COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 8 August 1860)

§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITH
said, he really could not suffer the Bill to be proceeded 896 with without expressing a hope that the clauses would not be got through with such rapidity as those of other recent Bills. He saw no one on the Treasury bench who had charge of the Bill, and therefore he felt disposed to move that the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again.

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
said, he had charge of the Bill, and was prepared to answer any objection which might be made to particular portions of it. The Bill had undergone considerable discussion in the other House, and he was not aware that there was any objection to its principle, which, indeed, had already been sanctioned by Parliament. An Act was passed five years before with a similar object, but it would expire in a few weeks, and in fact, owing to certain restrictions which were introduced into it, had never been operative. The Bill before the Committee was one of considerable importance, and he trusted the Committee would not assent to the somewhat unreasonable proposition of the hon. Member for De-vizes.

§ MR. JOHN LOCKE
said, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) that the Bill was one of considerable importance, for it swept away twenty or thirty churches in the City of London, and proposed to remove the bones of the deceased. Nobody on the Ministerial bench seemed to know or care anything about it; the Members for the City, some of whom he observed in their places, declined to speak upon it, and it was left to the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock to declare himself the author of it. [Mr. E. P. BOUVERIE.—I am not the author of the Bill.] He wished to know, then, who was the author of it. It had been introduced into that House under the most peculiar and extraordinary circumstances. It did not apply in any way to Kilmarnock. The statement that there were too many churches in the City of London must be taken cum grano. If clergymen were appointed who could not preach, of course people would not go to hear them, but he saw no reason why, if popular preachers were put into the City churches, those churches should not be attended by the inhabitants of the Tower Hamlets and other adjoining districts. The proposition now was that all the churches in the City should be taken down. [Mr. E. P. BOUVERIE.—No, not all.] Not all, certainly; the right hon. Gentleman would probably leave St. Paul's, but the House had no 897 pledge that such a church as St. Stephen's Walbrook, was not to be pulled down. [Mr. E. P. BOUVERIE.—No church can be taken down without the assent of the inhabitants.] The assent of the inhabitants might be obtained for the destruction of all the churches in the City. He was prepared, however, to discuss the clauses of the Bill; ho only regretted that it should have been introduced under such peculiar and extraordinary circumstances.

§ MR. CRAWFORD
said, that the Bill had been brought into the House of Lords by the Bishop of London, and when sent down to that House had been put into the hands of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock. Surely then it would be most ungracious if he were to come forward to take the conduct of the Bill out of the hands of the right hon. Gentleman. There were five cities to which the Bill applied, and there was no special reason why it should be placed in the care of a Metropolitan Member. He hoped, then, the House would go on with the discussion on the merits of the Bill.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he regretted that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock had not introduced the Bill to the notice of the House with some observations explanatory of its object. There could be no doubt that the Bill had been brought forward by the Bishop of London for the purpose of promoting the interests of religion in the Metroplis, and that the right hon. Gentleman had taken charge of it in his quasi-official capacity as one of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Indeed, he thought it rather to the advantage of the Bill that it had not been entrusted to a Metropolitan Member, as it might have been alleged that he was influenced by local considerations. The House was aware that most of the City churches were destroyed in the Great Fire of London. The House of Commons of that day, in considering how they could be restored, did not feel itself trammelled by the question whether or not the bones of persons buried 100 years before should be removed, but entered at once into an enlightened examination of the whole matter, and passed statutes to meet the exigencies of the case. It granted a tax upon all the coals consumed in and around the Metropolis, and the funds thence derived were appropriated to the erection and endowment of new churches in parishes set out for the convenience of the inhabitants. Since then the character of the City had entirely changed. Parishes 898 then inhabited by merchants and those whom they employed, had become deserted. Business was conducted in them on week days, but the houses, or rather offices, were not occupied at all on Sundays. The people employed in the City, dwelling in other parts of the town, naturally attended the churches in the places where they resided, and the churches in the City were quite useless. In many cases the congregation on a Sunday did not number more than ten individuals; sometimes it was reduced to the clergyman and the official staff of the church. But a considerable revenue was enjoyed by the clergyman and staff, and thus a great deal of money, time, and religious effort was wasted upon the air, serving no useful purpose whatever. The state of things he had described had been going on increasing from year to year, becoming more and more aggravated, until at last the late Bishop of London, seeing in the City a number of empty churches, and well-paid clergymen performing little or no duty, thought that an excellent arrangement would be made if those incumbents and their churches could be removed to the districts inhabited by the persons employed in the City on week days. Accordingly, the right rev. Prelate introduced a Bill for making the City churches and their large revenues really available for the purposes of religion, instead of serving merely as sinecure preferments. the Bill passed both Houses, and became law, but unfortunately it was not a workable measure, and would expire in the present month. Some time ago the Metropolitan clergy appointed a Committee of their own body to consider the subject, and that Committee, after a long and careful examination, unanimously admitted that the present state of things was injurious to the interests of religion, and recommended that some change should be made. The result was that they made a report to the Bishop of London, containing various suggestions. These not being altogether approved, the matter was reconsidered, and a further report, being a great improvement on the first, was presented. The subject was thus distinctly brought under the notice of the Bishop of London, and of all in the Metropolis who took an interest in the subject, and he believed that there was an uninamity of opinion that the present state of things was most injurious and objectionable. Therefore the only question remaining was how could a remedy be best applied to the existing grievances and 899 abuse. Some objection was taken to the removal of the bones of the buried, but he hoped the Houae would be rational enough to prefer the souls of the living to the bones of the dead. Was it to go forth that the House would not permit the removal of churches and churchyards in order to promote the interests of religion, but would assent to their removal in order to aid some commercial project? It was most desirable for the real interest of the Church that the resources of the Church should be available for the benefit of the poor, and not merely for the advantage of some gentlemen coming from the Universities and put into these sinecure livings for the sake of the income.

