§ EARL ST. ALDWYNMy Lords, I understood that the noble Marquess who leads the House would be prepared this evening to answer two Questions which I addressed to him some days ago with respect to a Circular which the Welsh Church Commissioners have recently sent to all incumbents of Church livings in Wales. The Circular related to two matters. Part I asked them to return, by November 20 or some such date as that, particulars as to the endowments; and Part II asked them to return particulars as to their emoluments derived from such matters as Easter dues; fees for baptisms, burials, and marriages; statutory pew rents; and any other sources of income which the clergymen might enjoy. I ask whether that Circular was issued under the authority of the Welsh Church Act, and whether the noble Marquess will lay it on the Table.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWEMy Lords, I have made some inquiry into this matter since September 23, the date on which the noble Earl opposite asked me this Question. At that time I did not know of the existence of the Circular, and I should have been prepared to give such 1014 information as I had sooner, but I under-I stood that to-day would be the day most suitable to the noble Earl and his friends. It is necessary, I think, to go back briefly to the events which preceded the present state of things with reference to the Welsh Church, and I may remind the House that it was on September 18 of last year that the Suspensory Act received the Royal Assent, the same date on which the Welsh Church Act also received that Assent. By the Suspensory Act the date of Disestablishment was postponed to the end of the war, but there were certain duties laid upon the Commissioners whose particular action is being called in question by the noble Earl. It is important to point out what these Commissioners are. They were described in another place by my right hon. friend the Home Secretary as being a quasi-judicial body, and I assume, his experience being what it is, that that is a correct designation of their functions. At any rate it is clear that they are not subject to any Departmental authority. His Majesty's Government have no power to give them any instructions on any subject. Like all other persons, they are, of course, subject to the supervision, and if necessary the control, of Parliament, but they stand altogether apart from His Majesty's Government so far as the exercise their functions is concerned.
It is important in this connection that we should remember that when the negotiations, with which we are familiar, which took place in the hope of bringing about a Postponement Bill which would further have postponed the date of Disestablishment, came to an end, the Commissioners were themselves, of course, in no way responsible for the fact that those negotiations were not successful, nor was it possible for them to let their action be influenced by the fact that those negotiations had taken place. They were bound, holding the office that they do, to proceed in the natural course with the functions allotted to them under the Welsh Church Act of last year. But it is equally important to state that, provided they do fulfil those functions which they are bound to fulfil and which they are not in a position to disregard, they would naturally wish to fulfil them with the utmost possible consideration for individuals, and certainly not to do anything which can be regarded as needlessly interfering or prying into 1015 matters with which as Commissioners they have no concern, which, as I understand, is the charge brought against at any rate part of this Circular by the noble Earl.
The Circular, as is well known, is divided into two Parts. So far as Part I is concerned, which deals with endowments, I understand that the Question which the noble Earl asked the other day was not specially directed to that portion of the Commissioners' inquiries. As to whether those inquiries ought or ought not to be made at the present time is, of course, an altogether separate question. It is not a matter within the discretion of the Commissioners, and it opens up the whole question of what I described as the negotiations which unfortunately were not brought to a successful issue. Therefore it is Part II—what I may call the extra part of the Circular—about which I wish to say a word. The questions in this part of the Circular, which were quite accurately described by the noble Earl opposite when he spoke at the end of last month, are not concerned with Church endowments, and for that reason might be held, as he himself stated, not to have anything to do with the Welsh Church Act. But there is a section in the Act—Section 16—which deals with compensation to lay patrons, about one-third, speaking roughly, of the benefices in Wales being in lay gift. That section provides that "the total amount paid by way of compensation shall not exceed one year's emoluments of the benefice"—not of the endowment of the living, but of the "emoluments." It is considered therefore by the Commissioners that for the purpose of estimating the amount which may have to be paid to these lay patrons it is necessary to know what are the customary emoluments of the living — that word having been used, one is bound to suppose of set purpose, in the Act of Parliament rather than the simple word "endowment." But there is this fact also to be borne in mind, and it is only right to mention it. The section says that any lay patron who has made application within six months after the passing of the Act for the compensation to be provided shall, at the expiration of two years from the date of Disestablishment, or, in certain other cases, on the occurrence of a vacancy, receive the compensation which the section pro 1016 vides. That, of course, as your Lordships see, postpones the period within which this payment has to be made pro tanto in proportion to the date when Disestablishment is postponed. Therefore as far as regards these particular questions I have little doubt that the Commissioners would be exceedingly unwilling, as circumstances are, to give greater trouble to individual incumbents than is necessary by the terms of the Act, and that on any representation being made in reply to this Circular that it is not desirable to give the answers at this moment but that postponement would be preferable to the incumbent, they would be prepared to fall in with that arrangement.
