this over-crowding and to hasten the provision of the 4,000 places mentioned by Mr. Pease nearly a year ago.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, with regard to the first part of the noble Lord's Question, the school for 1,260 children was opened on August 19, 1912, and that for 420 on March.31, 1913. With regard to the places which have still to be provided, the local education authority have accepted tenders for one school of 1,260 and are taking steps to obtain plans for another of the same size. In a third case where 840 places are to be provided, plans for one department of 392 have recently been before the Board. In a fourth case the authority have stated that they will proceed with the provision of 420 more places as soon as the tenders for the school first mentioned have been accepted. The latest returns in the possession of the Board show that in thirteen departments in six schools the average attendance during the school year
362
1912–13 exceeded the recognised accommodation. The Board therefore made deductions amounting to £50 from grants in respect of four of these schools and in the two other cases gave a warning to the authority. The Board are pressing the authority to expedite the provision of the new schools which I have mentioned.

THE CASE OF SARAH SAVAGE.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE*THE EARL OF SELBORNE rose to ask the Lord Chancellor whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Sarah Savage, sentenced to six months imprisonment with hard labour for cruelty to her children, as reported in The Times of February 20.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I want to draw the Lord Chancellor's attention, and through him the attention of the Government, to the case of Sarah Savage, which was reported in the Press at the beginning of last week. The case was rather a peculiar one. This woman some sixteen months ago took a small room for herself and one daughter, and for sixteen months no one had any idea that there was any one in this room except this woman and the one daughter. Then it was found that there were three other children there also. Those three children during sixteen months had never left the room. They were in a condition of extreme dirt, two of them were covered with sores, and they seemed to have become mentally deficient. The exact reason of their extreme stillness has not transpired. The fact remains that for sixteen months they made no noise, so that neither the landlady nor any other occupant of the house had any idea that these three children were there. The magistrate took a severe view of the case and sentenced the woman to six months imprisonment with hard labour.
I do not wish for a moment to suggest anything against the magistrate, because obviously his feelings of humanity were roused; but I venture to think that, even on the face of the case, there are indications of another aspect. For instance, the children were well fed and nourished. There was no sign of personal ill-usage by the mother. The mother was described as a respectable and hard-working woman, and