MR. ALDERMAN CUBITT
said, that a few years back it was thought desirable by four or five parishes in the City of London that a union should be effected whereby some churches might be removed, and especially one which constituted a great obstruction to the traffic. The parishes memorialized the Bishop of London, who appointed a commission to investigate the matter. The commission experienced obstacles which could only be removed by an application to Parliament for further powers, and this led to the introduction of the present Bill. It was obvious that there were more churches than were required by the thin population remaining in the City on Sundays. Four churches stood within an area not larger than Belgrave Square, and within a space of little more than half a square mile there were fifty-eight churches.

§ MR. HUBBARD
observed, that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), had described the present Bill as the successor of the Bill of 1855; but it ought rather to have been described as the successor of the Bill of 1854, which was rejected on account of the arbitrary powers it would have conferred. He was strongly interested in the subject, and in 1854 he took a very active part out of the House in opposing the Bill. The feeling against the Bill of 1854 was almost universal, and yet the measure before the Committee contained the same large powers. Though it was said that the principle of the Bill had been admitted on the second reading, yet it must be recollected that the second reading was passed at so late a period as a quarter to one o'clock, and in such a hurried manner that he was not at first aware that the second reading had been agreed to. The principle of the Bill required 900 more explanation than the House had yet been favoured with. If the object was to deal with a specific case, why was a Bill with such large prospective powers brought in? Why was it not limited to the particular group of parishes referred to by the hon. Member (Alderman Cubitt)? If that had been done, the House would have had an opportunity of seeing how the measure worked, and might afterwards have agreed to a more general measure. But at present the House was in the dark on the subject. He did not deny that there were in the City of London more churches than were wanted; but, as a desire to promote the interests of religion was professed, he would make it a stipulation that if a church were pulled down in the City of London another should be built up somewhere else. Admitting that something ought to be done, he thought that the present measure went in its magnitude beyond the necessity of the case; and, as for agreeing to the Bill on credit, because it had passed the House of Lords, he must say that, knowing that the attendance of the Peers was sometimes very thin, he had not entire faith in Bills coming from that assembly.

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
explained that the reason why he made no statement on the second reading of the Bill was because he desired to save time, thinking that what hon. Members chiefly desired was to discuss the details in Committee. None of the Amendments which had been given notice of up to that time were hostile to the principle of the Bill, and therefore he naturally concluded that there was no objection to the principle. Nearly the whole of those Amendments he had adopted. Even now he was satisfied that on the part of those who knew the object of the Bill there could be no substantial opposition. It was undeniable that there was a plethora of churches in the City of London, there being there fifty churches to a population of about 50,000, while in other parts of the Metropolis there was an enormous population without adequate provision for spiritual instruction and divine worship. What could be a more natural conclusion than that the means of spiritual instruction and the churches should be taken from the spot where they were not wanted and placed where they were wanted? The attendance at some of the City churches did not exceed twenty or thirty persons, including the parochial schools. Indeed, many of these parishes might be said to have no 901 population at all on Sundays, the dwelling-houses being now turned into warehouses. In four of the large parishes immediately adjoining the City, Shoreditch, Whitechapel, Clerkenwell and St. Lukes, with an aggregate population of 307,000, there were only twenty-nine churches. In the City there was more than one Church for every 1,000 inhabitants, while in the four parishes he had named, there was not one church for every 10,000 persons. In the report of the Commission upon the Division of Parishes which had investigated this subject, the removal of a number of churches in the City of London was recommended. The case for the Bill, or for some such Bill, was unanswerable, though the details might require consideration, and he would promise to endeavour to meet all suggestions in a fair spirit.

§ SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE
said, he was not opposed to the principle of the Bill, because ho had long believed some such measure to be necessary, but he objected to the manner in which other places than London were attempted to be dealt with. He thought the 3rd Clause was most objectionable, and had been inserted in order to procure for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners very objectionable powers that might afterwards be used all over the country. They had had ample evidence with respect to London, but they had been furnished with no reasons for including Exeter, Lincoln, Norwich, and the other places affected by the Bill. He therefore proposed that the Bill should be restricted to the Metropolis only.

