§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 1 (Short title).
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK (Whitehaven)said, his right hon. Friend on Thursday, when the second reading of the Bill was called, stated that he would not take the Committee stage until after Easter. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) was not present in the House when the second reading was taken on Friday. Still, he did not object to the present stage, though it was inconvenient to have it taken unexpectedly, as it prevented him placing the terms of 366 his Amendment on the Paper. In this 1st clause he discovered that very objectionable word, in relation to old buildings, "restoration." Now, he understood, from what he heard in the report made to him of his right hon. Friend's observations on Friday, that he assured the House that no money would be expended except on repairs—that was to say, that the Dean and Chapter would not be allowed to indulge their fancies in such ornamentation as their taste might suggest.
THE CHAIRMANThe 1st clause is simply the title of the Act. I think the right hon. Gentleman's observations relate to a subsequent clause.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKIt is in the 1st clause that the word restoration occurs.
THE CHAIRMANThe 1st clause runs thus:—"This Act may be recited as 'The Westminster Abbey Act, 1888.'"
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 2 agreed to.
§ Clause 3 (Transfer of property of Westminster, Chapter to Ecclesiastical Commissioners).
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he had to propose an Amendment to this clause. The clause provided that schemes were to be ratified by Her Majesty's Order in Council, and then followed the sub-section relating to the principle of the clause. His Amendment was to insert, at the end of Subsection (6), the words—
Provided that no such scheme shall be submitted to Her Majesty in Council until it has lain before both Houses of Parliament for the space of two calendar months.
§ MR. PICTON (Leicester), as a matter of Order, asked would not this prevent any Member making remarks upon previous sub-sections?
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKproceeded. The words of his Amendment were taken from the Union of Benefices Act. When that Act was before the House, many years ago, this Proviso was inserted, and it had been found to be of the greatest possible benefit. It prevented the Bishop of London and others carrying out what were alleged to be 367 improvements, but which were really no improvements at all, without the consent of the House. For a like public advantage he, in accordance with precedent, proposed this Amendment, so that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should not have the power of passing small Acts without the public having any knowledge or voice in the matter. He was bound to say the Bill seemed carelessly drawn, and not very intelligible in all its parts. This was a matter of very great importance, not only as regarded Westminster Abbey itself, but as establishing a precedent that might be followed in several other similar buildings. His right hon. Friend would do well to admit this Amendment, founded, as it was, on a good precedent.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, line 22, to add—" Provided that no such scheme shall be submitted to Her Majesty in Council until it has lain before both Houses of Parliament for the space of two calendar months."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)said, his right hon. Friend was under some misapprehension when he said an undertaking was given that the Committee would not be taken until after Easter. He (Mr. W. H. Smith) was scrupulous about observing any undertaking of the kind; but he could assure his right hon. Friend that in this case nothing of the kind was given. The proposal in the Amendment would have the effect of impeding the arrangements for the early application of money necessary for the preservation of the Abbey, and lead, in fact, to the decay of the Abbey—a matter of national importance. The clause provided that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should frame a scheme and provide for the expense out of some estates of the Abbey which were to be transferred to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and he did not think the House of Commons would be possessed of that information to enable it to judge of the value or advantage of such a scheme. No object, indeed, would be gained. Nothing whatever in the clause referred to the mode in which the money was to be applied; it would not touch the scheme, which 368 was simply a monetary, he might almost say a commercial, transaction. He therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press an Amendment that, under the circumstances, the Government felt bound to resist.
§ MR. PICTONsaid, the clause, whether amended or not, contained the very essence of the Bill, and therefore he might be permitted to say why, personally adverse, as he was, to the present connection of Church and State, he nevertheless felt that the Bill was necessary and the clause a wise one. The clause recognized the fact that the great Abbey of Westminster was of interest to the whole nation, a national possession; in fact, it transferred property to certain Royal Commissioners in order that they might use the money derived from this property for the purpose, in the first place, of keeping the fabric in repair; next, paying the Dean and Chapter a proper income; and, finally, providing for the services. That he took to be a recognition that the Church was a national possession. It was a possession of which all Englishmen were proud. Whatever might be the differences of opinion on the connection between Church and State, none, he felt sure, would like to see the venerable building falling into disrepair from neglect.
