HC Deb 12 June 1952 vol 502 cc471-82

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Speaker

Before I call on the hon. Member for Finchley (Sir J. Crowder), I have a suggestion to make to the House. As hon. Members will be aware, this debate is interpolated in the middle of a Supply Day discussion on agriculture. I do not know yet how deep are the divisions between hon. Members on this Bill, but I am sure that hon. Members interested in agriculture would be happy if by some self-denying ordinance speeches were kept short and the House could come to a rapid decision on the matter.

7.1 p.m.

Sir John Crowder (Second Church Estates Commissioner)

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

As this Bill is promoted by the Church Commissioners, it is my privilege, as Second Church Estates Commissioner, to move its Third Reading. As hon. Members are aware, this Bill has been most carefully considered by a Select Committee upstairs and some very useful Amendments have been made in the Bill. The minutes of evidence taken before the Select Committee are available in the Vote Office, but for the benefit of those who have not had time to read them I will briefly outline some of the objects of the Bill which I think are welcome to all those who are interested in the well-being of the Church of England and in preserving fine old Wren churches in the City which we are all so anxious to keep.

The Church Commissioners are promoting the Bill at the request of the authorities of the Diocese of London and, in particular, the Bishop of London and the Diocesan Re-organisation Committee. The chief architect of the Bill is the Archdeacon of London, and I think the House should be very grateful to him for the time and trouble he has taken to present this Bill to the House.

Before the war the position was that there were 47 churches of the Church of England in the City. That number was admitted, even before the war, to be far too many for the residents in the City of London, and there was a scheme, as most hon. Members who are interested in these matters know, some 25 years ago which provided that no fewer than 19 of these churches, most of them built by Wren, should be demolished, but I am glad to say that that was rejected at that time by the House of Commons. Nothing further was done to produce another scheme; and then came the war during which, as hon. Members know, a tremendous amount of damage was done in the City of London, and in particular to our churches.

The object of this new scheme which is before us is to preserve as many churches as is possible and to make them useful and helpful to the Church of England generally. There is now in the City a resident population of about 5,000 people with nearly 50 churches, which gives an average of only 100 residents per church. The situation is obviously unsatisfactory, and this Bill is the result of much thought and study by those particularly concerned in the matter.

This is in the nature of an experiment in church life in the City of London, and I think and hope it will be successful. The proposals in general terms are as follows. There are 47 Church of England churches, 46 of which are at present parish churches; 24 are to remain parish churches and 16 are to be called guild churches. That accounts for 40. Three churches will not be restored because two of them were practically wiped out by bombing during the war. They are St. Mildred, Bread Street, and St. Stephen, Coleman Street. The third, of which there is very little left, is St. Alban, Wood Street, and it is not proposed to rebuild this church. That accounts for 43.

As to the two others, one will be used as a choir school and one will be a diocesan assembly hall. That accounts for 45. There are as yet no proposals for dealing with the other two because their future has not as yet been determined. The Church Commissioners and all those responsible for this Bill are anxious to retain as many of these City churches as is possible. They think that there should be some provision made for the very large day-time population of the City of London. I do not think anybody has been able to get any really accurate figures of the number of the day-time workers in the City, but they vary between 310,000 and 472,000, and therefore we suggest that there are about 400,000 daily workers in the City who are not residents.

The proposals in this Bill are novel in that, generally speaking, it has been the duty of the Church to provide for the spiritual needs of persons resident in a particular area. That is the parish system which we all recognise and understand. The scheme put forward in this Bill puts a special responsibility on the minister or the vicar appointed to these Guild churches for those who work in the neighbourhood of the City of London but do not live there.

I shall not discuss the question of how the electoral roll is to be formed, as this was debated fully by the members of the Select Committee and certain alterations by way of amendments were made, and no doubt members of the Select Committee will like to tell the House what these changes were. I do not propose also, especially in view of what Mr. Speaker has said, to go through the Bill Clause by Clause, because the Select Committee went into them all very fully and there were not very many important amendments made, although some of them, as I have already said, are very useful.