But I should like to ask your Lordships whether such a postponement of the questions in this Part—Part II—would, as a matter of fact, involve a saving of trouble to the incumbent of the living. The estimate of the value of this lay patronage has to be reckoned on one year's emoluments of the benefice taken on an average of the three years immediately before the passing of the Act, and I think it is therefore open to question whether much trouble would be saved to the incumbent by the postponement of answering questions of this kind, which, if they were answered after some period—it being clearly necessary that at some time or other they should be answered—would then relate to a period which had passed some time ago, instead of, if they were answered now, applying to the three years before 1914. That is a consideration which, in putting forward this suggestion as a possibility, is one that I think ought to be borne in mind, because it is only fair to consider that all these questions in this particular Part of the Circular so far as they have a value have a value in the interests of the Church only; they are not of any use for the purpose of making any kind of calculation which could diminish the compensation or sum paid to the Church or to anybody interested who is entitled to receive the payment. So far as these questions are necessary, it is only for the benefit of certain interested persons connected with the Church that the questions are put. Therefore when we are told that these questions represent an "impertinent inquiry" in which people's private affairs are inquired into, that side of the matter ought to be remembered. And it must be understood that this is not a mere desire on the part of the Commissioners 1017 to ascertain facts about the emoluments of because even if they desired to make malicious use of them—which I am certain is the very last thing they would do—there is nothing in getting such knowledge that would empower them to do so.
Before I sit down, I think I ought to tell the House for what it is worth that I received a letter from a beneficed clergyman of the Church in Wales expressing his personal view. I am not, of course, at liberty to state his name or anything about him, but he gave it as his opinion that these questions were exceedingly reasonable; he hoped they would be sent round, and he—and presumably he may have been speaking for others—found no difficulty in answering, and would make no objection to doing so. I mention that as a single instance which noble Lords can take for what it is worth. I think I have covered the whole ground which was laid open by the questions of the noble Earl opposite.
§ EARL ST. ALDWYNMy Lords, I entirely accept the statement of the noble Marquess that the Welsh Church Commissioners are a quasi-judicial body, and that His Majesty's Government have practically no control over them. They might have, I think, an indirect control over their proceedings for the future if they would fill up the vacancy now existing on the Commission by some one whom they could trust not to undertake the sort of inquiry which is included in this Circular. But as the Commissioners exist they are no doubt not subject to the control of His Majesty's Government.
There are two points in regard to this matter which I should like to mention. The first is the nature of the inquiries as to the endowments of the benefices. I ventured to state the other day that so far as I could see this was a legitimate part of the work of the Welsh Church Commissioners, and the only question was whether it was quite fair to expect individual incumbents to answer all these complicated questions, many of which they could hardly answer without legal advice. I do not know whether the Welsh Church Commissioners have been in any way in touch with a committee consisting of representatives of Welsh Churchmen which I believe is in existence and acting in such matters as are necessary for the benefit of the Church 1018 in Wales, but it does strike me that either by communication with such a Committee, or by communication with individual Bishops as to the livings in their respective dioceses, the way might have been smoothed for these inquiries, however necessary to be made, and a great deal of trouble and difficulty spared to individual clergymen.
