PARSONAGES MEASURE, 1930. (Hansard, 13 March 1930)

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY
My Lords, I rise to move to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Parsonages Measure, 1930, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. I have to present to your Lordships three Measures, passed in accordance with the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, which have passed the Assembly and also the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament. The first, which is described as the Parsonages Measure, 1930, is a Measure of some importance. During the course of its passage through the Assembly it has caused a good deal of discussion, but I am happy to think that, with the assistance of outside bodies and of your own Ecclesiastical Committee, we have now reached what may be called general agreement. The object of the Measure is a very simple one. It is to consolidate and amend the existing law with regard to the sale and purchase of parsonage houses. Its chief object, of course, is to remedy a great abuse which is almost, I think, exclusively characteristic of the social and ecclesiastical life of England—I mean the contrast between large houses, fitting for the houses of country gentlemen of ample means, and the income of the benefices by which these large houses have to be maintained. This is the class of house that is familiar in the minds of those of us who have constantly to deal with them as the "white elephant house."
920 There is a very general desire in these days to make it more possible to get rid of these houses, which are no longer suitable to the changed conditions of the times. Many of them, though not all, were charming residences, but it is pitiful to see how inevitably under present conditions they drift into decay. It does nobody any good to see houses of that kind inadequately maintained and the gardens going to seed; and all because it is perfectly impossible for the incumbent, under any circumstances that are likely to arise, to maintain them as they ought to be maintained. I need not dwell upon the point, except to say that the desirability of the sale of these houses is increasing. Many unions of benefices are proceeding throughout the country, and it becomes increasingly important to see that provisions are available by which the sale of the redundant parsonage house may be effectively carried through.
The present law is governed by the Statute of 1838, which enables the incumbent to sell his parsonage house provided that he obtains the assent of the patron, of the Bishop, and of the Archbishop of the Province. The new provision which will have force if your Lordships allow this Measure to go through will be that the parson must obtain the consent of the Bishop, as before; of the diocesan board of dilapidations; and of Queen Anne's Bounty. Let me explain the purpose of that change. The consent of the Bishop remains necessary, but a very interesting and valuable provision is made for the first time that, during the vacancy of the benefice, the Bishop may himself promote the sale. I know from long experience how important that is. Again and again you find it almost impossible to get a man to accept a benefice burdened with a too large house of this kind, and it would be of the 921 greatest possible advantage that the power to sell during a vacancy should be given.
Next the consent of the board of dilapidations must be obtained. This is a new body, called into existence by the Dilapidations Measure, and I venture to say without fear of contradiction that it now forms one of the most efficient parts of our local administration. These boards are working with great zeal and great expert knowledge, and they represent the best knowledge that can be obtained in the diocese as to the nature of houseroom required and the prices that are likely to be obtained and that are fair in the particular district. Then, in place of the consent of the Archbishop of the Province, consent must be obtained from Queen Anne's Bounty. This change has caused some concern in the breasts of Bishops' registrars and others, and not, least to the invaluable servants who have given me, as Archbishop of York, and now as Archbishop of Canterbury, their skilled advice in this matter. No one is willing to part with any of his privileges, and I surrender with some regret the privilege which it has been mine to exercise for twenty-two years, of supervising the conditions of sale of these parsonage houses, but I am convinced—perhaps it is not for me to say so, except that I am advised by expert judgment—that although the work has been done well, I think it would be better done by the body to whom the moneys obtained by the sale are o be transferred and who will have the custody of these funds and distribute them to the parish in accordance with the recommendations of any scheme of sale.
Perhaps the most remarkable difference made in this Measure is that the patron has no longer an absolute veto upon any sale. I think that is a right change. Experience has shown that it is putting a power too great in proportion to the nature of his interest in the hands of the patron, to enable him, when all the other consents have probably been obtained, to say: "I do not want the house sold, and I will not have it sold." Sometimes—I do not say frequently—that power has been used in a harsh and arbitrary manner. Often the patron is non-resident. Sometimes he has a prejudice in favour of maintaining a house in which perhaps in happier days some members of his own family lived, 922 but although I have frequently noticed a patron dislikes changes in the association of a house, he is not equally ready to provide the parson with the means of maintaining the house under modern conditions or the wherewithal to meet the dilapidations and repairs which have to be dealt with. Considering that the patron's interest is largely confined by the Measure recently passed, it would be giving his interest in the matter an over preponderating place to allow him to have an absolute veto. But I want to call attention to the fact that there are certain provisions safeguarding adequately the reasonable rights and interests of the patron.
These have been introduced into the Measure, after its first form, by a conference between the Committee in charge of the Measure in the Church Assembly and the Central Landowners' Committee, and representatives of the Bursars of the Colleges of Oxford and Cambridge. They are obviously closely concerned in the matter, and I believe I can say with confidence that these further safeguards represent an agreement achieved between the promoters of the Measure and representatives of these patrons' rights, and the rights of property. The safeguards are that, as before, notice must be given to the patron of any proposed sale. He has the right to enter objections, and his objections must be heard. More than that, if he has any objection to make, or restrictions to impose, they must be considered by a special committee, and the patron has the right to sit upon that committee. Thirdly, the right is given to him of pre-emption of the buildings, if he desires to exercise it. Another important novelty in this Measure represents the rights of the parishioners, and the parochial church council is associated with the patron in the right to receive notice and make objections or representations, and to send a representative to the special committee to which I have referred.
The other important change which has been made since the Measure was first sent to the Ecclesiastical Committee is with regard to the rules which Queen Anne's Bounty is entitled to frame for the conduct of sales in accordance with this Measure. Originally it was stipulated that rules should be made simply by Queen Anne's Bounty, but it was 923 pointed out that it would be much more consonant with the general practice of legislation and Public General Acts if these rules were required to be laid before each House of Parliament for twenty sittings, giving power to either House of Parliament to present an Address to His Majesty that the rules should be annulled. That change has been made, and a provision for bringing the rules before Parliament is contained in the Measure.
I think I have sufficiently described the character of this Measure and the changes which it introduces into the existing law. I would like to say before I leave it in your hands that it is an instance of how much we owe in this comparatively new form of legislation to the care and thoroughness with which the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament does its work. Here I may be permitted to say how greatly we shall regret that before long the wise and able Chairman of that Committee, Lord Clarendon, will no longer be able to preside over it. I note that the Ecclesiastical Committee not only recommend that this Measure should pass, but are also good enough to say that they are in sympathy with its objects, which they believe to be sound. I beg to move.