363
she herself was obviously, from the meagre reports that I have seen, quite incapable of putting her case. I would say that she herself showed signs of some of that lack of intelligence which it appears the children also displayed. But she did say that she earned only 10 s. a week at the most, and that she could not find the money for shoes or clothes with which to send these children to school.
Since the case appeared it has been investigated by a lady, Miss Mary Neal, whose account has appeared in one of the suffrage papers, Votes for Women. Probably the Home Office already has that account in its possession, but I will, with the Lord Chancellor's permission, hand it to him. The account given puts a different aspect on the case. I have no means of pronouncing judgment. All I want to do is to draw the attention of the Government to it and ask them to investigate it. The case put forward for the woman now is this, that having these four children and never being able to earn more than 10 s. a week—except that the one daughter whom she publicly acknowledged occasionally earned an additional shilling—she felt quite unable to take adequate lodgings for the family. She knew that if it was found that there were five people in this room she would be prosecuted for over-crowding; she knew that the attention of the Poor Law authorities would be drawn to the case; and she feared that the consequences of that would be that the family would be broken up.
The case presented by this lady is not that this poor woman was careless of her children, but that she was deeply attached to them, and that the one thing she most dreaded was being separated from them by the Poor Law authorities. I confess that it seems to me one of the most piteous cases which I have ever seen recorded in the Police Courts if this story, which bears on it every evidence of credibility, is true, or only partly true; and I am sure that now that the attention of the Government has been drawn to it the Government will have it thoroughly investigated. There are plenty of people who have expressed their readiness to help this poor woman and her children if only she can be released from prison. Therefore the first thing I wish to do is to ask the Lord Chancellor whether he will give me an assurance that this
364
case will be most carefully sifted and examined.
I do not want this opportunity to pass without saying something about that great class of cases of which this is only one. Is there any class in the whole of the nation more deserving of our sympathy than that of the poor widow left with a number of young children? It is very hard in any circumstances for one woman to earn enough money to keep a family when the bread-winner has gone, but sometimes it is not even possible for the mother to go out to work at all because the children may be so young that they cannot be left at home alone and she cannot take them to work with her. Now here it is that the Poor Law steps in. But how does the Poor Law step in? I do not know whether it is custom, or whether it is regulation of the Local Government Board, or whether it is law—I am told it is law; but the Poor Law is always ready to help a poor woman in a case like this but generally on one condition—that of breaking up her home. The Poor Law will take her children from her and put them in some institution where their keep costs much, or the Poor Law will take some of the children and board them out, but usually with any other woman except their own mother. The one person with whom the children are not boarded is the mother. The consequence is that the home is broken up.
Now, my Lords, try and put yourselves in the position of a poor woman who has just lost her husband and who has to fight the world with her children. She has either to try and struggle on, as I believe this poor woman did, making a very grievous error in the way she did struggle, or else she has to ask the help of the public authorities and run the risk of seeing her home broken up and of being separated from her children. If that is the state of the law, I say the law is crassly stupid. The right person to look after her children in these circumstances is the mother, and it is the mother who should receive the help and not some other woman. All that the law ought to see to is that the money given in help for the children is used for the children, and if this terrible case is only instrumental in drawing public attention to this state of the law and in bringing about an alteration of it, then this woman will have been a martyr in a great cause.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Earl has asked whether the attention of the Government has been drawn to this case. It has, and the case is under investigation just now by the Home Secretary, who is considering the question of the sentence and investigating the circumstances closely with a view to seeing what should be done, not only as regards the mother, but as regards the children. Provision will be made for assisting the children in some trade or calling. The Home Secretary is as keenly aware as the noble Earl can be of the scandal that there should be such a case. But there is one point on which I do not quite agree with the noble Earl. He has spoken as if this poor woman was a martyr to a system. An unfortunate woman she has been, but a woman who is grievously to blame.
I have before me the depositions and the report of the case, and the only conclusion at which one can arrive is that, from however distorted notions, she was guilty of grievous cruelty. These unfortunate children were locked up. The woman was very badly off, as the noble Earl has said. She went out to work and earned 10 s. a week; doubtless it took her whole time to do it, and she did what she could for the children. But what she ought to have done was, even at the cost of separation, if such were necessary—and I do not believe it was—to have taken other steps by which the children might have been cared for. Instead of that, what did she do? Until the inspector of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children happened to get upon the track of the case, nobody appears to have heard of it or to have taken any notice. The inspector visited the room and discovered the three children in an indescribable state and in a mental condition bordering upon idiocy. They were covered with vermin and sores, and in a condition which is revolting to read.
It was with some difficulty that access was obtained to the room in which the three children were locked. The room was dark, and there was a heavy curtain drawn across the window, which was closed. There was no fire, and a large bed constituted the only furniture. The girl who opened the door, the eldest of the three children, was pale and wild-eyed. She was inadequately clothed and vermin-
366
ous, had no boots or stockings on, and was in a condition of idiocy. On a light being brought the bed was seen to move. Investigations showed that there was a second child, aged eleven, lying face downwards on the floor under the bed. This child was in a similar condition as regards vermin. The third child, aged seven, was also found under the bed in a similar condition. These children are now being looked after. It may have been from mistaken notions altogether, but this wretched woman was guilty of indescribable cruelty. She ought to have made almost any sacrifice of her feelings rather than put the children in that position, and I do not wonder that the magistrate took a severe view of the case.
The Home Secretary is now reviewing the whole of the circumstances. I do not doubt that this woman was attached to her children and that she acted on notions which were probably not the notions of a person who was quite balanced, and that is being taken into consideration. I hope the children will be looked after better in the future. For the rest I entirely agree with the noble Earl that this class of case, of which I am afraid there are many more, discloses a problem which urgently calls for attention. The worst of it is that it is not a specific problem and one easy to deal with, but a problem that will require the greatest efforts of society before we can hope to grapple with it.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I should like to say a single word on this subject. The noble Earl has done well in calling the attention of the House to the specific case which he described, and he has, independently of that, called attention to a custom— shall I say?—in some areas in the kingdom which possibly forces a woman to the choice between separation from her children or such action in the way of neglect— apparent neglect, because it was not intentionally culpable—as that described. But I would point out that the noble Earl is—I say it with all respect—quite in error if he thinks that that is the law of the land. It depends upon the guardians of the poor in the particular place in what manner they exercise the very wide discretion which is allowed them in such a matter. There are boards of guardians which have for years past, rightly or wrongly, placed upon themselves extremely strict limitations as to cases

367
in which they will give outdoor instead of indoor relief, but there are plenty of other boards of guardians doing quite differently. I have not investigated this case. I know nothing of it except what the noble Earl has said, and I do not know in what part of England it took place. But it took place under a board of guardians which differs as regards the exercise of its powers very widely from other boards of guardians if, knowing fully the circumstances in which this poor woman was living, they took the line which the noble Earl has described. There are, happily, some boards of guardians who give adequate outdoor relief so that the widow may live at home with, and look after, her children. Such relief is given by those boards of guardians because they realise the very principle to which the noble Earl has so rightly called attention —the desirability of keeping the mother and children together. Boards of guardians who do this are, I think, to be encouraged, and they are using powers which are distinctly given them by the law as it stands.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I should like to explain that this particular board of guardians knew nothing about the case. The suggestion is that it was the terror of the mother of what action the board of guardians would take that induced her to act as she did.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OP CANTERBURY: The terror which the noble Earl refers to is, of course, one of the great difficulties with which boards of guardians who have the largest and most generous impulses in these matters have to contend. Out of the past there has come a great fear of the Poor Law and its operation, which in these days is an anachronism. The fact that such dread does exist is one of the things we have to do our level best to overcome.