§ MR. MALINS
proposed an Amendment to the clause, having for its object to limit the operation of the Bill to the Metropolis.

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
expressed his willingness to assent to the principle of the Amendment, and promised, after due consideration, to propose alterations for the purpose of effecting the object in view.

MR. HENLEY
It is understood, then, that the Bill is confined to the Metropolis?

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
Yes.

§ MR. MALINS
said, that as it was stated that the Bill was founded on the Report of a Commission appointed by the Bishop of London, the House ought to know the contents of that Report; because, if churches were to be pulled down, it 902 was desirable to be assured that the right churches would be pulled down. Ho agreed in the principle of the Bill, but the principle was one thing and the details another. It was essential that whatever was done should be well done. If a measure was introduced into that House so crudely considered that its promoters were obliged to exclude from its operation certain places (four in number) which were originally included in the measure, what confidence could here be that the promoters were right with respect to the particular course to be taken in the fifth place still retained in the Bill? To the principle of the Bill, when well carried out, ho would give his cordial support, but he would not be driven into passing a Bill at the end of the Session without duo consideration. It was true that the Bill had come down from the House of Lords, but he knew by experience that sometimes the crudest measures came down from that assembly; and he was told that the present Bill was almost smuggled through the House of Lords. He moved that the Chairman leave the chair.

§ MR. AYRTON
observed that the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman were very inconsistent, for while approving the principle of the Bill, ho objected to the measure on the ground that there was no scheme before the House; and yet the Bill proceeded on the principle that there could be no scheme at present, because the union of benefices could not be effected until after the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had reported to the Queen in Council. The Bill gave an opportunity for everybody interested to be heard, allowing nothing to be done till after ample discussion, and he therefore hoped the Committee would proceed to a consideration of the clauses.

§ MR. CRAWFORD
pointed out that the Bill proposed no specific scheme, but merely empowered the Bishop to appoint a commission, by whom a scheme would be propounded for the consideration and approval of Her Majesty in Council. Every precaution had been taken that the interests of all parties should be duly protected.

MR. HENLEY
said, he could not agree that all parties had full power to be heard. The Bishop without communication with any one but his own mere will, could issue a commission, which was to be composed of three ecclesiastics, and two laymen. The ecclesiastics were to be appointed, one by the Dean of the Church, two by the Bishop, 903 and the laymen by the Corporation, but the inhabitants of the parishes, who were the persons most affected, were not represented at all. He did not see that provision was made for giving notice to anybody but the churchwardens. Plainly there ought to be some notice given to the inhabitants.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, the Motion before the House was equivalent to the rejection of the Bill, and until the question was settled he thought it unnecessary to enter on the examination of particular clauses. He suggested, therefore, that the Committee should at once decide whether the Bill should be proceeded with. It was now settled that the measure should be limited only to the Metropolis, and should not extend to other places; and it was further proposed that no attempt should be made in Committee to devise a scheme, but that a machinery should be created by which a scheme with regard to any particular parish should be submitted to the Queen in Council, and, if approved should ultimately have the effect of law by means of an order in Council.

§ MR. MALINS
said, he did not wish needlessly to obstruct the business of the House, but if he received support he should divide on his Motion.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, he thought the House had already decided on the principle of the Bill, and he hoped, therefore, his hon. and learned Friend would not press his Motion.

§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITH
objected to the machinery of the Bill, which he compared to a Reform Bill containing a general disfranchisement clause, but no schedule of disfranchisement.

§ SIR JAMES GRAHAM
said, that time was very precious, and he was convinced that they would save time by deciding whether the Bill should proceed or not. He hoped the Committee would determine on proceeding with the Bill.

§ MR. HADFIELD
said, he wanted to know what was meant by "spiritual destitution," as the words were used in the Bill?

§ MR. BOUVERIE
said, that he could only give his individual opinion that spiritual destitution meant the absence of provision for religious instruction of any kind.

§ MR. HADFIELD
asked whether it was to be considered that where there were such clergymen as Mr. Binney, who drew large congregations, spiritual destitution existed? He supposed the Bishop would consider there was spiritual destitution where there were no churches. The Dissenters, who were the majority of the people, were, so far as religious teaching was concerned, entirely ignored.

§ SIR MORTON PETO
said, he thought there should be some check upon the action of the Bishop, because, although there were members of the episcopal bench in whom he should have every confidence, even members of the Establishment must feel that that could not be said of other Prelates.

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
said, there were ample safeguards in the Bill, in the inquiry to be instituted by the Commission, the scheme which they would draw up, and the assent of the Queen in Council, which was necessary before the scheme could be acted upon.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, he would remind the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) that the Bill did not relate to the building of churches, but to the removal of churches. If the chapels were as full as was described, it was the more necessary that other accommodation should be provided.

