HL Deb 23 March 1886 vol 303 cc1601-12

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE EARL OF MILLTOWN

, in moving that the Bill be read the second time, said, that its object simply was to extend to churches in the Metropolis and their sites the same protection which was now provided for similar edifices every where else in the country Churches which had been consecrated were protected both by the Common Law of the country and by Statute Law. Only so recently as 1884 their Lordships passed a Bill dealing with disused burial grounds in the Metropolis. That Bill had been passed in consequence of the great indignation throughout the country at the desecration of old burial grounds in the neighbourhood of London by utilizing them for building purposes, and were it not for the peculiar way in which that Bill exempted from its provisions the Union of Benefices Act 1860, he would not have troubled their Lordships with the present Bill. The Union of Benefices Act of 1860 was passed with the object of consolidating certain church parishes in the neighbourhood of London and elsewhere, on the ground that their churches were no longer necessary for Divine worship, and it provided funds, which were vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to be used chiefly for the extension of churches elsewhere. It was provided by that Bill that where a church was to be pulled down another was to be built elsewhere. There was a provision that ancient churchyards were not to be sold, but were to be preserved; but, curiously enough, though the churchyards were exempted from desecration, the church itself was permitted not only to be pulled down, but its site to be sold to the highest bidder by public auction, so that it might be used for any purpose whatever. It was a singular thing that while the minor was protected the major was exposed to desecration. Now, he did not require to demonstrate that it was unnecessary to pull down these churches. All he asked was that if it was necessary to pull them down their sites should be respected. It would be easy, if necessary, to demonstrate that the destruction of these churches was wholly uncalled for. These City churches, with few exceptions, had a double claim to protection, not only as being the last resting-places of the dead, but also as having been the site of buildings which had been for generations the temples of the living God. It was true the City churches were no longer surrounded by such large populations as formerly; but still the week-day population of the City was enormous—something like 1,000,000—while the Sunday population was considerably more than was generally supposed. The City churches had been grossly neglected; they had not had fair play. What could be done by a great and earnest clergyman had been demonstrated in the case of St. Paul's, which, though chiefly visited by sight-seers years ago, was now crowded on Sundays with congregations of 9,000, and attended on week-days by very large congregations indeed. St. Paul's was not the only instance of this kind. It was a remarkable fact that the City churches which were scantily filled were those which had non-resident incumbents, whereas in others where there was a resident and hard-working clergyman the congregations were by no means so trifling as was usually supposed. Of the four churches referred to in the Bill, the first to which he would call attention was the church of St. Thomas, in the Liberty of the Rolls. It was a church of comparatively recent construction, having been in existence only 50 years and immediately adjoining it was a large vacant space of ground, more than three-quarters of an acre in size. The ground belonged to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who some five or six years ago cleared the ground of houses, whose inmates represented a very poor class, and having thus got rid of the population they now wished to sell the church. He could not help thinking that if this ground were utilized under the Artizans' low Hings Act of his noble Friend (the Marquess of (Salisbury), it would furnish an important addition to the homes of the working men of London, and that the presence of the church in their neigh bourhood might prove a great blessing. The incumbent was an old man, 77 years of age, who lived outside the parish. The next church to which he would refer was that of St. Olave, Old Jewry. In this case the living had been vacant for four years, which was not a satisfactory state of things. It was not always the resident population that formed the congregations of City churches, for many of the congregations came from a very considerable distance. The vestry clerk of St. Olave, Old Jewry, stated that the incumbency had been vacant for four years, and that the services were performed temporarily by a gentleman who did not live in London. There were an enormous number of bodies buried under the church. The third church to which his Bill related was that of St. Catherine Colman, in Fenchurch Street. This living had also been vacant for four years, and the Bishop allowed a miserable stipend to the curate in charge who did the work. The clergyman in charge informed him that he had ascertained that since 1625 about 10,000 persons had been buried in the church and churchyard, and that many hundreds of people were interred there during the prevalence of the plague and the sweating sickness. To disturb the remains might be dangerous to the living; and that really was the case some years ago at Eyam, in Derbyshire, where the old burial ground was disturbed. The last church to which his Bill referred was that of the Holy Trinity in the Minories. It was a quaint old building, erected on the site of an ancient house of Minor friars. Large numbers of persons had been interred in the church, some as late as the year 1849. It was impossible to exaggerate the immense amount of decaying humanity which really constituted the soil. Yet on this site, which it was proposed to sell by public auction, it would be necessary, if a gin palace or a warehouse were erected in place of the church, to dig up the most horrible mass of decomposition which could be imagined. It was stated that deconsecrating services were held before churches were pulled down; but he could not imagine what those services were. Whether the prayers were read backwards or not it was difficult to say. The Law Times stated that when a burial ground had once been consecrated nothing short of an Act of Parliament could divest consecrated ground of its sacred character, and that "the sacred character of the ground is part of the Common Law of Europe." Such were the facts, shortly stated, as regard these four benefices. He asked their Lordships to pass his Bill on four grounds—first, that it was offensive in the highest degree to Christians that the House of God should be desecrated for perhaps the vilest purposes; secondly, that the desecration was a disturbance of what was intended to be the last resting place of the dead; thirdly, on sanitary grounds, because the removal of the remains would cause great danger to health; and, fourthly, to enable the number of open spaces in the City to be increased, supposing it were necessary to pull down the churches. To show the injury to health which resulted from the disturbance of these old graveyards, he might refer to the opinion of Sir Gilbert Scott, who stated that in these old churchyards the whole soil was composed of a mass of decayed human remains and half-decayed bodies, which could not be removed without injury to health. He would ask their Lordships to accept the Bill, because it would increase the singularly limited number of open spaces in the City. The sites of the old City churches which were burnt down in the Fire of London and not rebuilt were carefully preserved. He regretted that the right rev. Prelate should have placed on the Paper a Notice in opposition to the Bill. He did not think that in these days when Disestablishment was in the air this was a wise course. Even the Liberation Society did not ask that the churches should be destroyed and their graveyards desecrated; and it was a source of infinite pain to himself and many others that the man of all others to be engaged in this work should be the Bishop of London. He would ask their Lordships by reading his Bill a second time to put an end to this scandal—he asked in the name of decency, which was outraged; in the name of the living, whose health was seriously endangered; in the name of the dead, whose last resting place was disturbed; and finally, and most reverently, in the name of God, that an end might be put at once and for ever to this uncalled for and horrible desecration of the place where His honour dwelleth.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Milltown.)