To summarise, there are four distinct but related purposes which it is sought to achieve by this Bill and which can only be done with the authority of Parliament. One is to retain and restore most of the Wren churches in the City, not only for their architectural interest but as living centres of worship. There being, however, little justification for rebuilding and keeping many of these churches as parish churches, now that the resident population of the City is so small, the Bill proposes a new use for otherwise redundant churches.

Secondly, it is sought to make special provision, for the first time, for spiritual ministrations to the vast non-resident day-time population of the City by means of guild churches, and clergy specially selected to serve them. To make their ministrations more effective, these clergy, who will have an independent and autonomous status, will be freed from parochial responsibilities.

The third purpose is to strengthen the links which already exist between the religious and civic life of the City of London. With the good will concurrence and agreement of the civic authorities, this will be accomplished by the creation of an official church for the Corporation—St. Lawrence Jewry—and by the designation of certain churches—ward churches—as the official churches of the various wards in the City.

Fourthly—and this, I think, is the most important of all—it is proposed to provide posts and centres for clergy possessing specialised qualifications in scholarship, preaching and the like so that their particular gifts will become available for the benefit of the Church as a whole. I do not think there are any opponents to the Bill. Certainly no notices of opposition have been deposited in the House against it.

In conclusion, I should like to quote some words used by the Bishop of London. He said: It is my wish and hope that the City may become a great ecclesiastical laboratory in which new methods of ministry, new spiritual experiments and new pastoral techniques may be tried out for the benefit of the whole church. It is with these broad objects in view that I move the Third Reading of this Bill.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

I should like to commend this Bill to the House on Third Reading because, as the hon. Member for Finchley (Sir J. Crowder) has said, no opposition has been lodged to it. On the contrary, it is warmly supported in all quarters. Certainly all the members of the Select Committee—and, I think, all hon. Members on this side of the House—very much hope that this plan, which has been put forward by the diocesan authorities in London, will prove to be a happy solution of this old and vexed question of the City churches.

I think the scheme is an admirable one. It will enable the City churches, which are of very considerable architectural value to the nation, to be preserved. I particularly welcome the assurance given by the Archdeacon of London that none of these so-called guild churches will be demolished. The arrangement which has been made for having these guild churches outside the parochial system is a very useful experiment, and one from which we all hope that the Church of England will derive considerable benefit. After all, the City and its spiritual requirements are quite unique.

It is very desirable that these guild churches should be relieved from what is a quite unnecessary obligation for saying Divine Service on Sunday. It is desirable that there should be an attempt to minister to the daytime, weekday working population or to those people who desire such ministration. I hope that the Church authorities will use the opportunities thus provided to do something to relieve the very serious manpower problem with which the Church is faced.

As I understand it, it is intended that persons with specialist qualifications should be selected as vicars of these guild churches, and that the people so selected will differ from all the other incumbents in the Church of England in the sense that they will not have a freehold for life but will be appointed merely for a term of years. I hope that it will be possible for those thus appointed to these guild churches not merely to serve the guild churches during the week but also to lend assistance outside the City, in parishes where a great many clergymen are today trying to serve very large parishes and are notoriously overburdened with work.

With those few words—particularly in view of your suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that we should not unduly prolong this debate—I commend this Bill to the House.

7.13 p.m.

Sir Harold Webbe (Cities of London and Westminster)

Before asking for the indulgence of the House for a very few moments I should like to associate myself with the appreciation that my hon. Friend the Second Church Estates Commissioner has expressed of the services of the Archdeacon of London. The Archdeacon appeared before the Select Committee and I am sure I can speak for every member of that Committee in saying that the clarity and sincerity of his explanations, and the manner in which he met such criticisms as were made, earned not only our admiration but our gratitude.

I am sure the House will allow me, as the Member for the City of London, to say that not only is this Measure an agreed and, indeed, a welcome one, but that it is one which is very sincerely desired by all those great established institutions in the City to whom it makes a peculiar appeal and in whose tradition the whole scheme is clearly conceived.

