§ Order for Committee read.
§ House in Committee.
§ Clause 1.
§ MR. ALCOCKsaid, that while he confessed that this Bill was greatly improved by the abandonment of the attempt to convert free sittings into pews, which was conspicuous in its first draft, he must express his regret that the question of Church Rates had not been disposed of in a more satisfactory manner. As the law now stood, district churches were exempted from paying church rates to the mother church after they had been in existence for twenty years; but with regard to consolidated chapelries, the law was very questionable. Consolidated chapelries were districts formed out of two or more adjacent parishes which lay at at a great distance from the mother church; and he could have wished their exemption from church rates had been made by this Bill settled on the same footing as a district church formed out of one parish only. This Bill was confessedly founded upon a Report of a Commission appointed to inquire into the subdivision of parishes; and he regretted that the noble Lord at the head of the Government should not have adopted the most important suggestion in that Report, namely, that which related to livings in the gift of the Lord Chancellor. The noble Lord had assigned as his reason for not adopting that suggestion, that he did not think it advisable to give up so great a public trust. He (Mr. Alcock), however, believed that there was not a man in England who would have accused the noble Lord of an abandonment of a public trust if he had carried into effect the suggestion of the Report with regard to the sale of those livings. If those livings, which now were more than 800 in number, were disposed of gradually by private contract—not, be it remarked, by public auction—to which much just and proper opposition was raised—an amount of money would be derived, which, placed 1748 in a common fund, would have enabled the noble Lord to have carried out the other suggestion of the Commission, namely, to raise the 330 small livings under 200l. a year, up to that sum. There were, besides, upwards of 300 parishes in which no parsonage houses existed at all—an anomaly which the noble Lord, by the fund derived from the sale of these livings, would be able, in some degree, also to remove. He would also suggest that something ought to be done out of this common fund in reference to the forty livings in the gift of the Lord Chancellor. There were ten of these parishes in which the population was very considerable indeed. He would mention only one. The parish of St. George the Martyr, in Southwark, contained 52,000 inhabitants. There was but one single church to which that 52,000 of population was attached. There was one rector, with a fixed income of 400l., and 80l. in lieu of a parsonage, and out of that he had to provide for three curates. He (Mr. Alcock) thought the noble Lord would pause a little before he again stated that it would be giving up a great public trust to alter such a state of things as that. What was the value of the livings at the disposal of the Lord Chancellor? He had no hesitation in saying that it was at least 1,000,000l. He had made a calculation himself, and it would take 400,000l. to raise those 330 livings to an annual value of 200l. a year. It would take 300,000l. to give anything like an appreciable assistance towards erecting parsonages in parishes where now there were none; and it would take 50,000l. at that moment to build two new churches, and endow them as they ought to be, in the parish of St. George the Martyr, in Southwark. It was a most disgraceful thing to this country and to Parliament, that within two miles of the place in which the latter was now sitting, there was a population of 52,000 with only one church. No wonder that in that parish there should be a spot infamous for centuries as the nursery and abode of crime. The Mint had for nearly three centuries been notorious, and it was still notorious, for crime; and it was an established fact that half the criminals executed at Newgate came out of the parish of St. George the Martyr, Southwark. [Cries of "Hear, hear!"]
The CHAIRMANsaid, he must call the hon. Member to order, on the ground that he was discussing a principle which bore no reference whatever to the nature of the clause, which was to authorise the Com- 1749 missioners to allot certain sittings to the poor of the parish.
§ MR. ALCOCKbowed to the decision of the Chairman; but in his justification he must plead the difficulty he had found in stating these facts on previous occasions. He begged to disclaim any unkind feeling in making the observations that had fallen from him towards the Lord Chancellor, or the noble Lord (Lord John Russell). He trusted, however, that he might be allowed to express a hope that the noble Lord and the Government would think well upon this subject before another Session.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, that no doubt the Bill in its present form was a great deal better than when it came down from the House of Lords; but he thought this clause still required further guarding. A great many persons in this country had given money to build churches on the faith that a certain number of the sittings should be free; but this Bill proposed to give to two parties entirely unconnected with the parish, the Church Commissioners, and the Bishop of the diocese, the power to undo the whole of that arrangement, without the assent of the inhabitants of the district who were concerned in the matter. Now he thought that no alteration should be made except upon some application of the inhabitants of the district, made through the churchwardens, or whatever might be the proper mode; and he wished to know whether the Government would object to the introduction into the clause, on bringing up the Report, of words which would effect this object.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that the clause allowed the Church Commissioners, with thea ssent of the Bishop of the Diocese, to say that a certain portion of the free seats should be allotted to the accommodation of a certain portion of the inhabitants who were regular attendants at the church, without any payment whatever. But if the churchwardens, to whom the order of the Commissioners would be addressed, did not allot them, there would be no alteration whatever. Nor in fact, if they allotted them without payment, would there be any alteration in the present state of things. It would be very convenient that the inhabitants, being regular attendants at church, should have regular seats to resort to, and should not be subject to the inconvenience of having to look for seats.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwould suggest that probably it would suit the views of the hon. Member 1750 for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) if the clause were altered so as to set out that the Commissioners might, if they thought fit, by an order under their common seal, and with the consent of the Bishop of the diocese, authorise the churchwardens to set apart and allot a certain portion of the free seats amongst the poor inhabitants of the parish.