I turn to the second part of the inquiry, that relating to emoluments. The noble Marquess has admitted that this has nothing whatever to do with the question of the Disendowment of the Welsh Church, except in so far as he considers that it would be possible to estimate the compensation to be paid to lay patrons by ascertaining the amount of emoluments referred to in this Paper. I should never have supposed that such emoluments as are named here could properly come into the valuing of an advowson. See what they are. Take the first—Easter dues. Easter dues are purely voluntary offerings. What has a lay patron to do with them? He may very likely make such an offering himself, but what right has he to be compensated on the amount of them? Then take statutory pew rents. How can those—if they exist in Wales at all—be considered as matters for which the lay patron could be compensated? Coming to the next head — Customary fees: (a) baptisms, (b) burials, (c) marriages—I believe there is a Statute forbidding the receipt of fees for baptisms. These Welsh Church Commissioners, who ought to know the Ecclesiastical Law, are actually requiring the Welsh incumbents to publish fees which, if they had received them, would have been illegitimately received. But the last inquiry is the strangest of all, "Any other receipts not included in the above." In the diocese in which I happen to live there are trust and diocesan funds which are devoted largely to the assistance of the clergy, to any cases of sickness where money is wanted, and to the education of children in cases of poverty. These funds are administered with the utmost confidence—no one knows, except the almoners and the persons who receive assistance, that any such assistance is given at all. I suppose a similar state of affairs also exists in Welsh dioceses, but the incumbent with this Paper before him would expect that he would be required to state what he had received from such sources as this or from any private source in the course of the year. How in the world could it be possible 1019 that any lay patron should be compensated on receipts such as those?
In spite of what the noble Marquess has said excusing the Welsh Church Commissioners from this inquiry, I must say that I entirely adhere to what I described it as—namely, an impertinent inquisition. I do not think it ought ever to have been made, and I hope that the effect of the attention which has been called to it may induce the Commissioners to reconsider it and to inform the incumbents that they will not be required to answer such queries. The noble Marquess says, quite rightly, that His Majesty's Government have no authority over these Commissioners, but a hint from His Majesty's Government that it would not be fair that incumbents should be expected to answer such inquiries as those I have named would, I venture to say, go a long way in confining the Commissioners to their proper legal duties.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ASAPHMy Lords, I ask your indulgence for a few moments, as the matter to which I shall call your Lordships' attention is of importance. The points raised here this evening are of rather more than Welsh concern. Let me begin with two preliminary remarks. The Bishops and laity of the Church in Wales are ready to supply accurately and exhaustively necessary and legally required answers to questions addressed to them by the Commissioners. But there is a manner and a method in seeking such information, and I venture to think, as the noble Earl has just said, that the request for this information had better have been sent either to the committee already formed of laity and clergy in Wales, or to each Bishop. I come to my second preliminary remark. The Welsh Church Act appointed three Commissioners. At the present time I think I am correct in saying that there is only one acting Commissioner. Sir William Pleader, I understand, is largely engaged in war business, and the place of Sir Herbert Roberts, who resigned some time ago, has not been filled. Therefore when I talk of the Commissioners in the plural I do so in the editorial sense of "we."
THE MARQUESS OF CREWEI believe that Sir William Plender is taking quite an active part in the proceedings of this Commission.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ASAPHThe Commissioners issued this form of inquiry, and with it they put the rules which they had made themselves and which were confirmed by an Order in Council. These rules, I submit, go beyond the scope of the powers and duties given to the Commissioners by the Act of Parliament. Let me give two illustrations. The Commissioners are invested with some of the powers of a High Court, and the Act contemplates that they should sitting as a Court, receive evidence. They have the power to summon witnesses and to ask for the production of documents. In that case, witnesses being summoned, their expenses would be defrayed, and the documents would only be produced in Court for examination and not handed over. Those powers, I venture to think, are very large powers. The rules of the Commissioners, however, go beyond that. They have assumed the power of sending forth this list of questions. The list is to be filled up in two months, and on the first page of the list each incumbent is required to sign a declaration that the statements he has made are true and correct in every particular. I am informed on very high authority that no High Court in this country has the right to send out a request for such information and the further request for the sort of attestation that is asked.
