HC Deb 24 May 1897 vol 49 cc1117-26

Order fur Second Reading read; Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a, Second time."

MR. HERBERT ROBERTS (Denbighshire, W.)

proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months." He said that he thought it would have been more convenient had the hon. Member in charge of it explained its provisions. The Measure was rejected in 1893, and they ought to know what were the special new circumstances which had induced him to move it a second time. The Bill dealt with ten churches known as the Liverpool Corporation Churches and two parish churches. It was proposed to extinguish the liability of the Liverpool Corporation for the payment to them of certain annual grants which they had to pay under a section of an Act of Parliament. The sum contributed to the ten churches was £2,600 or thereabouts, and it was proposed by the Bill to commute that annual payment with a capital sum of, £95,000. In regard to the two parish churches, St. Peter's and St. Nicholas's, the liability amounted to about £1,800. That amount it was proposed to commute by the payment of a capital sum of £48,000. The first ground on which he moved the rejection of the Bill was that the amount of commutation was put at much too high a, figure. There was to be handed over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to be invested for the future endowment of the churches, and of new churches, over £101,000; and there was to be handed over a further sum of £13,406 to Queen Anne's Bounty, and £27,694 went to a building fund. It was not necessary to criticise the financial provisions beyond repeating that the amount of commutation was absurdly high. It represented 36 years' purchase, or nearly three times the amount of purchase in the Irish Church Act—fourteen years. Besides, the money was to come out of the pockets of the Liverpool ratepayers for the benefit of one section of the ratepayers. In the second place, it must be remembered that this rate was all the higher when they considered the fact that not only was this money to be paid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but the sites of the churches were also to be handed over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. That was all the more striking when it was remembered that in. most cases the fabrics had been provided out of the pockets of the ratepayers. Were there any special reasons why this high rate of compensation should be paid? Had there been any unusual sacrifices on the part of the supporters of those churches, or had the churches been unusually successful in the past? The answer he believed to both questions was in the negative. Not only had the Corporation of Liverpool paid this annual grant amounting in the aggregate to something like £250,000, but they had also spent £117,000 on the building of the churches, so that after allowing for what had been received from pew rents, the Corporation had expended on these churches £300,000, and in spite of this the Church Party asked for 36½ years purchase. During the Debate in 1893 it was admitted on both sides of the House that there had been many scandals in. connection with the relations between the Corporation and these churches under the arrangements in the past. He did not deny that at the outset those who initiated the idea of contributing from the ratepayers' funds towards those churches was a good one. But in this case, as in others, the arrangement had become an instrument by which the Corporation of Liverpool made permanent places and salaries for their friends and relatives. That was a fact admitted on all hands. The time he thought had come when this arrangement ought to come to an end. The only point on which he joined issue was as to the condition and terms upon which this arrangement ought to be terminated. He asked the House were the terms proposed just or equitable? There was no doubt that these churches had been a, miserable failure in the past. That was admitted in the Debate a few years ago. The churches were large and poorly attended, and in parts of Liverpool where large congregations could not naturally be looked for. In the census taken in 1893 it was found that at St. George's, capable of seating 2,000, only 76 attended; in St. Paul's, capable of seating 1,800, only 16 attended; and in St. David's, the attendance was only 131. It seemed to him the history of the transactions between the Corporation and the parish churches, and their present position, was a factor which the House ought to have regard to in fixing the compensation to be paid, and the rate of the compensation. He knew very well that it would be said that it was proposed in the Bill to pull down two of the churches—St. George's and St. John's—to move them to another part of Liverpool, and to vest the old sites in the Corporation; but it was not very much comfort to the ratepayers to be presented with two sites which they years ago gave to the churches in question. He quite favoured the policy of removing these churches, but surely it ought to be arranged that the value of the sites and the fabrics given by the ratepayers should be taken into consideration. He did not deny that under the local Act of 1838, which was the foundation for the present Bill, the compromise suggested in these days of £105,000 invested for the benefit of these churches by the Corporation would have been a very good arrangement for the Corporation from a money standpoint; but those who had read the history of these days could not but see very clearly that there were two parties and two opposite opinions held in Liverpool on the question. That difference of opinion had always existed. In 1893 a similar Bill was before the House, but it was successfully opposed by an hon. Member whom he did not see present. In the opinion of that House, at any rate, the conditions were not equitable. In 1894 another Bill was introduced by seven Members of the House, two of whom, represented Liverpool, the five others being closely connected with it, and according to it the commutation was not to be 36½ years' purchase but one year's only. He was aware that the Corporation of Liverpool last June passed by a great majority a Resolution in favour of the present Bill, but he held that was not to be taken as in any way an evidence of the real feeling of the ratepayers. The question had not been raised before the electors, and if the ratepayers knew what the Bill really provided and the details of the expenditure, which were its essential part, they would not be in its favour. The religious opinion of the people of Liverpool had largely changed since 1838. At that time it might be said that the prevailing religious opinion of Liverpool was that of the Episcopal Church, but he was given to believe that were a survey now taken, Liverpool opinion would be found divided into three more or less equal parts—Church people, Roman Catholics, and Dissenters. Evidence that was fair and equitable years ago could not be so to-day. With reference to the Church of St. David's, it was built by the Corporation, and was largely maintained by them. The congregation in 1893 was 131. Let them compare that with the fact that, relying entirely upon voluntary effort, the Welsh Nonconformists of Liverpool had during the same period built not one but forty churches; that they had a membership of 14,000, and that they contributed for their churches every year a sum approaching £20,000. It seemed to him that no good results would follow the passing of this Bill, and he moved the rejection in the' interests of the ratepayers, because he thought the proposed arrangement was an unfair one, and because he thought that when property was given by the Corporation for a special religious purpose, and when that special purpose proved to be futile, the property being used for other purposes than it was designed for, it should be handed back to those who gave it. ["Hear, hear!"]

*MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Notts, Mansfield)

, in seconding the Amendment, said they were not dealing with tithes and glebe lands. The "pious ancestor" in this case was the old, unreformed, and corrupt Corporation of Liverpool. The history of these Liverpool churches was a history of unjust and profligate expenditure, of legal squabbling, and of ecclesiastical trickery. [Cries of "Oh!"] Churchmen in those days treated the Corporation as a milch cow, going to it for whatever they wanted. Whether it was a new church or an additonal minister, they got what they asked for, and then the sanction of Parliament was obtained. It might be asked what was the use of reviving such unsavoury reflections, but they had an important bearing on the present Bill, seeing that the unjust charges then imposed on the Protestant Nonconformists and the Roman Catholics of Liverpool were imposed now. This Bill was a practical admission that the existing system was indefensible. But what was the proposed remedy? The promoters were willing that these unjust exactions should cease, but demanded the exorbitant sum of £143,000 by way of ransom. It was said of the sites in 1893 that they did not cost the Corporation a penny, but neither did they cost the Church a penny. They were public property, and the public ought not to be compelled to purchase them back. It would be said that the Bill involved details which could be discussed only in a Committee. But the principle on which it was based was unjust and unsound. When compulsory Church rates were abolished no compensation was given, and no provision was made for commutation. They were retained only where where money had been borrowed upon them, or where they existed in lieu of tithes. But these Liverpool payments did not come within their category. They ought, in fact, to have been dealt with in the Church Rate Act. There was also a local precedent which could be quoted, for when the Church of St. Catherine at Liverpool was pulled down the Corporation paid nothing, except for the protection of life interests, and that was all that was wanted in the case of the other churches. The present officials should be dealt with justly, and even generously, and perhaps the patrons should also be compensated, though some of them were only trustees. This injustice had been inflicted long enough, and should now come to an end. A more flagrantly unjust Bill than this had never been submitted to Parliament, and he hoped that it would be rejected, and that the promoters would be under the necessity of coming with a moderate and just scheme. ["Hear, hear!"]

*MR. W. F. LAWRENCE (Liverpool, Abercrombie)

said he begged to recommend the Bill to the favourable consideration of the House. The speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down did not, he thought, require any special notice from himself, first, because the Bill was essentially a Private Local Bill, and, secondly, because the hon. Gentleman's speech was one they had heard many a time all over England against the Establishment. [Cheers.] His Friend the hon. Member for Denbigh, who moved the rejection of the Bill, had every ground to object to it, both as a ratepayer and as an inhabitant of Liverpool. Being, as he was, well acquainted with the condition of things in Liverpool, he was surprised that the hon. Member should have found fault with their action in bringing this Bill again before the notice of the House of Commons. The fact was that in 1893 a Bill almost identical with this was promoted by all the local authorities, the Corporation, the parish, and the Bishop of Liverpool. It came before that House, but was thrown out by a chance majority of not more than nine votes in a House of not more than 380 Members. Inasmuch as the feeling of the locality was so much in its favour, was it any wonder that a few years afterwards the local authorities should have again promoted this Bill, and ask this present House of Commons to give it a more favourable consideration than the House which expired without any great sorrow on the part of those on his side gave it in the year 1893? The interesting fact about the Bill as now presented and the Bill which was formerly introduced was that the present Bill was promoted by a different Corporation from that which' promoted the Bill of 1893. In 1893 there was an unextended Borough, and that restricted body voted in its favour. Since then the area of the city had been largely extended, and again the question had come up, and by an enhanced and appreciable majority had been approved. So recently as this year the new Bill came before the Corporation, and by 63 or 64 to 16 they desired that it might go forward. The House might, therefore, rely upon it that the Corporation represented strong local feeling. As a matter of fact, this matter had been thoroughly well discussed up and down Liverpool for many a long year. It might be anomalous, according to the present notion, that a corporation should endow churches, but as a matter of fact, the Corporation of Liverpool since 1698 up to a comparatively recent period, having regard to the great interests committed to them, had advanced money to build, endow, and repair churches. Unless the Bill passed, a very serious legal obligation with regard to the repair of the worn-out Church of St. Martin's would fall upon the shoulders of the Corporation. He submitted to the House that the business people of Liverpool could not have sanctioned such terms as those which had been arrived at had they thought them unfair or unjust. The names of the gentlemen on the local Committee, indeed, furnished a guarantee that the terms were most reasonable. Consequently the House might be sure that when the Committee upstairs had looked over the items there would be no question as to whether the Corporation were paying too much to get out of a clearly legal obligation. The hon. Member had endeavoured to point out that some of the sites formerly belonged to the Corporation, and were now practically being given over to the Church, but as a matter of fact, one of the most important sites which was going to be recovered by the Corporation was only given to the Corporation by the Duchy of Lancaster on condition that they built a church. £95,000 was a very moderate figure for the Corporation to pay for the advantages to be obtained, and the Corporation could borrow on such terms that he believed the saving to them would be equivalent to £400 a year. He thought he had shown that there was a strong local feeling in favour of the Bill, that every local authority had declared in its favour, and that the Bill had not been rushed on the House or on the locality. It had been in preparation live or ten years, and, therefore, there was no surprise, and the terms had been obviously most carefully thought out by the best business heads in Liverpool. He considered the House might fairly give the Bill the Second Reading, inasmuch as it was only thrown out by a small majority of nine when before under the consideration of the House. He was pleased to tell the House that the Bill in 1898 had received the imprimatur in the Division Lobby of the Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone).

