UNION OF BENEFICES ACT AMENDMENT BILL.—LEAVE. (Hansard, 9 March 1865)

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
moved for leave to introduce a short Bill to amend the Union of Benefices Act of 1860. As the House were no doubt aware, by that Act the sale of the site of any church which might have become useless by the union of two benefices could only take place by the consent of the Secretary of State, the Archbishop, the Bishop of the diocese, and the Archdeacon. The church of St. Benet's, Gracechurch Street, having become unnecessary by the union of that parish with another, it was proposed, with the sanction of all parties concerned, except that of the Archdeacon, to sell the site. The 1459 latter refused to give his consent, because he objected to the whole policy of the Act. The House would probably recollect that the original introducers of the Act did not propose that the sanction of the Archdeacon should be requisite; but the provision was introduced at the suggestion of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hubbard); and it being supposed that the Archdeacon would be guided by the opinion of the Bishop whose officer he was, no objection was made to the proposition. The House would doubtless regard the requisition of the sanction of the Archbishop, the Bishop, and of the Secretary of State, as affording ample security to the Church and to the public for the transaction being properly conducted; and, therefore, he now proposed to amend the Act so far as it required the sanction of the Archdeacon. In the case to which he had particularly referred the object was a very good one, as the site of the church was required in order to widen Fenchurch Street, which was a principal thoroughfare in the City, and the proceeds of the sale were to be applied to the endowment of a new church in one of the most crowded districts of London.

§ MR. HUBBARD
said, he strongly objected to the omission of the Archdeacon from those whose assent was required for the sale of the site of a church. The assents of the Archbishop of Canterbury, of the Bishop of London, and the Home Secretary, were given as a matter of form to any proposal under the Act; but the office of Archdeacon gave him peculiar functions and peculiar duties in relation to the church—such, for instance, as seeing that the remains of those who had been buried in the churchyard perhaps hundreds of years before were decently and reverently removed. It might be, as the hon. Gentleman had stated, that the Archdeacon in the case referred to had refused his assent to the sale simply because he objected altogether to the policy of the Act; or it might be that he objected because the provisions of the Act had not been complied with by the Order in Council and the proposal of the Commissioners. He, therefore, moved that copies of the Order in Council and of all correspondence between the Archdeacon and the Commissioners on the subject be laid upon the 1460 table before leave was given to bring in the Bill.

§ MR. AYRTON
hoped the House would reconsider the useless and wanton alterations introduced into the Act which this Bill was intended to amend. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would render the Church odious if they succeeded in making it merely profitable to the minister without being of service to the people.

§ MR. CRAWFORD
said, he had every respect for the Archdeacon of London, but was informed that he had set his back against the wall and would not make himself a party to the pulling down of any church, thereby obstructing the execution of an Act of Parliament. This Bill would, therefore, relieve the rev. Gentleman of a duty which he could not perform without wounding his conscience.

§ MR. LYGON
defended hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House from the aspersion of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, and suggested that it would be better for the House to be put in possession of the views of the Archdeacon in his own words, in order to see whether he had not exercised his discretionary power wisely. If a measure passed on a grave question after full consideration was to be disturbed within a year or two in the manner now proposed, an impediment might be thrown in the way of future legislative compromises being come to by the House.

§ SIR JOHN SHELLEY
saw no objection to the production of the correspondence with the Archdeacon, but thought it ought to satisfy hon. Gentlemen opposite if it were laid on the table before the second reading of the Bill.

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
did not oppose the production of the papers in question if coupled with other correspondence on the same subject; but complained of the resist- 1461 ance offered to the bringing in of the Bill as very unusual.

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK,
refer-ring to the application of the term "recalcitrant" to the Archdeacon of London by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. E. P. Bouverie) the other night, said he hoped the hon. Member for Buckingham would persevere with his Amendment.