THE VICARAGES OF BOURNE AND CASTLE BYTHAM.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Lord Chancellor the Question standing in my name—viz.: whether any representations have been made to him by the Bishop of Lincoln, or by any other resident in the Diocese of Lincoln, in respect of the presentation and institution of the Rev. Thomas Cowpe Lawson to the Vicarage of Bourne, Lincolnshire; whether he will state the nature
368
of those representations, and the steps taken by himself in consequence of them; whether it was by his act or direction that the Rev. Henry Cotton Smith was presented in October, 1913, to the Vicarage of Bourne from the Vicarage of Castle Bytham; whether he is aware that much surprise has been caused by the manner in which the vacancy in the Vicarage of Castle Bytham has been filled; and whether he can communicate to the House the correspondence which has passed respecting these transactions, or explain them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Question which the noble Earl asks relates to the circumstances under which the living of Castle Bytham has been filled, and it involves also the presentation to the Vicarage of Bourne. Perhaps it will be convenient if I shortly state the facts. Last May my attention was called to the fact that there appeared to be ground for believing that simoniacal practices had prevailed in connection with the purchase of the right of presentation to the living of Bourne, and on looking into the matter I was of the same opinion. I consequently held that the living was vacant, the presentation being void under the Statute of 31 Elizabeth against simony. The circumstances were briefly these. As your Lordships know, there are two parties who take a great interest in getting control of presentations to livings—two parties in the Church—and both of these had for some time previous to 1911, when the living at Bourne became vacant, been anxious to obtain the advowson. I do not mean two official parties, but two sets of persons who took a different view as to what were the right qualifications for the clergyman of that living. Accordingly, one of the two parties very nearly succeeded in persuading the patron of the living, who was a private person, to sell the advowson. The incumbent was old, and just before the purchase was completed the incumbent died. There was a transaction under which a large sum of money was paid to joint names on account of the patron, and the gentleman who was recently incumbent of the living was in consequence presented.
There was evidence that the transaction had taken place subsequent to the death of the old incumbent and that the transaction was simoniacal. In the circumstances the presentation lapsed to the Crown

369
and came under my control. I had to decide what was to be done. There was an incumbent there, some one who had been nominated in the circumstances I have described. He was still actually performing his duties, and the question was, what was to be done with him. The presentation was void, and it was open to me either to confirm him, to reappoint him, or to put in somebody else. The circumstances were complicated by this fact, that although the Bishop of Lincoln had taken a strong view about the simoniacal nature of the transaction he had inquired into the character of the clergyman presented and as to whether he was in any way implicated in the transaction; and the Bishop wrote to me stating that, having investigated the case, he was satisfied that there was no evidence that the presentee knew anything of the simoniacal circumstances, and, further, that he was guiltless of any complicity.
In these circumstances the position of the presentee was a very hard one, because if I had turned him out it would have been impossible for him to have got another living. He had been brought from Sheffield where he had been doing admirable work. He was a clergyman with Low Church views, active in his work, and popular with a considerable number of people in Bourne, the vicarage to which he had been presented. On the other hand, the circumstances of his presentation, and, I understand, his views, made him unpopular with another very important section in Bourne, and in these circumstances I thought it my duty, following the practice on such occasions, to seek the advice of the most rev. Primate. The most rev. Primate gave me this advice, with which I entirely agreed, that it was not expedient that this presentee should be confirmed in the occupation of the benefice. Then came this difficulty. I was quite clear as to what was my duty from the Church point of view, but I was not quite clear what was my duty from the
370
judicial point of view—or, rather, I was quite clear that my duty was to make any arrangement I could which would save this unfortunate man, who had been implicated without his knowledge in the circumstances I have stated, from ruin.
Well, I saw the Bishop of Lincoln and also the rural dean, and as a result we made this arrangement, which I thought was a good one in the circumstances. This man was an admirable clergyman, though his views were not those of a considerable section of the parishioners in Bourne. But there was another living which belonged to the Bishop in which there was an incumbent who had views and qualities which seemed to render him a suitable person to present to Bourne. So I said to the Bishop of Lincoln that if he thought fit I would arrange to present to Bourne the incumbent of Castle Bytham, which was in the Bishop's gift, and the Bishop in his turn would present Mr. Lawson to the Castle Bytham living. That arrangement has been carried out, and I have no reason to doubt that it is working very well. What I want to emphasise is that we must be careful in forming a judgment about this case. Bourne itself is enormously divided over the merits of Mr. Lawson, though I have no doubt that the wise course was the course I took in conformity with the advice of the most rev. Primate—namely, that in the circumstances it was inexpedient that Mr. Lawson should continue at Bourne. I also felt that it would not be right to treat him in a way which might lead to his ruin, he being in every way a suitable person, and that he should be transferred. The transfer is therefore one which was carried out by myself and the Bishop of Lincoln, and I think on the whole it was, if I may venture to say so, a wise solution of an extremely difficult situation.
House adjourned at ten minutes past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.