THE BISHOP OF LONDON (Dr. TEMPLE)

, in moving that the Bill be read a second time this day six months, said, that the Bill would have been more correctly designated as one not to amend, but to repeal, the Act of 1860, because to give practical effect to it would necessarily be to repeal that Act. The Act of 1860 was passed on the ground that there were a large number of churches in the Metropolis which had become useless in consequence of the population having entirely left them, and that there was at the same time a large population all around, and increasing yearly in almost unmanageable proportion, for whom it was exceedingly difficult to provide accommodation for worship. It was thought but reasonable that churches standing where they were not wanted should be transferred to places where they were so much required. That was the principle of the Act of 1860. The chief answer to this Bill he should put before their Lordships would be to lay some of the leading facts before them, so that they could estimate what had actually taken place under the Act of 1860. Under that Act the sites of 11 churches had been sold. A Return moved for in 1879 showed that 10 churches had been then sold, and one sale had occurred since. These 11 churches had been removed, the sites sold, and the proceeds applied in accordance with the principle he had indicated. After meeting all expenses and compensating all interests that had to be compensated under the Act, the whole amount realized by the sale had been £242,650. Out of that sum £180,152 had been spent in the erection partially or entirely of 43 new churches in poor and populous districts of the Metropolis. The sum of £17,950 had been appropriated for the endowment of five of these churches; £12,980 had been spent in the erection and improvement of parsonage houses, and £27,168 on the repair of the churches of the united benefices. There remained a sum of £4,400 which the Commissioners were obliged to keep in hand for the present to meet certain contingencies. Their Lordships would, with these facts before them, see what the meaning of the Act of i860 was, and understand what had been done. Numerous scattered populations existed around London without churches at all. The difficulty of providing them with churches was enormous. The want was partially met by what was known as the Bishop of London's Fund, which was started 23 years ago, by private munificence, and by the sale of the sites of churches under the Act of 1860; but they were still short of churches and were still unable to keep pace with the growing population. The rate of growth of the population in the Metropolis was 45,000 a-year, a little more than the total number of inhabitants in the City of Exeter. They sought for money in all directions in order to provide churches; but even with the £250,000 derived from the sale of 11 City churches, they were unable to do the work. Was this work now to be suddenly cut short? Was it consistent with their duty to the people that in order to indulge a very respectable, a very honourable sentiment, they should refuse the means that had been hitherto employed for providing places of worship for the people? He would give the House a few instances of what had been done. The parish of St. Martin Out which contained a population of 421 souls, although it was united with the neighbouring parish. The church was sold for the sum of £37,631, out of which the Commissioners provided, at a cost of £24,138, churches for the new district of Holy Trinity, Dalston; Christ Church, Stepney; and St. Peter's, Limehouse, the populations being respectively, 7,332, 8,186, and 10,000. The church of St. Helen, Bishops gate, was also repaired, at a cost of £3,000, and a sum of £8,000 invested in Consols to meet certain annuities would be available at a subsequent date for church building. All the people in the parishes he had mentioned had been provided with places of worship by the sacrifice of a church of the parish in which there was not 400, and which by union with an adjoining parish only amounted to 420. The church of St. Benet. Gracechurch, was sold for £23,894. The population of that parish and of another with which it was united amounted to 481. Out of the proceeds of the sale the Commissioners erected, at a cost of £7,257, a new church for St. Peter's, Stepney, with a population of 9,448 souls, and provided £9,000 as an endowment; £4,000 was appropriated to the improvement and enlargement of All Souls', Holloway, and £1,500 was spent on parsonage-houses for the benefice. If it had been possible to provide for all the religious wants of the Metropolis without touching these churches he should have been glad, although it must be remembered that very fierce attacks had been made upon the Church for retaining such a