§ MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he rose to ask the Member for Kilmarnock, as a Church Estates' Commissioner, Why the removal of the Church of St. Benet, Gracechurch Street, and the union of the Benefice with that of Allhallows, Lombard Street, referred to in the Order of Council, dated the 1st November last, and published in the London Gazette of the 4th instant, has not been carried into effect, as recommended by the said Commissioners?
§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, in reply, that the proceedings of the Commissioners to which the Question of his hon. Friend referred were taken under an Act of Parliament passed in the year 1860, called "The Union of Benefices Act," which provided that in certain cases parishes in the City of London might be united, and the sites of churches which had become useless might be sold. The conditions upon which the success of any such union rested was the sale of the site of a useless 322 church, because the whole thing turned upon the supply of funds which was to be got by that site. The scheme for the union could not come into operation until the order of sale had been made. The site of the church of St. Benet, Grace-church Street, was exceedingly valuable, worth, he was informed, not less than £30,000; and for the order of sale there were required the consent of no less than four persons—namely, the Bishop of the diocese, the Archbishop of the province, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the Archdeacon of the archdeaconry—in this instance, Archdeacon Hale, of London. For the sale of the church the consent of three of the parties to whom he referred had been obtained. The Archbishop had given his consent to the proposal, while it had the hearty approbation of the Bishop of the diocese. The Secretary of State for the Home Department had also given his sanction, but the Archdeacon had entirely disapproved of the policy of the Act of Parliament, and had, therefore, withheld his consent. The result was that all the trouble which had been taken in the matter, the negotiations between the parties, and the correspondence with the Ecclesiastical Commission were all in vain, in consequence of the action of a recalcitrant Archdeacon. He might add that the provision requiring the Archdeacon's consent was introduced into the Bill by the opponents of the Measure, the clauses of which were fought syllable by syllable in its passage through the House, and that if the hon. Member for London should propose the repeal of the provision he should have his hearty support.