But the rules of the Welsh Church Commissioners go a good deal further even than I have said. They demand—note this!—that each incumbent is to hand over for an indefinite period his title deeds and original documents. Not one word is said about the expense of doing all this. No High Court in this country has the right to demand the handing over of original title deeds and documents in this way. Imagine for a moment the position of an incumbent who hands over the agreements, we will say, with regard to his tenancy. He does not know how long the Commissioners will keep them, and no guarantee is given for their security or their return. I venture to say that examination will show that these rules of the Commissioners are really ultra vires. The power given to the Commissioners of making rules does not represent an indefinite power of amending the Act, but a limited power of making rules for certain specific purposes. Let me give one illustration. Take Rule 7. That rule certainly goes much beyond the specific purpose. It is not required for regulating 1021 procedure; it is not required for securing the execution of their powers by the Commissioners; neither is it required for carrying the Act into effect. Indeed Rule 7 is entirely inconsistent with the original Act. In the Act the burden of ascertaining what are private benefactions is laid upon the Commissioners. Now they seek to transfer that burden, to lay it upon each individual incumbent. As a matter of fact, not only do these rules go beyond the Act of Parliament, but the form of inquiry goes actually beyond the rules themselves. In Part I of the Circular such a question as this is asked of the incumbent, "Why did the previous incumbent resign?" What use that can be for carrying out the Act I do not see.
I want to emphasise the gravity of this question. Here you have the Commissioners passing rules which go beyond the original Act. The Act was sufficiently drastic, but here you have practically a new Act in the rules made by the Commissioners for extending their powers. The Home Secretary said the other night, in reference to this form of inquiry, that the Commissioners were judicial authorities desiring to discharge their responsible tasks in accordance with statutory requirements. He stated—indeed, he gave much the same answer as the noble Marquess made this evening—that the queries about the emoluments were necessary in view of the compensation of lay patrons. I quite see that. In my own diocese the lay patrons represent fifteen per cent. of the clergy. Why should this form be sent to the other eighty-five per cent. of the clergy who have nothing whatever to do with it, and nothing to do with compensation for lay patronage? I have never yet heard of a lay patron who in estimating the value of his patronage for compensation thought that he could include Easter dues and baptismal fees. But I let that pass.
In another place last week the Home Secretary made the remarkable statement that the decisions at which the Commissioners arrive are subject to an appeal to the Privy Council. That, I venture to point out, is not correct. An appeal to the Privy Council is granted in the original Act, but it is an appeal limited to certain cases. It is a very strict limitation indeed; it does not at all cover the cases where such an appeal might be of great help to 1022 us. If anyone will study this form of inquiry he will see that an individual incumbent cannot answer the very difficult and complicated questions that are asked; they cannot possibly be answered without expert and expensive advice. But all this has been overlooked. It is exactly the same with the lay patron. A lay patron in my own diocese sent me a letter he had received in which he is practically commanded to send to the Welsh Commissioners an abstract of his title. As my correspondent pointed out, the preparation of the abstract would probably cost more than the compensation he would be likely to receive.
The Home Secretary referred to commutation and to what he called—I do not think very happily— the good bargain which was in prospect for the Church in Wales owing to financial circumstances to which I need not here allude. But he overlooked one very important point. As the law stands to-day every clergyman who is appointed to a benefice in Wales knows that that benefice carries with it no vested interest, and that on the day the war ends that parish will lose every penny of its ancient endowments. During the last year there have been twenty vacancies to benefices in my own diocese. If the war is prolonged it may well be that two-thirds of the benefices in my diocese will have no vested interest at all, and when the Act comes into operation they will have nothing whatever to commute. I do not think, my Lords, that the people of this country know how the Church in Wales is at the present time being stealthily bereft of its very small endowments; nor do I think they know exactly what is going on in the Church in Wales. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners can make no grants for curates now; they can make no grants of pensions to old incumbents. I have several in my own diocese who desire to retire, but no grant of pension can be made by the Commissioners. They can make no augmentation grants to meet necessities caused by increased population; no new parishes can be formed; no additions can be made to our churchyards. And Queen Anne's Bounty cannot make any loans. Only last week a clergyman accepted a benefice and found there was no water supply—it was a small mountain parish, very poor, and the house drainage was in a very bad condition. He wanted a loan from Queen Anne's Bounty to enable 1023 him to do this work, but no such grant could be made. Nor can Queen Anne's Bounty make any benefaction to small livings, and no incumbent can sell or exchange one yard. I say this because I want the House and the people of this country to realise how the whole work of the Church in Wales, so far as any channel of communication with the Church of England is concerned, has been blocked up.