valuable mass of property as the City churches locked up in a useless form. The population in many of the City parishes was almost nominal. There was, for instance, a church in Thames Street with a population of 92, another in Wood Street with a population of 84, and there was St. Alphage, London Wall, with a population of 45; it was only right, therefore, that the churches should go whither the population had gone. He met the objection of the noble Earl that these City churches ought not to be touched because they had been consecrated to God, by pointing out that there were many cases in the Old Testament of land and other things which had been given to God being redeemed to secular uses. Although he admitted that consecration was a very solemn thing, and that it ought only to be set aside by Act of Parliament, yet he doubted whether any part of Europe was under so strict a law in this respect as the noble Lord proposed to enact for this country. He was certain that the Roman Catholic Church permitted consecrated lands and buildings to be redeemed to secular uses, and it would be contrary to the character of the Church of England to lay down a hard and fast line that would prevent the exchange of consecrated property for that in which the service of God could be better and morn appropriately conducted. He thought that the argument of the noble Lord with regard to the removal of the dead necessitated by these exchanges was of far more force than that which related to consecration; nevertheless, where such removals had hitherto been effected every proper precaution had been taken to insure decency. With regard to the sanitary question raised by the noble Earl, he wished to point out that no evil results had followed the removal of the dead in the case of the 11 City churches which had already been removed. It was absurd to object to the sale of the sites of these churches on the pretence that they would afford open spaces in the heart of the City, inasmuch as the sites of the 10 churches already removed—he had not the measurement of the 11th—did not form an aggregate space of three-quarters of an acre, and it was not to be supposed that such an area cut up into 10 small pieces would be any very perceptible addition to the open spaces of the City. He was fully aware of the objection there was to a non-resident clergy. No one regretted this in the case of the City churches more than he did; but it was due to the difficulty and, in many cases, absolute impossibility of obtaining parsonage-houses. The importance they attached to having a resident clergy was proved by the provision they had made with reference to the new churches in this respect. He fully admitted that the sentiment which had been displayed by the noble Earl was a very proper one; but he thought that it should not be allowed to override such considerations as those which he had stated. If they were to override those considerations, he put it to the House that if Parliament was in all cases to stop the removal of a church on the ground that it had been given to God, they must apply the same rule whenever a new street or anew railway were made in a town, and it was proposed to remove a church for such an improvement. They must resolutely put a stop to every improvement, either in London or any other large city, wherever it interfered with consecrated ground, and still more if it interfered with a burial ground. He knew that local improvements involving operations of that kind had been made in different places; and the alleged scandal in the present case therefore appeared to be not that they were removing churches or the dead, because they did that for secular purposes, but that they were doing it in the service of God. But if the convenience of mankind and the ordinary improvement of cities were sufficient to justify such things, far more so were the spiritual needs of the large population with which they had to deal; and he trusted that the House would not put a stop to a work which was doing God service to such a degree as he was constantly a witness of wherever he went in the Metropolis. As he went from church to church he found an active clergy devoting themselves with all their strength to the good of the population among whom they lived. Only yesterday he was at an 8 o'clock evening service in a church far in the East which was provided by such means as those. He saw a large and earnest congregation with a clergyman who was evidently carrying his people with him, and he thought that such a work as that which was now going on at all times ought not to be checked. Therefore, while fully admitting the force of the sentiments expressed by the noble Earl, he said that they ought to be limited by the consideration of what was best for God's service and the good of mankind.