§ MR. JOHN LOCKE
said, he thought it was a strange plan to provide for spiritual destitution by pulling down churches. Surely some attempt might have been made by the Bishop to find clergymen whose preaching would attract congregations to the churches. If Mr. Spurgeon at Exeter Hall, and Church ministers at St. Paul's attracted full congregations, why should not these City churches be also filled MR. ALDERMAN CUBITT said, the Bishop of London had spoken to him upon the subject of the neglected churches in the City, and bad said that if the right men were in the churches there would soon be full congregations. But there were 58 churches, and it would be impossible to find 58 Spurgeons to fill them.

§ MR. JOHN LOCKE
rejoined, that not 50 merely, but 500 clergymen of the Church of England could be found, whose 905 ministrations would bring full congregations. The churches at the same time should be made less dismal, and the vast enclosed pews which disfigured them should be removed.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, he agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Southwark in disliking the enclosed pews in the City churches, and he had intended to propose an Amendment to get rid of them, to which he believed there would be no opposition on the part of those who had the management of the Bill.

§ MR. AYRTON
was informed that, so far from the Dissenting chapels in the City being thronged the fact was just the reverse; that those chapels had been subject to the same influence as had affected the City churches. Although two Dissenting chapels, the pulpits of which were occupied by distinguished men, were fully attended, yet many others had been abandoned and turned into warehouses, in consequence of the falling off of the congregation.

§ SIR MORTON PETO
said, he could give the most unqualified contradiction to the statement of the hon. Member. No man knew more of the Dissenting chapels in the City than he did, and he could state that there was no instance of a chapel having been closed, except for the purpose of building a larger one. The Church of England ought to feel that when her clergy did not draw a congregation that there was something wrong; and he was certain that if zealous men were appointed to the City churches there would be no necessity for pulling them down. If the Church, however, must give up those churches, he wished they would hand them over to the Dissenters, who would soon show what use could be made of them.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, there appeared an irresistible tendency on the part of the Committee to renew the discussion upon the principle of the measure. There might be chapels in the City where popular preachers attracted large congregations, but the Committee must take things as they found them. The population of the City was 55,000, and there were 58 churches, a proportion very different to that which existed in other parts of the.; Metropolis. Where, as in the City, the patronage was exercised by various persons, they would exercise it according to the various motives which operated in such cases. No doubt, the appointments thus made did not invariably produce popular preachers, 906 and indeed it would be quite chimerical to expect that there should be 58 popular preachers in the City. The result was, that the City churches were, for the most part, nearly empty, and that was a state of things which this Bill was intended to remedy.

§ MR. ALDERMAN COPELAND
said, he quite agreed that something ought to be done, but doubted whether the subject could be properly considered at that late period of the Session. He did not approve the matter being left entirely to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.

§ MR. HANKEY
said, he owned a house in one of the City parishes, in which, being let out for offices, no one lived. There were about 100 other houses in that parish, and many of them were in the same position. There was an excellent church, but there being no residents, it was always nearly empty. He thought in such cases the church should be removed from where it was not wanted to a place where it was needed.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
expressed his disapproval of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as the body to whom the management of unions under the Bill was to be entrusted. If the ultimate power must be invested in some body, he should prefer the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, and he should move to substitute that body for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
opposed the Amendment, contending that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners discharged their onerous duties in a very satisfactory manner. He denied that the Ecclesiastical Commission was some frightful monster which was swallowing up all the property of the country, as was apparently imagined by hon. Members. On the contrary, there was scarcely a meeting held at which they had not important duties to perform by them in connection with the Church Building Commission, and they wore bound to study great economy in the appropriation of the funds. So far as he could see, the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty consisted only of a secretary and a couple of clerks—at least, all the powers of the association were vested in them, and he thought that they were a body not at all fitted to exercise the powers of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He could assure the Committee that the Ecclesiastical Com- 907 missioners wanted no increase of power. Indeed, the duties under the Bill would be simply Ministerial.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, the clause gave great powers to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, as they were to prepare and modify each scheme.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, that the scheme would he submitted to the Queen in Council, and the Council would have a power of veto. He saw no benefit in substituting the very numerous body of the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.

§ MR. SELWYN
said, he should support the Amendment, because he considered vesting all the power of disposing of the sites and materials of churches in so limited a body as the Ecclesiastical Commissioners was an extension of the principle of centralization, which had been generally condemned. He would rather see that power vested in a local authority, such as a Municipal Corporation. If, however, it was a choice between the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, he should support the Amendment of the noble Lord.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he had strong objections to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; hut they appeared to be at present the only persons who could properly perform the functions that would, be assigned under this Bill.

§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITH
said, he would prefer to substitute the Estates Committee of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
said, the functions of the Church Building Commission had been transferred to the Ecclesiastical Commission by Act of Parliament, and it was in that capacity, not as Ecclesiastical Commissioners, they were to be called on to discharge this duty.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
observed, that whenever a Bill was introduced increasing the power and patronage of the Ecclesiastical Commission, the members of that Commission in the House were sure to rise and say that such increase of power was the last thing they wished to have; but they invariably voted for it nevertheless, and he ventured to say that every Ecclesiastical Commissioner in the House would vote for the increased powers now proposed. A great portion of the Bill related to matters germane to the duties of Queen Anne's Bounty, and could be properly discharged by that Board. The 908 Home Secretary told them that Queen Anne's Bounty Commission was much too large; but the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock said it consisted of the secretary and a couple of clerks. The Corporation of the City of London were members of the Board; and, therefore, he thought it would be a most fitting tribunal for the discharge of the functions laid down in the Bill.