I am sure there is a very important constitutional question involved in this matter of the rules and of the original Act. The Home Secretary expressed his great antipathy to starting any topic of controversy at the present time. I agree with that. But I think it is my duty to let the facts be known as they exist in Wales to-day. A good deal has happened there in the last twelve months. The simple issue of Disestablishment and Disendowment, as you probably know, was submitted to twenty-one parishes in Wales, and every parish had a large majority against; many of them rejected the Disestablishment and Disendowment Bill—they preferred to stand out. The noble Marquess held out a prospect of the postponement of these inquiries and of some modification of that wonderful Paper upon emoluments. I cannot help thinking that the suggestion made by the noble Earl (Lord St. Aldwyn) would be a very helpful one—namely, that if the Commissioners really want to get the information and desire that it shall be prompt, exhaustive, and reliable, they would do well to put themselves into communication with the representatives of the laity.
§ LORD PARMOORMy Lords, may I say a word with reference to what the noble Marquess said, because I understood him to be sympathetic in this respect, that he did not think it expedient that information should be asked for which caused trouble unless there was some necessity that that information should be obtained. Upon that point he suggested that the questions in Form D, Part II—the only portion to which I wish to refer—might at any rate have some reference to the compensation to be paid to lay patrons, and that that compensation would have to be assessed within two years after the date of Disestablishment. Upon that point I do not think it conceivable that any of the items comprised in Form D should ever come into 1024 the question of compensation for lay patrons. I have never heard it suggested, for instance, that Easter dues could possibly be considered as part of the matters in respect of which there should be compensation to lay patrons.
It really is not fair to put upon incumbents the duty of answering questions of this kind in order that lay patrons may be protected as regards claim for compensation. I do not believe they could make any claim for compensation on dais basis; but if they want to make it, they ought to supply the information themselves. I am bound to say that I cannot follow the argument of the noble Marquess that information of this kind ought to be sought from incumbents, giving them undoubtedly a great deal of unnecessary trouble. Perhaps he will bear that in mind if be is going to address the House again. I do not myself sympathise with compensation to lay patrons. At any rate I think it would be a monstrous thing to compensate them on the basis of Easter dues, and take into consideration emoluments of that kind.
What will be the effect of not answering these questions? Supposing incumbents say, "We do not desire to answer these questions; we do not think they are relevant," would they be subjected to any penalties? I should like the noble Marquess to give me an answer upon that. I have not been able to find any penalty, and I should strongly advise those who lave questions of this kind put to them—which appear to me to be quite irrelevant under the Welsh Church Act—that the wisest course is not to answer them. I do not, however, want them to become subject to any penalties, so perhaps the noble Marquess will give us information upon that point.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVIDSMy Lords, it is not my desire to add anything to what has been said upon these forms of inquiry, but I am quite sure His Majesty's Government must agree that it is deplorable that the clergy at such a very difficult time as this should be troubled with such inquiries. I am well aware of what the noble Marquess said, that the Commissioners in issuing these inquiries are doing their duty; but I should like to remind him that the most rev. Primate last September warned His Majesty's 1025 Government when they refused to accept the Amendment moved to the Suspensory Act by the noble Earl opposite that they were inflicting very serious hardship on Churchmen in Wales, particularly the clergy themselves. I understand that the noble Marquess was not able at the time to accept the most rev. Primate's well-considered caution, but I am sure that, as the result of negotiations, His Majesty's Government without exception now feel that the development of events, the gravity of the national peril with regard to the war, makes it a very unfortunate thing that the noble Earl's Amendment last November was not more fully considered by His Majesty's Government of that day. In his speech this evening the noble Marquess was most considerate, and I hope he will take some steps to bring to the notice of the proper quarters the very reasonable suggestion of the noble Earl (Lord St. Aldwyn), a suggestion by the carrying out of which these inquiries, which are very difficult and painful at this time, would be rendered less painful and less difficult. I venture to endorse the suggestion that the Commissioners should consult others with regard to this inquiry. Had such a consultation taken place before, the criticism made upon the form would, I feel sure, have been less severe.