Amendment moved, to leave out ("now,") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Lord Bishop of London.)

THE EARL OF POWIS

was understood to say that the Act of 1860 dealing with that subject was the result of a careful and well-considered compromise, and he did not think that the noble Earl had made out a case to show that it was now necessary to interfere with the arrangement then made.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

said, he felt very strongly the force of the arguments against disturbing the remains of the dead or interfering with buildings which had been so long consecrated, and he owned that for a very long time those sentiments had prevailed with him; but when he looked at the spiritual necessities of the neighbourhood of London, which were so constantly multiplying, he was not able to maintain his sentiment against his sense of those necessities. He desired to see all that was possible done to restore the use of those ancient churches, and to bring their clergy near to them and congregations within them. But when all was done that could be done, there would remain many churches which had little practical use. They ought not to be misled by the speech of the noble Earl as to imaginable uses to which the relinquished sites of churches and churchyards might be put. It was only in one sense they were parted with when the worth of them was applied to the noblest and holiest uses. When they saw that the population of London was increasing at the rate of 40,000 or 50,000 a-year, they must ask themselves whether sums could be raised by gift or in any way by which the spiritual needs of those people could be adequately met and the services of the Church provided for them; and even if such could be raised—as they knew they could not—they needed to be spent in still further increasing the spiritual ministrations required for that population. But at present the very existence of those churches, with the immense wealth attached to them so unserviceable and uselessly, was an actual hindrance in men's mouths to the progress of church extension, and would remain so, while their sale would enable thousands to be provided with religious services where but scores were so provided for before. The utmost care ought indeed to be taken in making the choice of those to be removed, and further in dealing with the buildings and with the ground; but he could not agree with the noble Earl that every parting with things that had been given to God was unknown to the Church. The term desecrate was corruptly used in the sense of profaning; but the word dese-crare was technically parallel to the word consecrare and meant to remove the sacred character attached to a thing. In old times some of the most touching and most striking incidents in Church history was the way in which great famines and pestilences were met. It would be within the recollection of their Lordships how the most precious treasures of the Church—even chalices which had held the consecrated element—had been sold in order that the proceeds might be distributed among the poor. He thought they would not dispute that this was a holy use to which jewels could be put. If they looked at the object with which the pious founders of old days granted these gifts, surely it would be acknowledged that in the churches already removed, seed had been sown which had wonderfully increased and grown, and was now, through that removal, bearing fruit to man and to God thirty-fold and even sixty-fold.

THE EARL OF MILLTOWN

said, he did not propose to go to a division after what had been stated by the most rev. Prelate. At the same time, he was bound to say, with reference to the statement that the new churches were well attended, that he was credibly informed that many of the new churches were not so well attended as those which had been pulled down. The people of the City of London thought it a hardship that they should be called upon to supply this spiritual destitution of others by the sacrifice of their own churches. They considered it a system of robbing Peter to pay Paul; and they naturally asked whether the charity of this great country was not sufficient to supply the spiritual destitution without pulling down the ancient houses of God.

On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion?

Resolved in the negative.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill to be read 2a this day six months.