MR. HENLEY
said, he objected to the power given to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in the case of two benefices being joined together, and when they conceived that the united income was more than sufficient in their opinion for one benefice, to take away the excess of revenue altogether. He should move that the vestries and parishes should first be consulted on the matter as well as the patrons.

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
said, he would agree to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman; and the words having been added.

§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITH
moved as an Amendment the insertion of words to the effect that every scheme for the removal of a church should he on the table of both Houses of Parliament for two calendar months before being carried into effect.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, it was useless to provide machinery for carrying out the objects of the Bill; and then, after all, provide for the interference of the House. The very object of such machinery was to obviate the necessity of Parliamentary interference.

MR. HENLEY
said, that there was a provision against burial grounds being dealt with under this Bill; but why burial grounds were to be preserved, and persons 909 buried in churches were to be dug up, he could not imagine. The hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton) had classified persons who had had the misfortune to die before him under the general head of "bones." He believed that this was a question of money and nothing else. It was not a case of necessity in which the site was wanted for public improvements, while by removing the remains of the dead they were running the risk of offending the feelings of a vast number of persons. He should move, at the end of the 31st line, after the word "site" to add the words, "of any church in which there have been any interments or deposits of bones in the graves and vaults of the said church."

THE CHAIRMAN
intimated that there was a prior Amendment on the clause.

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK
said, that the City of London was distinguished by a great number of beautiful churches, many by Sir Christopher Wren, which were models of the sacred edifices required for the Reformed ritual. There were four churches more especially distinguished by their architectural beauty—St. Stephen, Walbrook; St. Martin, Ludgate; St. Peter, Cornhill; and St. Swithin, Cannon Street. It was said that sufficient protection existed against the destruction of these churches in consequence of the number of consents required. He, however, had no great confidence either in vestries or churchwardens, and was not content to run any risk about these churches. St. Peter, Cornhill, for example, stood very near St. Michael, Cornhill, on which enormous sums had been spent for its disfigurement. The churchwardens said it had been expended in repairing and beautifying the church, but he called it barbarizing and abominating. They had stopped out the light from the windows, and filled the windows with horrible painted glass like that in the House of Lords. He begged, therefore, to propose an addition to the clause, which, he might remark, had the sanction of the Institute of British Architects—namely, to insert, after the word "church," in line 30, Clause 14, the words "except as hereinafter provided," with the view of moving at the end of the clause to add— Provided always that nothing in this Act contained shall authorize the pulling down the churches of St. Stephen, Walbrook; St. Martin, Ludgate; St. Peter, Cornhill, and St. Swithin. Cannon Street; or the towers and steeples of any of the churches within the City of London, and specified in the Schedule (B) to this Act annexed.

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
said, that the hon. Gentleman asked the House to decide as a Committee of Taste what churches in the Metropolis ought to be preserved. There was no necessity for introducing the limitation and restrictions proposed by the hon. Gentleman, for it was not to be supposed the various persons whose consent was necessary to the removal of a church would agree to the destruction of the churches recited by the Amendment. Moreover, he (Mr. E. P. Bouverie) was not sure that these were the four churches that ought to be more especially named in an Act of Parliament. The clause was, at all events, liable to the objection, that it seemed to infer that all the other churches of the Metropolis might be removed.

§ MR. NORRIS
said, he objected in toto to the provisions of the Bill, and he would express a hope that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock would withdraw it altogether, and try some better means of providing for the promotion of true religion. It was folly to suppose that any large amount of money would be obtained from the sale of the sites of even all the fifty-eight Metropolitan churches proposed to be removed. In truth, the Bill applied a remedy in the wrong direction; for if, instead of removing the churches from the population, something were done to improve their patronage and put in the pul-pits men of fervid eloquence who would fill the churches, it would not be necessary to pull them down.

SIR GEOEGE LEWIS
said, that this Bill would have a peculiar fate if it escaped a proposal either to postpone it indefinitely, or to withdraw it for the present Session. If the proposal to except certain churches celebrated for their architectural excellence were adopted, the principle of the Bill, which left the arrangements and details of the churches to be removed to the persons named in it, would be violated. He agreed also with his right hon. Friend that to except four churches would be a declaration that all the other churches might be demolished—an opinion which the House ought to be careful not to express.

§ MR. MALINS
said, he thought that the Committee ought to have a scheme before it, setting forth what parishes were to be united, and what churches were to be pulled down. The proposal that four of the most beautiful churches in London should not be destroyed was most reasonable. They were all agreed that there 911 were too many churches in the Metropolis, and that some ought to be pulled down; but let the Committee know which they were.