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWEMy Lords, I am not entitled to speak again as there is no Motion before us, but perhaps by the leave of the House I may reply to one or two points that have been raised in the course of this discussion. It has been said by almost every speaker that the particular subjects about which inquiry is made in Part II could not reasonably form the basis of compensation to a lay patron. As to that, I can only say that the word "emoluments" in Section 16 of the Act does appear to cover more than the actual income of the living derived from endowment, glebe, or any regular source. I should have thought—I am, of course, speaking without authority—that the plan on which Parliament had intended to compensate the lay patron was rather comparable with a certain proportion of the sum which that patron would expect to receive if he were to sell the advowson. When the advowson is sold the sum received for it does not, I take it, by any means depend only on the actual endowment, but on a number of customary advantages which are presumed to add to the value of 1026 the living. All these matters I should have thought come within the questions in Part II, matters of consideration in the case of the sale of the benefice; and I presume that it was the intention of Parliament that a lay patron should receive payment on that scale, and not on the mere scale of the endowment. That I only put forward as an explanation of the use of the word "emoluments." And in a sense I should hope it would be so, because I think it may be presumed that in most cases where a lay patron puts in a claim for compensation of this kind the Church will get the benefit of that sum of money. Therefore I should be pleased if it were calculated on as liberal a scale as possible and included all manner of dues and customary payments, even though I quite agree that in the ordinary circumstances of compensation it would not be supposed that they would be included.
On the point of fees for baptism, which the noble Earl mentioned as not being paid now, I imagine there must be some clergy left who were appointed before the date of the Statute to which he referred. I think that Act was passed in 1872, and there are probably a few clergy who were appointed before that date, and who might therefore conceivably be entitled to receive such fees.
Then as regards the question why these interrogations are put to the incumbent and net to the lay patron. I should have thought the explanation was the obvious one that it is only the incumbent who knows the answers. I am fortunate enough —if that is the word—to be the patron of several livings myself, and I know in general terms what the endowment of each of these cures is, but I do not know what they may be worth to the occupants in this other respect, nor should I feel as patron that I had any right to inquire. Therefore I presume that the incumbent is the only person who, if these questions are to be put at all, is in the position to reply to them.
The point has been mentioned by the noble Earl and by both right rev. Prelates as to whether it would not have been more suitable and reasonable to make these inquiries directly instead of indirectly, to apply to the Church committee, or to each Bishop for the information respecting his own diocese. I am under the impression 1027 —I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that there are two opinions amongst the clergy in Wales on that subject. Although I dare say the adoption of that course would be acceptable to some, perhaps to many, yet there are others who prefer to have this information asked directly of themselves; and I presume that in making this direct inquiry that fact was in the minds of the Commissioners. The noble and learned Lord opposite asked what would happen if no replies were sent by an incumbent to these questions. I prestrtne lie was alluding both to Part I and to Part II of the Form.
§ LORD PARMOORI was referring to Part II.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWEIt is a question which, being of a legal character, might be more fitly put by me to him than by him to me. But the general answer, I think, is covered by what I stated about what I felt pretty sure would be the view of the Commissioners with regard to these inquiries, that where any incumbent made a representation on receipt of his paper, and said that he was not able to make replies, or that he was not able to make replies at present, the Commissioners would not, as I believe, desire to proceed, even assuming them to be in a position to do so, to exact any kind of penalty from him for not answering the questions. On this I should like to say again that I am quite sure. the Commissioners will carefully study what has been said by noble Lords and by the right rev. Prelates in the course of this debate, and that they 1028 will desire, so far as they consider it consistent with their duty, to modify if necessary their practice in any way which would cause a saving of trouble to individuals. Of course, they strongly bolt that they have a statutory duty to perform and that they must perform it; but so far as it is possible to make the performance easy to individual incumbents I am con fident that they will do all they can to lubricate the proceedings which they third, it their duty to take. The two right rev Prelates who spoke did not confine themselves entirely to the Question as it was originally put by the noble Earl opposite. Of that I do not make the slightest complaint. On the contrary I quite understand that both right rev. Prelates took this occasion to make statements of a more general character, and I only allude to it in order to excuse myself from replying to some of the more general points which they raised, because their object, I think, was rather to state the case than to get an elaborate reply.