§ MR. SPOONERwas in favour of the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, which he thought would greatly improve the Bill.
The MARQUESS of BLANDFORDsaid, that the main objection which had been urged against the Bill on its introduction, had been that it imposed rents upon sittings which were at present free. In those objections he had himself fully agreed; but he believed that they would be entirely obviated by the clause as it now stood, which proposed to reserve seats for the poor but regular church-goers, without any payment whatever.
§ MR. HENLEYthought, that if, under this clause, the Commissioners ordered the churchwardens to allot a certain portion of the free seats, they would feel it imperative upon them, and would indeed be compellable by the Bishop, to do so. He thought it a good principle that these seats should be apportioned; but at the same time, if district churches had been built upon the express understanding that the scats should be free, he contended that, in those districts, the inhabitants, who were the parties interested, should have a voice as to whether they wished the alteration to be made or not. No doubt, in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred, they would avail themselves of the power.
MR. HENRY DRUMMONDsaid, that if, as had been stated, there was an implied understanding with the subscribers to funds for building churches, that a certain number of seats should be and continue free, there was equally an understanding implied in the very existence of an Established Church that it should be for the body of the people, and altogether free. There was a great deal in this Bill relating, so to speak, to the interests of the Commissioners, and of the Bishops, and of the churchwardens, but not one word as to the interests of the body of the people. If there were any implied understanding between the persons who had subscribed to build these churches as to free seats, it ought to be strictly carried out. The hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) said, the Bill was improved since it came down 1751 from the House of Lords; but the truth was, that the Bill came down from the House of Lords in such a shameful state that not a man could be found in that House who would take charge of it. He could not agree with the explanation of the noble Lord (the Marquess of Blandford), which sounded very much as if it came from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners themselves. By the present system, which excluded the people from the churches, and which had gone on for 150 years, they had forced the people to become either heathens or Dissenters; and it was to their ill management in this way that so many were no longer members of the Church of England. The same spirit of laziness which had filled our parish churches with velvet cushions and luxurious pews, and turned them into places for the rich only, had lumped the four services of the Church into one, and fixed that amalgamated service at an hour when the poor could not attend. The service was originally divided into "matins," "litany," "sermon," and "communion;" and in the Universities that plan was still kept up, and until lately, at one cathedral, that of Worcester, if he remembered rightly. But the bishop had said, that instead of the services being thus distributed over the day, at some portion of which the poor could attend, he would have them all lumped into one, and that had been done. He objected to the clause altogether, as sanctioning a principle which ought never to have been allowed to creep in.
§ CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, that the result of this clause might be, that, under the patronage of the churchwardens, a large portion of the seats might be occupied by what were called usual churchgoers, some of whom did not come to church on account of weather, sickness, or some other cause; and yet these seats must remain vacant during the service. If it was provided that the seats should only be reserved for them up to the commencement of the service, there would be some reason for that. He feared that after a time they would see a door hanging at the end of the free seat, and the people who then occupied it would call it a pew, and the whole principle of free scats would thus be undermined.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that he thought the agreement made with parties who had subscribed money to build a church, that a certain portion of the seats should be free, would not be con- 1752 travened by the present clause. The object of a person giving his money on these conditions was not that the seats should be occupied by any particular parties, but that they should be occupied by the poor of the parish without the payment of any rent. Now, that object was secured by the present clause, which authorised the churchwardens to allot the seats to the "poor" inhabitants only; and if a person who did not properly come under that description, had a seat allotted to him, he (the Solicitor General) had no doubt that the Bishop would interfere to remedy the abuse. Any one who knew anything of the habits of the poor, knew that they would feel it a great comfort to know, on entering a church, where they were to sit. He thought that the Amendment of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would meet the objections of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley). With regard to keeping the seats empty after service had begun, no person had a right to do so, whether they were paid for or not. He knew a case in which a person holding a pew in a church, objected to having any persons admitted into his pew, and used to put a padlock upon the door, and come himself after the service had begun. The clergyman, however, had the padlock taken off, and put persons into the pew when it was empty at the commencement of service, and he was upheld by the courts in that course.