§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITH
said, ho could not seriously believe that the House of Commons would consent to destroy churches some of which were perhaps more unique in design and beautiful in detail than St. Paul's cathedral itself.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
observed that he regarded his hon. Friend (Mr. C. Bentinck) in all matters relating to Gothic architecture as nothing but a Vandal. The Committee would do well, however, to agree to the Amendment.

§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNE
said, that the discussion on taste that had sprung up was another reason for withdrawing the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) was very angry with the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets for speaking of the remains of deceased persons as "bones." But was there not an old proverb, De mortuis nil nisi bonum? He had, however, as little faith in the discretion of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as he had in that of parish churchwardens, and he believed they would be perfectly ready to pull down St. Stephen's, Walbrook, tomorrow if they thought that by doing so they would put money into their pockets.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, he wished to remind the Committee that to refuse to pass this Bill on account of the lateness of the Session would be to give some countenance to the existence of that very unreasonable and inconvenient rule of the House of Lords, that they would not take any Bill after the 28th of July, which this year was likely to be about six weeks before the end of the Session. The Committee had agreed to the 13th Clause, which said that nothing should be done in regard to the destruction of churches without an Order in Council. Was it likely that the Queen in Council would issue an Order for the demolition of St. Stephen's, Walbrook, or any church celebrated for its architecture?

§ MR. CLAY
said, that no doubt it was improbable that the four best churches in the City would be pulled down, but it was the duty of Parliament to render it impossible.

§ SIR JOHN SHELLEY
said, he looked with dread at the possibility of the demolition of these beautiful churches. The Bill had better be withdrawn. It ought to have been sent down at an earlier pe- 912 riod. He felt a strong objection to the regulation which the other House had adopted relative to Bills sent up to them after a certain date; and the only way to teach their Lordships common sense would be to return the compliment, and to refuse to entertain Bills sent from the other House after a certain day.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, he would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Bill was sent down from the other House on the 18th of June.

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
said, he had wondered what had made his hon. Friend (Mr. B. Osborne) interfere in this Bill, but when he heard his joke his surprise was at an end. It was only just and courteous to the distinguished Prelate who was labouring so zealously for the welfare of his diocese to go on with this Bill. He wa ready to accept the Amendment.

MR. HENLEY
said, he would then propose the addition to the clause he had referred to.

§ MR. CLAY
remarked that the provisions of the Bill did not give power to persons to remove the coffins of their deceased relatives.

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
said, he intended to deal with that question in a subsequent clause. He believed, however, there was not a single church in the City in which some interment within the walls had not taken place. The Amendment of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire would, therefore, prohibit the pulling down of any one of the existing churches.

MR. HENLEY
explained that the object of his Amendment was to prevent the sale of the site where there were graves or vaults under the church; he did not object to the church itself being taken down, if necessary. He simply desired that they should not desecrate the graves where the dead reposed by digging up their remains.

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
said, that the sale of the sites was an essential element in the scheme, as it would form one of the sources from which funds would be obtained. He could see no breach of decorum or irreverence in the sale of the sites. Provision for the spiritual wants of the living far transcended any sentimental feeling as to the remains of the dead. The Bill provided for the careful and decorous removal of the remains of persons buried in any of the sites which were to be sold to some other destination, and he was sur- 913 prised that a man of plain common sense, like the right lion. Gentleman, should allow a mere sentimental feeling to run away with him.

§ MR. CLAY
said, he must protest against the light manner in which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) treated the question, though he would admit there would he less force in the objection to the Bill if it contained some distinct provision for the decent and proper interment of those bodies which might be removed. He spoke with some interest in the matter, because his father and mother and all his ancestors were buried under the site of one of these churches.

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
said, that in Clause 10 he proposed to insert words giving the friends of the deceased power to remove their remains to any place they thought proper, at the expense of the fund.

§ SIR MORTON PETO
said, he thought that the provision which he intended to propose, and by which an opportunity "would be given to Dissenting denominations to purchase the buildings abandoned by the church, would prevent the desecration which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) apprehended.

MR. HENLEY
said, that what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) was pleased to call a mere sentimental feeling was shared by the great bulk of the people of this country, from the highest to the lowest. A very large proportion of the population elected to be buried in consecrated ground because they believed their remains would be less likely to be disturbed there than anywhere else. The shock which the sale of the sites would give to the feelings of many people would do more harm than the money they would got by the sale of the sites would do good. The Bill did not interfere with the burial-grounds, but that was only because there were sanitary reasons for not disturbing the mass of bodies which were there interred; and because they could not get hold of the larger areas they seized upon the smaller ones—the sites of the churches, and for the sake of a little more money scattered the remains which were buried there.

