SECOND READING. (Hansard, 16 June 1886)

§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER) (Wol- 1674 verhampton, E.)
, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its object was to give authority to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to make grants out of funds under their control for the restoration of Westminster Abbey.

§ MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Nottingham, S.)
said, he did not intend to offer any opposition to the principle of the Bill, because Westminster Abbey was a structure in which Nonconformists took as much interest as Episcopalians. He thought it strange, however, that the repair and maintenance of the Abbey should be imposed upon an Ecclesiastical Body such as the Dean and Chapter, which could not have much experience in such matters. The Dean and Chapter were, no doubt, admirably constituted for the discharge of their ecclesiastical duties; but they were no better qualified for the maintenance of the Abbey than others that might be named. He thought it would be much more reasonable if the care and maintenance of the Abbey should be placed—like the Scottish churches—in the hands of Her Majesty's Board of Works. What, however, he new asked for was information respecting the present system in force; who was responsible for the repairs ordered; whether an architect or a builder was called in; whether there was a permanent appointment of the architect and builder; or whether the work required to be done was carried out in sections, or whether fresh contracts were taken; and if the House of Commons was made acquainted, from time to time, with the progress of the restoration? The Dean and Chapter, he saw, were, according to the Bill, to report to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners the amount of money they had spent. He thought it strange that one Ecclesiastical Body should be called upon to report to another Ecclesiastical Body, in reference to a matter of this nature; and, so far as he was concerned, he did not think that the thing was altogether on a satisfactory footing.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH (Strand, Westminster)
said, he thought that the hon. Member for Nottingham could hardly be serious in making the suggestion that the Treasury should add to its 1675 other duties the charge of the ecclesiastical buildings. It must be quite clear to the hon. Member that the Dean and Chapter were responsible, and to as high authority as Parliament itself—the public opinion of this country—for the maintenance of the Abbey, which was an ornament not only dear to them as an ecclesiastical building, but which was also of great value and dear to the whole country. An arrangement was made some time ago between the Dean and Chapter and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the appropriation of certain funds for the purpose of restoring and maintaining the fabric of the Abbey; but those funds had proved altogether insufficient, and they now came, not to ask for a grant from Parliament, but that authority should be given to the Commissioners to make an advance out of funds which came into their hands for the maintenance and restoration of the edifice. The advance would be secured on the estates of the Dean and Chapter, and only that day he had received a letter from the Dean stating how sadly the repairs were needed.

§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK (Whitehaven)
said, he was far more disposed to agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Carvell Williams) than with the right hon. Gentleman. It was not now for the first time that he stated that the sooner the cathedral churches of this country were out of the hands of the Deans and Chapters the better. There was hardly a cathedral church in England which had not been seriously damaged by the Deans and Chapters acting on the advice of church architects. He would not object to the second reading of the Bill provided he had an assurance from the Secretary to the Treasury that the money to be advanced by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should be expended on nothing whatever but the necessary repairs, and that no restoration would be carried out. No church had suffered more than Westminster Abbey. The late Dean was a worthy man, but he was not well instructed in art, and he fell under the dominion of the late Sir Gilbert Scott, and the carrying out of certain ideas and crotchets ran away with all the funds which ought to have been expended in proper repairs. He saw in the Bill that the money was to be spent on "substantial repairs, restorations, 1676 and improvements." It was not desirable that the church architects should be allowed to alter any of the main features of the building according to their fancies. Such were the vast powers vested in the Dean and Chapter that if they thought fit they might pull down the magnificent western tower. He hoped he should obtain an assurance from the Secretary to the Treasury that the word "restorations" would be struck out.

§ MR. HENRY H. FOWLER
said, that the Bill did not in any way interfere with the custodians of the Abbey, who were the Dean and Chapter. But a letter had been received from the Dean in which he said that this was no question of ornamentation or beautifying the exterior, but simply to prevent it from coming down, and that it was for that and nothing else the funds were required. He would not himself object to see the word "restorations" omitted. The sole object of the Bill was to give £10,000 simply and solely for repairs.