§ 3.5 p.m.
§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HAWKEMy Lords, this Charity originated in the reign of Henry I, to provide for the leprous and infirm; it was confiscated by the Crown at the time of Edward VI but revived in the reign of James I of England. The Master of the Charity, which consisted of five almshouses in the City of Colchester, is the rector of one of the parishes there. It has been found increasingly difficult in modern times to find any incumbent prepared to take on that living, where his stipend has to provide for the upkeep of these almshouse as well as his own living. The inmates of the almhouses are, of course, poor persons, but they provide their own board: they have old age pensions or some slight private means, or they can go to the National Assistance Board. The Master is responsible for maintaining the buildings and for certain small statutory obligations to the inmates. In order to make it possible to find incumbents who will accept this living, it has now been decided that there must be a separation of the almshouses and the living. Therefore, a split has been made whereby a certain proportion of the money will go towards the stipend of the incumbent of the ecclesiastical parish of St. Mary Magdalen, and the balance will be available for maintaining these almshouses. I may say that, in preparation for the split, the Church has put the buildings in a state of thoroughly good repair, 872 and the money remaining over for the support of this Charity will be something over £200 a year, which the Charity Commissioners think adequate for the purpose.
To summarise, the result of this Bill will be that it will make available a proper standard of incumbent for the Parish of St. Mary Magdalen; the financial status of the inmates of the almshouses will remain as before; and the historical link whereby the incumbent looked after their spiritual welfare will not be broken. For those reasons, I commend the Bill to your Lordships' House.
§ EARL JOWITTMy Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he make this plain? Has the incumbent of this living any other source of income, such as glebe land, endowments, or anything of that sort?
LORD HAWKEI understand not. The total emoluments were in the neighbourhood of £500 a year, of which, under the new split, approximately £300 goes to the Church side, and £200-odd goes to the almshouse side. I do not want to take up time in moving. There is a considerable field for curiosity over these matters, and in my reply I shall be only too pleased to try to answer any questions. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hawke.)
§ 3.12 p.m.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, we take a particular interest in this Bill because its genesis occurred during our term of office. Naturally, the present Government, through the ordinary channels, are responsible for what appears in the Bill, but, notwithstanding the fact that we have not been able to continue with the Bill, we are prepared to give it our support. There are, however, one or two questions of human detail which I should like to put to the noble Lord, and the answers to which, I believe, will enable your Lordships to reach a conclusion more satisfactory to yourselves than might otherwise be the case. The total amount of money held by the trust was in the neighbourhood of £18,000. Of that amount of money £11,000 or a little over is to be transferred to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the remainder, amounting to £8,000, 873 is to go to the Charity Commissioners. The first question, therefore, is whether the division is a fair one, and whether the sum that is left is ample for the purpose of fulfilling the foundation of the Charity.
The noble Lord has indicated that the income expected to be derived from that share which remains with the Charity will be about £200 a year. As there are five inmates of the almshouses, that is approximately a clear income of£40 a year each. As I understand the noble Lord, however, it is not the intention that the whole of that money shall be devoted to payments to the people in the almshouses; other charges will fall upon that income, and it is upon that that I am now asking him for further information. In the Bill itself it is provided that the cost of repairs, insurances, administration and management expenses shall be met out of that income, but it is also proposed that out of that income of £200 a year, £50 a year shall be earmarked in order to provide a fund out of which major repairs can be carried out at intervals as required. It will therefore be seen that a considerable portion of that £200 is already earmarked. I should like to know what payments have Actually been made to the alms people during the past few years, and whether it is proposed to continue payments at the same rate.
I should also like to know, if possible, something about the ages of these people. If they are over sixty-five or seventy years of age, presumably they will be entitled to an old age pension. But if they are younger than that—and they seem to be persons of mixed ages—then these pensions will not be due to them. My other question, therefore, is this: Are there any other funds from other sources which can be added to those made available by this trust? Finally, will the noble Lord explain to us what the original purposes of the Charity were—that is to say, whether full support was given originally to these people, or only partial support?
§ 3.17 p.m.
§ EARL JOWITTMy Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, replies, I should like to supplement the remarks of my noble friend. I believe that consideration of this scheme was started during my time in office, although I have no definite recollection of it. Traditionally, however, this House has been very careful in 874 matters of this sort, and ought not to shirk its responsibility by saying that other people are looking into it. I am sure the noble Lord will agree. I should like to know what the stipend available to this clergyman is. All of us who have tried to fill livings know that one of the tragic things to-day is that we have to endeavour to get people for such very little money that they can hardly keep body and soul together in decency. Of course, it is quite impossible to expect to get a good man unless you give him some reasonable sort of emolument. I quite understand that aspect of the matter.