§ MR. HADFIELD
repudiated the idea of one spot being more sacred than another. What did the act of consecration signify? He knew a case where it was effected by a stroke of the pen in one hand, while the other held a riding-whip.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, he apprehended that if the Amendment were carried it would go far to defeat the object of the Bill. If the sites of the churches were not to be appropriated to secular purposes it would be nearly impossible to carry the Bill into effect with any prospect of success. Without going the length of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) as to consecration, he might remind the Committee that there had been several instances in the City where the sites of churches had been secularized. A portion of the Bank of England stood on the site of a former church; and the same might be said of the Sun Eire Office, one of the approaches to London Bridge, and a part of St. Katherine's Docks. The principle had therefore been already established in the City, and might well be carried a little further.

§ MR. HUBBARD
said, he hoped that the instinctive sentiment of reverence for the remains of the dead which existed in all countries and in all ages would never be disregarded in an assembly of English gentlemen. It ought not, however, to be carried to an absurd extreme. Where the convenience of the community required the removal of a church, as in the formation of a street or the erection of a bridge or important public work, it ought to be permitted; but he protested against the site of a church being disposed of for the mere sake of obtaining money. He must, however, protest against the pulling down of the churches and the selling of the sites, as it was neither a creditable nor a successful mode of promoting church extension.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he demurred to the assertion that reverence for the remains of the dead had prevailed in all ages. The ancients burnt their dead. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken seemed to think that the sale of the site of a church was a desecration only when a religious and not a commercial object was in view. He believed that the Bill made ample provision for the decorous treatment of the remains of the dead, and the proposition before the Committee was only a side wind to get rid of the Bill.

§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITH
asserted that the removal of these churches was not sought for on mere religious grounds, but in order that certain thoroughfares might be widened, and new sites obtained for warehouses. The real motive of the promoters was the auri sacra fames. As they 915 were so bent on making money, they had better send the bones of the dead at once to the bone-mill, to be turned into agricultural manure.

§ MR. WHALLEY
observed that it was no use removing churches to the suburbs unless they made the service more attractive to the people.

MR. HENLEY
said, that as the Bill proposed to apply the endowments of those churches which were to be removed to the relief of spiritual destitution in the suburbs, the benefit of the Bill would not be nullified by the prohibition of the sale of the sites. What he objected to was, not the application of sites to secular purposes, when the public convenience urgently demanded it, but the sale of them for the mere purpose of getting money.

§ SIR MORTON PETO
said, that as the object of the Bill was to provide for the spiritual destitution of the Metropolis, there could be no objection to power being given to any other denomination to acquire a church which had been vacated by the Church of England. He should therefore move the insertion of a provision for the sale of any existing church to some other religious denomination, subject to such terms and regulations as should be approved by the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the time being.

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
said, he regretted that he had had no notice of the Amendment, as it was impossible for him to say what would be the precise effect of it, or how it would work with the rest of the Bill, on hearing it read for the first time. He had no objection whatever to the sale of churches which had been abandoned by the Church of England to other denominations, and if that was all that the hon. Baronet wished to effect he would undertake to bring up a clause for the purpose on the Report.

§ SIR MORTON PETO
said, he was willing to leave the modification of the clause to the right hon. Gentleman.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, he believed that the Amendment was at variance with the general scope and spirit of the rest of the Bill. The 14th Clause particularized various purposes for which a scheme might be made, and other purposes, such as that contemplated by the 916 hon. Baronet, not being mentioned, must be supposed to be excluded. He did not wish to be understood to assent to the Amendment, either in the shape in which it now stood or in the shape in which it would appear after being manipulated by the right hon. Gentleman.

§ MR. JOHN LOCKE
said, that as the great object was to get money for endowing other churches, it would be very wrong to restrict the vestry or the Commissioners, if they could make more by selling the buildings as they stood than by pulling them down, selling the materials, and appropriating the sites to other purposes.

§ SIR MORTON PETO
said, he would withdraw the proviso upon the understanding that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock would remodel it.

§ MR. ROLT
said, that the principle upon which the Bill proceeded was that there was no population in these parishes. It had been stated that in one of them a house, which paid one-sixth of the rates, was inhabited by only one person to take care of it, and that that was the case in almost all the other houses. But if there were a population of Dissenters capable of receiving religious instruction, which had not been asserted and could not be proved, they ought not to pull the churches down. They ought either to reject the Bill and keep the churches, or, on the assumption that there was not sufficient population to render them necessary, pull them down and apply the sites to secular purposes. He could not see the necessity for the Amendment.

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
said, that the fallacy of the hon. and learned Member's argument was that he ignored the possibility of a religious denomination attracting a congregation from all parts to a church which was now comparatively useless for parochial purposes. The Dissenters could not find a congregation within the district, but if they chose to lay out their money and take their chance of collecting one from other parts, he did not see why they should be prohibited from purchasing the building.

§ SIR FRANCIS BARING
said, that the Amendment had come upon them unawares, and it would be better to postpone the discussion until the clause was before them in a complete shape. He understood that the ground upon which it was intended the churches should be pulled down was to prevent the scandal of their being applied to the purposes of balls or 917 other public entertainments. He hoped that he was not more prejudiced than his neighbours, but that prejudice he certainly did entertain. He agreed that if the church were dedicated to religious purposes the difficulty would be met; but then what security would the proviso afford that it would not afterwards be converted to other purposes which would annoy the feelings of large classes of the community?