§ SIR JOHN DUCKWORTHsaid, that he did not think that the clause had been justified by the arguments which had been brought forward in its favour. He was aware that in the present state of society, it was impossible that all seats, in both old and new churches, should be made absolutely free and open to all; but he thought it would be for the benefit of the Church that they should move in that direction, and, as much as possible, make the scats free, instead of limiting them to the occupation of particular persons.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that in old parish churches, all persons, labourers and others, coming regularly to church, were accustomed regularly to occupy the same free seats. Now the object was, that in the new churches the churchwardens should have the power to say that a certain number of the regular attendants on divine worship should have the same convenience which was enjoyed by the parishioners attending old parish churches. Old and infirm people were driven from 1753 church if they were not sure of having a seat. There were, no doubt, some faults in the wording of the clause; but his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had suggested one Amendment, and others could be made on bringing up the Report.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, that the argument of the noble Lord might be a sound one if there were sufficient church accommodation, which there was not. Parties would be prevented from coming to church if they knew that a certain portion of the seats were allotted, although they might not be occupied.
§ SIR BENJAMIN HALLthought the Clause should be postponed. When they heard so much of spiritual destitution, it would be better, especially in the metropolitan districts, where there was great want of church accommodation, to say that the pews should be thrown open indifferently to all parties coming to church. In many churches in the metropolis there was no accommodation whatever for the poor. For instance, in St. James's Church there was no accommodation whatever for the poor, but every part was taken up by close pews. Although a person might go into a pew which was not filled at the beginning of the service, yet people did not like to do so, for fear they might be turned out. He thought they should pass a law by which the seats should be thrown open equally to the rich and the poor; for so long as the Church was connected with the State, it was bound to provide accommodation for the one as well as for the other, and not for the rich alone.
§ CAPTAIN SCOBELLthought that this clause at all events, should not apply to churches which had been already built. At the church which he attended there was a board exhibited on the walls, stating that half the seats were to be free and unappropriated for ever. He thought the present clause was not only a step in the wrong direction, but was an undoing of what had been done. He was told that hundreds of thousands of free seats would be affected by this clause, which would operate as a breach of the promise that they should be free and unappropriated for ever.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he had no objection to expunge the clause if it was disapproved of by the Committee.
§ MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that boards of the kind described by the hon. and gallant Member for Bath (Captain Scobell), 1754 were put up in almost every church where there were free sittings; but he thought that the meaning of the word "unappropriated" on them applied only to permanent appropriation, and did not extend to what would really only be a temporary allocation. The meaning was that no rents were to be paid for the seats, and that they were not to become the property of the holders. The term "appropriation" in the clause did not very well express what was meant, for allowing a person to occupy a seat for a certain time, his occupation being then to terminate, was not to appropriate it. Although he wished that this power should be exercised with great caution, yet he thought that such were the habits of the people in many parts of the kingdom (he did not say universally) that they would have a much greater willingness to attend the ordinances of the Church if this occupation, or whatever it was called, were allowed them; and under these circumstances he thought the object contemplated by the Clause was a good one.
§ SIR EDWARD BUXTONsuggested, that the clause should be deferred, and be considered again at a subsequent period.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLthought it better to strike out the clause then.
§ Clause struck out.
§ Clauses 2 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Clause 8, provides that the right of patronage shall be conferred on the person who endows the Church, as therein directed.
§ MR. HENLEYwished to know if it were intended that the church should be built by the person who endows it?
§ MR. HENLEYwould ask if the hon. and learned Gentleman did not perceive that this would raise a very large question. Many churches were now endowed to a certain extent, perhaps 40l. or 50l. a year, and this clause would permit another party to come in on giving a further endowment to claim the patronage. He did not think that was the intention of the clause, and he hoped measures would be taken to guard against it.