*MR. MELLOR (York, W. R., Sowerby)

said the House had heard three excellent speeches on the subject of the Bill, but they had all dealt with its details; he thought the details of a complicated matter of this description could only be properly examined by a Committee. What they really wanted in this case was the Report of a Select Committee on the Bill. He was of opinion, considering the nature of the Bill, that it would be unfair, indeed, impossible, to ask the House to deal with it now in a satisfactory way, and, therefore, he hoped it would, in the usual manner, be relegated to a Committee. It seemed to him in all these cases difficult to ask the House, at the time of Private Business to reject a Bill of this character on the Motion for its Second Reading. Such Bills as these were generally full of details, and contained local and personal matters, and he had always been of opinion that the House was better able to come to a proper conclusion when such Bills had been examined in the ordinary way. For nearly 200 years, he gathered the Corporation of Liverpool and the parish of Liverpool had had to raise and pay out of the rates an annual sum to pay for the maintenance of these churches, for the salaries of the clergy and of the officers connected with the churches. He did not hesitate to say that such a tax was an odious tax, and he did not think any Member of the House, whether Churchman or Nonconformist, Tory or Liberal, could come to any other conclusion. Well, in regard to the matter, there were only two things to be done. They must either pay the tax or commute the tax. ["Hear, hear!"] The great majority of the ratepayers had agreed to the commutation. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the Corporation, and the parish of Liverpool had agreed to it. They had agreed to this bargain, and was the House, upon the mere suggestion that the amount agreed upon was too large, to reject such a bargain? The whole question was whether the terms were right, and such as the House could affirm. He hoped the House would allow the Bill to go to the Committee, who would examine it and make such a Report that the House would be able to deal with it satisfactorily on the Second Reading.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. WALTER LONG,) Liverpool, West Derby

said he was sure the House would do well to follow the admirable advice given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sowerby Division of Yorkshire (Mr. Mellor). He wished to express, on behalf of the Corporation of Liverpool, an entire repudiation of the statement that in the terms they had consented to give in regard to this matter, they had been actuated in any other way than in the direct interests of the ratepayers they represented. He ventured to say that there was no city in which it would be more improper to say that they did not represent their constituents than the Corporation of Liverpool—["hear, hear!"]—for in regard to this, Liverpool had been recently tested in more ways than one. The Liverpool Corporation believed there were certain existing sums which they owed in reference to these churches, and they were anxious not to repudiate their obligations. The hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded the rejection of the Bill recommended that those obligations should be repudiated. Liverpool took no such view, and they were prepared in return for what they believed would be a substantial advantage to the city, to come to the fair terms given by the Bill. The terms were well-known in Liverpool, had been approved by all the authorities there, as well as by the residents. Those terms had been very seriously examined, and he sincerely hoped the House would not follow the example of the last House of Commons, but would give the Bill the Second Reading, in order that the straightforward course might be taken of examination by Committee. There was no question of principle involved; the terms could not be examined in that Chamber. Liverpool asked the House to allow them to deal with this matter, which was of great importance to them, whether regarded from the point of view of the Corporation, residents, or ratepayers. The attitude of those who wished to reject the Bill only proceeded from a very small minority of the people of the city of Liverpool. ["Hear, hear!"]

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes, 205; Noes, 95.—(Division List, No. 213.)

Main Question put, and agreed to; Bill read a Second time.

MR. HERBERT ROBERTS

moved, "That the Bill be referred to a Committee of five Members, three to be nominated by the House and two by the Committee of Selection. That all Petitions aganst the Bill presented five clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their counsel, or agents, be heard against the Bill, and counsel heard in support of the Bill. That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records. That three be the quorum."

MR. W. F. LAWRENCE

said he did not see any reason why this Bill should be treated differently from any other Bill, and, therefore, he should oppose the present Motion. ["Hear, hear!"]

The House divided:—Ayes, 117; Noes, 199.—(Division List, No. 214.)