§ MR. ILLINGWORTH (Bradford, W.)said, he would like to ask what security there was that the money which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would provide from the mortgage of the Abbey estates would be wisely expended? Was there any reference to any competent authority, such as the Board of Works, or any responsible architect, to advise and control expenditure, for might it not lead to wasteful patching and jobbing, because admirable ecclesiastics might know nothing of stones and mortar and building repairs?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, provision was made for the supervision of the responsible architect of the Ecclesiastical Commission, Mr. Ewan Christian. He would supervise all the work.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he would not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing, though he felt bound to say his right hon. Friend had not made out a good case against the Amendment, having regard to the precedent of the Union of Benefices Act, 369 with which he was afraid his right hon. Friend was not very well acquainted. However, not to occupy time, he would withdraw the Amendment, simply stating that no distinction had been made out between this case and the precedent he had quoted. Before withdrawing it, however, there was one point raised by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Illingworth) that deserved attention. There ought to be a controlling power. His right hon. Friend referred to the fact that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had a responsible architect, and he, no doubt, would discharge his duty wisely. At the same time, it would be well to have a controlling power, and not leave matters in the hands of the architect of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. If the hon. Member could point out any way in which control could be strengthened, he would be very happy indeed to give the hon. Gentleman his support.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clauses 3 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Clause 7 (Liability to repair, and to pay rates and taxes for official house).
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, this clause really related to the principle touched upon by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Illingworth). Here he found that if any question arose between the Dean and Chapter and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as to the application of the fabric fund, the matter was to be referred to the Lord Chancellor, the Lords of Appeal, the Privy Council, or the Judges of the High Court—
THE CHAIRMANThe right hon. Gentleman is now making his observations not on Clause 7, but on Sub-section (7) of Clause 4, which is passed.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 8 agreed to.
§ Preamble.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he was right at last, and in the Preamble the word "restoration" did occur. There was the word "restoring," also, in line 17, and he would move the omission of these words, on the ground that they would afford the opportunity for money being expended for other purposes than those of repair. He had frequently stated that he had no con- 370 fidence in the control of the Dean and Chapter over such expenditure, and he would ask his right hon. Friend whether any of the fund to be produced by this scheme would be applied to the work in the North Transept? Never was expenditure less justified than that on the North Transept. Whether it might be taken as a specimen of what might happen hereafter, he did not know. If this money was, in any way, to be applied to the repair or renewal of the North Transept, it would be a very improper use of the money. That work was pursued in the most blindfold manner, though not by the present authorities at Westminster Abbey. Here he might add a hope that his words might not be taken ill, because of the thin skins of authorities when any act of theirs was criticized. Such criticism was often taken as an exhibition of ill-will, but no one desired less to take up that position than he did. He understood, however, that his right hon. Friend said very distinctly, on Friday, that this Fabric Fund was to be applied to repairs only, and if that was so, there could be no objection to cutting out the word "restoration." Too often had there been examples of the restoration and improvement of old buildings, the result being the very reverse of the description. There had been seen in the noble Cathedral of London what the Dean and Chapter, in spite of protest, could do in the way of structural alteration, and a similar calamity might befall Westminster Abbey unless the words "restoration and improvement" were struck out. Although he had confidence in the present First Lord of the Treasury, and desired that, for the rest of his life, his right hon. Friend might continue to fill the place he now occupied, he might be succeeded by a Minister who would discard his right hon. Friend's statement and take up quite a different attitude. In framing this Act, he would ask that from the Preamble these words should be cut out, and subsequently, or in "another place," the consequential Amendments in other parts of the Bill might be made. He had no wish to prevent the Bill passing Committee that night.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 9, leave out "restoration or."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
371§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the Preamble."
§ MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he sympathized very much with the protest of his right hon. Friend, but he would call his attention to the fact that the Preamble was simply a recital of what had already been done. A sum of £10,000 was granted in 1866, under an Act for the restoration and repair of Westminster Abbey, and this was a recital of what had been done, and then the Preamble went on to say that, by subsequent enactment in clauses following, the sum so advanced should be made matter of agreement; but what had been done could not be undone.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment to renew it later on in the Preamble, when the word "restoration" occurred in line 6 of page 2.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 6, to leave out the words "restoration and."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Preamble."
§ MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, if it were any satisfaction to his right hon. Friend, he would not object to striking out the words from the Preamble that had no enacting value whatever. The Preamble had no enacting value in an Act; it was merely a statement of the general purpose of the Act. If it were any gratification to his right hon. Friend, he would strike the words out; but he could assure him it would not influence the Act, it had no meaning beyond the recognition of the fact that his right hon. Friend would recognize that the Abbey was in immediate want of repair and restoration to what it was. He agreed that the expenditure on the North Transept was much to be regretted; but no such expenditure was contemplated in this proposal; it was simply to place the Abbey in a sound condition, making good the ravages of time and climate.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, having elicited that expression of opinion, which was all he desired to obtain, he would withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Preamble agreed to.
§ Bill reported, without Amendment.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he would suggest that the third reading might now be taken.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, as that was suggested by his right hon. Friend, who was the only Member who had raised any objection to the Bill, perhaps the House would allow the next stage to be taken.
§ Bill read the third time, and passed.