§ MR. GLADSTONEwished to know what was the meaning of the word "body" in the clause? He apprehended it was not intended to be a body corporate, for further on in the clause it spoke of his heirs or successors and assigns.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the word "body" was intended to include any body politic, corporate, or collegiate, or any corporation, aggregate or sole, as well as one individual.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 9.
MR. HEADLAMmoved the omission of the first paragraph of the clause, namely—
The exemption from the provisions of the Mortmain Acts, and the restriction applicable to such exemption, contained in the Act of the third and fourth years of Her Majesty, shall be applicable to any endowment, or grant, or conveyance, for the purpose of a repair fund of any such church or building;"—and if his Amendment wore carried, he would then propose that the following words be added:—Providing always, that nothing herein contained shall give validity to any endowment that would be void under the provisions of the Mortmain Act.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 19, to leave out from the word "the" to the word "said" in line 24.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that having made arrangements for the building and repairs of a church, it was but reasonable to make corresponding arrangements for the endowment.
MR. HENRY DRUMMONDthought the answer the hon. and learned Solicitor General had given was not correct. He considered that it was objectionable to introduce a clause of this kind until they made some general law relating to Mortmain.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 19: Majority 30.
§ Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 10 to 28, inclusive.
§ Clause 29 (providing for the repairs of district churches),
§ MR. MULLINGSsaid, that in many parishes there were funds appropriated and vested in trustees and other persons for the repairs of the parish church. Where there was a district church in the parish, was a portion of it to be given for the maintenance of such district church?
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that wherever a fund was provided for a parish church, it must be under some charitable trust; in that case they should be altering the Charitable Trusts Acts by interfering with it.
The MARQUESS of BLANDFORDsaid, 1756 he wished to know why a clause which appeared in a former draught of the Bill empowering persons to surrender their right of patronage, with or without consideration, was omitted?
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that giving a husband the power of surrendering his wife's rights of patronage, with or without consideration, was giving an extraordinary power. The same remark applied to rights of patronage in the hands of guardians or trustees. One could understand that power might be given to sell rights of patronage for a valuable consideration, but not that husbands, guardians, or trustees should be empowered to make a present of such rights of patronage.
The MARQUESS of BLANDFORDwould suggest that the clause to which he referred might be retained, so far as regarded bodies politic and those parties who did not come under the exceptions to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had alluded.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that an attempt had been made to amend the clause, but it had not been found practicable to frame it so as to avoid the difficulties which had been stated.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ MR. FREWENsaid, he now would bring before the Committee the clause of which he had given notice. There were many cases throughout the kingdom where churches had got into a dilapidated state, and when a new incumbent was appointed he came to the old church-yard, and performed service amongst the ruins of what was originally the church; he was regularly inducted as incumbent of the parish, he received a respectable income, and never came near the parish afterwards. There were a considerable number of those cases, as appeared by the returns; but there were several dioceses that did not make any returns whatever. That was a question on which that House ought to legislate, for the purpose of correcting so great an abuse. He thought that when a parish became vacant, with a church in a dilapidated state, no new clergyman should be appointed until a new church was built, and the remedy he proposed was, that the Bishop of the diocese should license a room for service, and then a new incumbent should be appointed; but it was an improper use of the revenues of the Church to apply several hundreds a year in payment of a clergyman who performed no parochial duties whatever.
§
Clause—
That upon the next avoidance of any Benefice, which has no Church or Chapel belonging to it, and which has a population of forty persons, or upwards of forty persons, and which has not been united to any other Benefice or Benefices by order of Her Majesty in Council, the said Benefice shall remain and continue void until a Church or Chapel is built wherein Divine Service shall be performed; and the fees and emoluments arising from the said Benefice shall from time to time, whilst it is void, be paid over to the Archbishop or Bishop of the Diocese, who, together with the Archdeacon of the Archdeaconry, and Patron or Patrons of the said Benefice, shall act as trustees for the receipt of the said fees and emoluments, which shall be appropriated by the said trustees for the purpose of building or assisting to build a Church or Chapel for the said Benefice; and as soon as such Church or Chapel has been consecrated or licensed for divine worship by the Archbishop or Bishop of the Diocese, then it shall be lawful for the Patron or Patrons to present a spiritual person to the said Benefice, who shall enjoy all the rights, fees, and emoluments, and perform all the duties appertaining thereto, and who shall be under the same ecclesiastical control and authority as any other Incumbent in the same Diocese: Provided always, that if the said Archbishop or Bishop shall license any room in the said parish for Divine Service, then it shall be lawful for the Patron or Patrons to present a spiritual person to the said Benefice, who shall perform all the duties appertaining thereto, and who shall be under the same ecclesiastical control and authority as any other Incumbent.