§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME
My Lords, I had hoped that Lord Askwith would have been here to pass some comments upon this Measure. As he is not, I am afraid that I must inflict myself upon you for a few moments. The most rev. Primate said that this Measure was to consolidate the existing Acts, but it is not called a consolidation Act. Then, as regards Clauses 2 and 3, they, as he has said, have been inserted as being by way of protection for patrons, and are so referred to in the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee. I venture to say, however, that when the clauses are examined the protection appears to be largely illusory. If your Lordships will look at the people who compose the Committee in Clause 2, subsection (2)—I will not trouble you with their names 924 —you will see what sort of people they are, and how many of them are likely to support the views of the patron, who will himself be in a hopeless minority.
As to the right of pre-emption under Clause 3, this may be exercised by the patron by giving notice in writing to the diocesan dilapidations board within fourteen days after the committee has approved the sale. The result of this notice is that the notice itself is to take effect as if it were a contract for sale to the patron at a price to be fixed, in default of agreement, by an independent valuer, who is to have regard in fixing the value to the price offered by any other person. The unfortunate patron now finds himself bound by contract to purchase the parsonage house at an unknown price, and he also has to pay the cost of valuation. What patron is likely under such circumstances to purchase the parsonage house? The protection is entirely illusory. If this, instead of being a Church Assembly Measure, which this House cannot amend, were an ordinary Bill before Parliament, I am legally advised that it would be cut to pieces in Committee.
One more point arises. Under Clause 12, subsection 1 (i) provides that Queen Anne's Bounty shall make rules, and that such rules shall "define for the purposes of this Measure the expression 'the patron.'" There is already a very good definition of "patron" in the Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Act, 1871, and I ask the most rev. Primate to say why that is to be displaced by something of which we know nothing at all. Is it asking the most rev. Primate too much to ask him to withdraw this Measure if there is no great hurry for it, so that the drafting can be reconsidered by somebody more competent than the person who has drafted it? It has, I know, already been withdrawn once, so I would really suggest that it should be withdrawn a second time.