On the other hand, this seems to me to be a case extraordinarily like the celebrated case—I have not looked up my reference—of the Reverend Septimus Harding and. I think, Mr. John Bold. It is almost precisely parallel. I am referring, of course, to the story of The Warden by Anthony Trollope. In this case a sum of money is, most unfortunately, not definitely allocated, but is to be expended between, on the one hand, a clergyman and, on the other, five old pensioners. I fully understand the desirability of splitting up that fund so that so much of it shall be available for the one and so much for the other. To avoid misunderstandings, misapprehensions and trouble in the future, I think it is probably wise that we should split it up.
Then I think arises the question: How ought it to be split up? As I follow it, it is not being split on what is called a "fifty-fifty" basis; it is being split up so that the clergyman has the larger proportion of the sum available and the five inmates the smaller proportion. I am far from saying that that is wrong: looking at all the circumstances, it may be entirely right. But feel that this House ought to know, if not now then at a later stage of the Bill, exactly what are the circumstances which justify a division which, I think, is roughly (the noble Lord will correct me, if I am wrong) four-sevenths to the clergyman and three-sevenths to the five pensioners between them. I do not want it to be thought that I am suggesting that that is inequitable, or that there is the slightest impropriety in it. All I am saying is that if we as a House authorise such a Bill as this, we ought to have all the facts quite plainly set before us, so that we can be 875 completely satisfied. The responsibility is our own and nobody else's, and we ought to be satisfied that justice is being done. I have no doubt that if we are given the full facts by the noble Lord—he has probably gone into them, and I do not think for a moment that he would have supported this Bill unless he had himself been satisfied—we shall be satisfied. But there remains a good deal that we do not know, and, as I say, we ought to be given full information so that we can be quite satisfied that what we are doing is fair and reasonable.
§ 3.21 p.m.
LORD HAWKEMy Lords, I am glad to see that the procedure I suggested has found favour, that I should leave it to my reply to furnish any details which noble Lords might desire. I will first deal with the question of the split, raised by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt. He is quite right: this scheme did come up in his time; and it is the Lord Chancellor who has to find the incumbent for this living. It was because he found considerable difficulty in doing so that he set in train the proceedings that led up to this scheme. The Charity is bound only to provide the lodging for these five single, industrious persons: no age limit is specified, and there is no stipulation as to sex. I understand that in fact they are ladies, and I assume that they are elderly; but I have not made specific inquiries about their ages. Perhaps before the next stage, if the noble and learned Earl wishes me to do so, I will ascertain this. But, as I say, the trust is historically bound only to provide for these good persons 1s. per week each, plus an allowance of faggots—which nowadays is translated into terms of coal—so that there is not a very large call upon the funds. The Charity Commissioners are satisfied that the amount left to their side, which, incidentally, is approximately £220 a year, of which the first £50 is earmarked for the special repairs fund, will be sufficient to fulfil all the obligations which the trust enjoins upon them.
§ LORD SHEPHERDThe noble Lord said that the trustees are bound legally only to pay 1s. a week, plus a number of faggots. Can he tell us what they have actually been paying to the pensioners?
LORD HAWKEI have always assumed that they have paid what they were bound to pay, as laid down in the trust deed.
§ EARL JOWITTAnd nothing more.
LORD HAWKEMoreover, of course, they have had to keep these almshouses in repair; that has been the heaviest charge. As I have said, that responsibility has been looked after by having the buildings brought fully up to date, and by earmarking for repairs this £50 a year. Having regard to that, the Commissioners are satisfied that the balance available is fully sufficient to cover their obligations in the matter. As to the stipend, on the other side, as the noble Earl knows, there are various methods by which stipends in the Church of England are to-day made up to something like a living wage. I believe that in the majority of dioceses £550 a year is the figure aimed at. I have not the least doubt that this stipend will have to be made up to that level by the Church Commissioners or the parish in due course before an incumbent is appointed.
As regards the original Charter of the Charity, this ordained that the foundation should consist of a Master and five poor persons, single or unmarried, and that the Master should have the cure of the souls of the parishioners; that these should be chosen by the Master, placed in the hospital for life, and paid 52s. a year; and that the Lord Chancellor should be the Visitor of the hospital and appoint the Master. That, I believe, answers Lord Shepherd's point. I think I have dealt with all the questions except that of the ages. I must confess that I have made no precise inquiries about the ages of the ladies: perhaps that can be ascertained before the next stage.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMay I ask the noble Lord a question before he finally sits down? Referring again to the amount of 1s. a week each that must legally be paid, will the noble Lord be good enough to cause an inquiry to be made as to what has been actually paid during the past few years to these people? I rather suspect that it is slightly more than 1s. per week.
§ On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.