§ Brought up, and read 1°.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he objected to the Clause, because the subject-matter of it was hardly consistent with the nature of the Bill; but, independent of that, in point of principle there was an objection to the clause. It provides that where there are forty persons or upwards residing in a parish where there is no church, they are to have no clergyman. He did not think that was desirable. The church of the parish of Limehouse was at this present time in ruins, and there was no money to build a new one; but it would be inexpedient to say there should be no clergyman in the parish of Limehouse until they accumulated out of his income the funds that would be sufficient to build a church, or until they hired a room. There was an objection also to performing the ceremonies of the church in a room; they would have to wait a considerable number of years before they could build a church, and it was not desirable that all the ceremonies of the Church should be performed in an unconsecrated place.
§ MR. MULLINGSwould be glad if the clause came within the scope of the Bill, and if it could be carried. There was in Wiltshire a parish that he was acquainted 1758 with that had no church whatever; within two miles there was an adjoining parish, and the inhabitants of the parish where there was no church went to that adjoining parish that had a church. Until the present incumbent, all that the clergyman of that parish received was 10l. a year for doing the whole of the duty, though the income of the parish where there was no church was 300l. a year. Only 10l. was paid until the present bishop raised it to 50l.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERThe Clause is clearly not in accordance with the title of the Bill, and ought not to be adopted.
§ SIR GEORGE PECHELLapprehended that the Chairman had not given his opinion as to whether the Clause came within the scope of the Bill.
The CHAIRMANI beg pardon, I intimated a doubt. This is an Act to amend nineteen or twenty Acts respecting Church buildings, and it is impossible for me to say what clauses are contained in all those Acts.
§ MR. SPOONERsaid, that several of the clauses in those Acts were to promote the building of churches, therefore this Clause came within the scope of the Bill.
§ MR. GOULBURNthought the abuse complained of was a gross one, and that the incumbent should be obliged to reside within the parish. He could not approve of a proposition for raising a fund for the building of a church by the accumulation of the revenues of the parish, because it might take the income for ten years to produce the necessary funds, and by acting on the proposition they would deprive the inhabitants during that period of all spiritual instruction. If they did that, what would be the state of the parish when they came to build the church? The better way of meeting the evil would be to compel the incumbent to reside on the living, though he had no church; and it had been found, that where a clergyman was planted in a district, he would sooner or later obtain a church; he was therefore adverse to the clause.
§ MR. FREWENbegged the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look to the words of the clause, "for the purpose of building, or assisting to build." He presumed that where those flagrant cases occurred, grants would would be given by the Incorporated Society for Building Churches to erect churches in such parishes.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second Time."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 37: Majority 3.
§ On the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill,"
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he must oppose the proposition. Let them suppose a case where a church in a large parish was destroyed by chance, and he would ask, must that parish remain without a clergyman to officiate in it until the funds arising from the income of the living were sufficient to build a church? In a passage in a late author it was said that cities did not consist of walls and buildings, but of the men who lived in them; and that observation applied to the Church—the spiritual edifices did not consist of the walls and buildings, but of the spiritual instruction of the people; and by this clause they would withdraw the spiritual instruction for several years. That, as he said before, was a strong objection in the first instance. In the next instance, there was a strong objection to performing the offices of the Church in an unconsecrated building, though he did not expect hon. Gentlemen who were not members of the Church to follow him in that objection. If that was now to be done, it would be introducing a new arrangement into the practice of the Church, and one that be considered most detrimental to the interests of the Church. He also objected to the clause on the ground that its effect would be to vest all the livings in question in the Crown.
§ MR. SPOONERwould support the clause, on the ground that the principle it sought to establish was to prevent the possibility of any part of the people in any parish continuing destitute of spiritual instruction, whilst the incumbent lived at a considerable distance from them, and received notwithstanding the emoluments of the living. It was the object of the clause to put a stop to an inconvenience which was very much to be regretted, though he thought some better mode of carrying it out might be adopted.