§ MR. HUBBARD
said, ho thought the proposition of the hon. Baronet the most severe censure which could be passed upon the Bill. It amounted to a declaration that the profession of want of population was utterly false, and that the people could be attracted by a Baptist or Wesleyan preacher, who were not attracted by clergymen of the Church of England. Ho did not quarrel with the hon. Baronet for having proposed it; but he believed that there would be nothing to prevent a church which was bought for religious purposes under the proviso of being turned into a gin shop, if it occupied a corner situation. He condemned such Church legislation; but if the Committee chose to assent to it, let them, in an open and straightforward way, put up the churches for sale to the highest bidders, whether Dissenters or publicans.

§ MR. CRAWFORD
said, he understood the words of the proviso to be sufficiently wide to allow of churches being sold to a congregation of Mussulmans or Parsees. The reason of the hon. Baronet, the Member for Portsmouth (Sir Francis Baring), was entitled to great weight. There would be no security against the building, after it had passed into the hands of the Dissenters, being applied subsequently to other than religious purposes. He must, therefore, decline to accede to the proposal.

§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNE
said, he was surprised at the tone of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Hubbard) who usually manifested tolerant ideas on such subjects. As to the churches being afterwards taken by publicans, ho might remind them that a publican was once thought more worthy than a Pharisaical worshipper. "What objection could there possibly be to a congregation of Baptists or Independents buying one of these churches? The other day, the Baptists subscribed £30,000 to build Mr. Spurgeon a chapel. If one of these churches had been in the market, probably they would have bought 918 it. It was a most sensible proposition that buildings, which had been devoted to sacred purposes, should descend to the sacred use of other denominations. He was astonished at the hon. Member for London indulging in a vision of Mussulmans and Parsees. [Mr. CKAWEORD: It is possible] It was not possible. by the way the clause was drawn, because the sanction of the Homo Secretary would be necessary. As to the churches being aplied to other than religious purposes, ho was informed that it could not be done, because all Dissenting chapels were vested in trustees. ["No!"] Then a clause could be added to make it so. The objections savoured of religious intolerance; and the only bright feeling in his mind was, that he had actually lived to see an Ecclesiastical Commissioner offering to put into shape the Amendment which he hoped would pass into law.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, that whenever he heard the words "religious intolerance" introduced into a discussion, he despaired of any practical result. If the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Kilmarnock, was anxious that this Bill should pass in the present Session, he recommended him to have nothing to do with this Amendment. It was now half-past 5 o'clock on the 8th of August, and if a clause were inserted to carry out the views of the hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto), there would not be the faintest chance of the Bill becoming law. He did not know where the hon. Member for Liskeard got his information that all Dissenting chapels were vested in trustees.

§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNE
said, he alluded to Baptists and Independents.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
Then the clause was to be understood to be restricted to Baptists and Independents. It was to be a bonus to two Dissenting communions. The statement of the hon. Member was far wider, and included all religious denominations; but evidence had been very lately given before a Committee of the House of Lords of innumerable instances in which Dissenting chapels had been sold and devoted to every conceivable secular purpose. The real objection had been taken by the right hon. Member for Portsmouth that churches, which had been consecrated and devoted to the religious services of the Church of England, might, under the operation of this Amendment, in a short space of time, be devoted to gin 919 shops, theatres, or any other object which the purchaser chose.

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
said, he accepted with satisfaction the proposal of the hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury to withdraw the Amendment, with a view to its being framed so as to obviate the objections which were entertained to it, although he admitted that the attempt to frame it in a manner to give satisfaction was fraught with considerable difficulty.

§ SIR MORTON PETO
said, he consented to withdraw the Amendment on the distinct understanding that he should have the kind aid of the right hon. Gentleman in so framing it as to obtain unanimous approval. The practical meaning of the Secretary of State's assent being required was, to put the building in trust that it might be held for religious purposes for ever. Religious zeal was not confined to the Church of England, and this proposition would assist in carrying out the views of Members of the Church.

MR. HENLEY
said, that if the clause were properly guarded it was very difficult to see what objection could be made to it. The proposition in the Bill as it stood was to pull down churches, to stack the materials, to sell the materials, and to sell the site. There was nothing to prevent a person buying the site and all the materials, and putting them back in the same shape as before they were pulled down. Why money should be wasted in that way it was not easy to discover. If security were taken that the building should always be used for religious purposes he could not see any reason why they should not adopt the clause. It was rather like straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel to make a clean sweep of the building and sell the materials when pulled down, and yet to refuse to sell the same materials undisturbed. The desecration would be less if any other religious bodies would buy the churches for religious purposes as they stood.

§ SIR MORTON PETO
remarked, that he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire would afford his able assistance to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock in rendering the clause as effective as possible.

§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITH
said, the preparation of the clause required the greatest possible care, and it could only be properly done in a Committee of the House, not on the Report.