§ THE EARL OF CLARENDON
My Lords, before the most rev. Primate rises to reply, I would like to say a few words as Chairman of the Ecclesiastical Committee, and before coming to what I want to say about this Measure, I would like to take the opportunity of warmly thanking the most rev. Primate for the very kind words he used with regard to myself. I think it is probably well known that 925 the Ecclesiastical Committee, in the case of all Measures that come before it from the Church Assembly, have to examine those Measures very closely and send forward a Report to Parliament explaining first of all the legal and general aspects of the Measure, making comments on the expediency of the Measure, especially with regard to the constitutional rights of His Majesty's subjects. This Parsonages Measure originally appeared before the Ecclesiastical Committee last year, and very largely owing to criticisms levelled against it by the Ecclesiastical Committee and by other bodies as well, was ultimately withdrawn. But now your Lordships have before you the Measure in a very different form, and hearing in mind that the criticisms which were levelled against it by the Ecclesiastical Committee and by the other bodies to which the most rev. Primate has referred have been very largely met, I would plead with your Lordships to allow this Measure to proceed.
Let me repeat once more that the Ecclesiastical Committee have examined this Measure with considerable care and I will quote the words which come at the end of their Report upon it:— The Ecclesiastical Committee are in sympathy with the objects of the Measure, which they believe to be sound. The Measure is one which affects the rights of His Majesty's subjects, but they are of opinion that the special protection provided is sufficient, and that it is expedient that the Measure should proceed.

§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME
May I ask whether there were any lawyers on that Committee?

§ THE EARL OF CLARENDON
Yes, several lawyers.

§ LORD PARMOOR
In reference to what the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, has said, may I say this Measure has passed the Church Assembly and also the Ecclesiastical Committee. We are not in a position to criticise it in detail; all we have to do is to veto the Measure or to allow it to pass. I think after what the noble Earl, Lord Clarendon, has said, the House will have no hesitation whatever in allowing this Measure to pass, and will not exercise the right of veto.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY
My Lords, with regard to the observations which have fallen 926 from the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, I would only say that I think the patron must have a very bad case if he is not able to prove it in the company of the Archdeacon, the representative of the parish, and the representatives of the Diocesan Board of Finance who are familiar with all the conditions of houses and prices in the neighbourhood. I do not think he ought to have a veto, but he ought to have a preponderating voice. With regard to the provisions for the right of pre-emption, I understand that they were agreed upon after full conference with the representatives of the Central Landowners' Association and the Bursars of Oxford and Cambridge, and that they did not seem to realise the difficulties to which the noble Viscount has given expression. As to the reason for including a definition of the word "patron" in rules drawn up by Queen Anne's Bounty, cases might very easily arise in which it might be desirable to know who exactly in each context was to be described as patron. I do not think there is anything serious in that objection.
I hope your Lordships will not wish me to withdraw this Measure. It was passed both by the Church Assembly and the Ecclesiastical Committee, and the mere fact that it has already been sent back to the Legislative Committee of the Assembly by the Ecclesiastical Committee, and that the Legislative Committee has taken note of those objections, shows the extreme care which the Ecclesiastical Committee, a most competent body, containing lawyers and public men of various kinds, have given to the matter. I think, therefore, your Lordships may be assured that, both in point of conception and of drafting, this Measure represents a great deal of mutual confidence and exact care.