MR. COLLINSsaid, it struck him that the Committee could hardly be aware of the scope which this clause would have. It would have a much wider scope than some hon. Members seemed to suppose. The case of Limehouse had been mentioned. If the incumbent of Limehouse were to die whilst the parish church continued in its present ruinous condition, in- 1760 stead of a new church being built, there would be no funds with which to build it, and the parishioners would want the ministrations of a clergyman of the Established Church for some indefinite period. The church would have to remain in its present state until funds sufficient to restore it had accumulated. Surely it could never be the object of the promoters of this clause to say that whenever the incumbent of a parish died at a time when there was no church in existence in the parish, the fees and emoluments of the living should lapse to the Crown.
§ MR. GLADSTONEsaid, while hon. Members had been disputing and dividing, they really meant very nearly the same thing. He was afraid it would be difficult to make a good arrangement on this subject in the present Bill; though the Committee was certainly much indebted to the hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. Mullings) for having called their attention to such a gross and crying evil. He (Mr. Gladstone) thought it was the dissatisfaction which the Committee felt at the existence of such an abuse passing by without remedy, that led to the vote at which they had just arrived. If the facts were as stated by the hon. Gentleman, and if it were also true that a bishop had no power to compel residence in this case—[An Hon. MEMBER: A bishop has the power.] Well, then, the first question that arose was, why the bishop did not compel that residence. Such cases as that of Lime-house, to which the hon. and learned Solicitor General had referred, where there might be no church by reason of an accident, ought not to be brought within the scope of any clause such as that which had been proposed by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Frewen). If they wished to exclude that class of cases where there was no church or chapel on account of such an accident, instead of saying "which has no church or chapel," it might be effected by saying, "which has no church or chapel for so many years," stating a term of years. He thought that would effectually exclude the case of the destruction of a parish church merely by accident. The fatal fault of the clause was the dissolution of the spiritual tie which it would involve—the breaking up of the cure of souls. To break up the cure of souls was really the worst remedy they could adopt, if the proposal could be made in any provision of that nature. What he would suggest was this: where there had been 1761 no church or chapel for so many years, in any such case the bishop should have the power to allot a certain portion of the revenues for the maintenance of the clergyman, as a temporary arrangement, and that the surplus of those revenues should be available for such a purpose as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Frewen) proposed. He (Mr. Gladstone) thought that such a proposal as that might very fairly deserve the consideration of the Committee. It appeared to him the question was one which required a good deal of consideration. Perhaps his hon. Friend (Mr. Frewen) would allow the clause to be negatived at present, and hold the matter over for further consideration.
§ MR. FREWENsaid, he had placed his clauses upon the paper the very first day immediately after Whitsuntide. He did not suppose such a case would ever happen as the avoidance of a benefice and the destruction of a church at the same time. Was he to be told that there was no chapel in the parish of Limehouse? He was told, on the contrary, there were several places of worship in that parish, and in that case his clauses would not apply.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, the case which had been mentioned by the hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. Mullings) was certainly a very gross one. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) had proposed two very important limitations on the principle of the clause as proposed by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Frewen). The one was, that it should not apply where a church happened to be destroyed a short time before the avoidance of the living. That was one limitation which was very important, and would prevent such a case as that of Limehouse coming within it. The other was a most essential one, which was, that there should not be an interruption of the performance of the duties, and that the cure of souls should continue to be performed; but that in such cases the income should be allotted partly to the maintenance of the clergyman, and partly to form a fund for building a church. He should not have objected to a clause of that nature, supposing there was no exception to it in the point of form. Of course, in that case, the clause ought to be carefully framed.
§ SIR JOHN DUCKWORTHsaid, it was no doubt unfortunate for the parishioners of any place where they were not provided with a church; but the principal objection 1762 was where there was a non-resident clergyman. He thought the efforts of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Frewen) should be directed against non-resident clergymen, and against an appropriation of the funds in such a case by the clergyman. But his (Sir J. Duckworth's) objection was, that the hon. Gentleman took the funds which were strictly appropriated for the maintenance of the clergyman, and applied those funds improperly, as he (Sir J. Duckworth) thought under this provision, to the maintenance or erection of a church.
§ MR. FREWENbegged to ask the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) if he would agree that a clause such as the one he had just brought forward should be brought up, and added to the Bill on the bringing up of the Report?
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he had no objection, if such a clause wore proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, and provided Mr. Speaker took no exception to it in point of form.
§ Clause negatived.
§ MR. FREWENthen proposed the addition of two other clauses; but on the intimation of the chairman that the clauses were without the purview of the Bill, he said, under those circumstances he would not press them.
§ Preamble agreed to.
§ House resumed.
§ Bill reported as amended.