My hon. Friend has already very fully explained the details of the Measure, and he has put clearly to the House its four main purposes. I should like to say two or three words about three of those purposes. The intention of these guild churches is not to provide the normal service of an ordinary parish church, but to give the opportunity for what is really an experiment, in providing religious Christian education and opportunities for Christian worship and Christian communion for the hundreds and thousands of men and women who daily come into the City to earn their bread.

Although I have been associated with the City for many years, until I made some inquiries in connection with this Bill I certainly did not realise—and I think very few people do realise—how many of these men and women, young and old, from time to time—some of them regularly and some perhaps only spasmodically—desire to seek peace and tranquility at the middle of the day, away from the hubbub, the turmoil and the worries of their daily life, by contemplating quietly some of those spiritual values which are in these days so often obscured or completely hidden.

I am quite certain that these Guild churches will meet a very real need. I am certain, too, that every Member of this House and, indeed, every citizen, must feel gratitude and thankfulness that in these material days there are still so many who seek something higher and more satisfying than they get in the ordinary way.

The second point is the opportunity that these new churches will give for clergy who, while no doubt possessing great spiritual gifts, are not perhaps best suited to the ordinary day-to-day work of the parish priest. I am quite certain that there are many men who have a great mission and a great deal of good to give to the world who will find, in the peculiar circumstances and the work of these new churches, an opportunity which has so far missed them.

I should like to echo what the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) said a moment ago—that these clergy should also be given spare time in which they will be able to help in parishes and churches outside the City where there is need for them and where they can do so much good.

But, from my point of view the most important point of all is the strengthening of the link between the spiritual and civic life of the City. I think it is entirely appropriate that these churches should be attached to wards of the ancient City; that one of them should become the freehold church of the City Corporation itself and that, as I hope, they will become more and more associated with those great City institutions—the City companies and the like—whose history the churches are commemorating in their own title.

I think it is a peculiarly happy choice that they should be called the guild churches, because it is a reminder of the fact that the great City guilds—those historic institutions which have now become the great City companies—began fundamentally on a religious basis. The atmosphere in which they were formed was a religious one and it was primarily for spiritual reasons that they were brought into existence. I think it is a most happy conception that these churches should be called Guild churches.

This is an opportunity for a great experiment in evangelism—in the propagating of Christian doctrine and the Christian way of life. It is entirely in the tradition of the City of London that an experiment of this kind should begin there. There is certainly no field in which the experiment can more fittingly be tried than the City of London itself which, in its traditions, embodies—and in its day-to-day work actually uses—those fundamental spiritual truths, those spiritual standards of value, which we are so gravely in danger of losing but which, after all, were the basis on which the greatness of Britain's past was built and are, in the view of many of us, the only ground on which our future can rise.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood (Rossendale)

Although responsibility does not rest with us, we should all want to express concern that some of our colleagues should prefer to concentrate upon things of the earth than to join us here in discussing these more spiritual matters. I shall do my best to comply with your suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that we should be brief in discussing this very important matter.

I am pleased for a number of reasons that we are discussing it. When we have an established Church it is good that hon. Members in all parts of the House should take an interest in the doings of that Church and that they are prepared to give the Church whatever help they can when subjects of this character come for discussion before us. On at least two occasions in the last few years we have discussed ecclesiastical re-organisation Measures, not always to the complete satisfaction of all of us.

Some of the things which have been said in the present debate have been helpful to the Church. The discussion on the Bill in the Select Committee must have been of very considerable benefit to the Church. Our colleagues who took part on that Committee, most of whom I see are here, brought to their task great knowledge of the subject and a lively imagination which must have made a great impression on the Church authorities responsible for this Measure.

The second reason I am glad is that we should express our gratitude to the Church for a most generous gesture on its part in attempting to bring the administration of the Church into line with modern thought and in a way which does not involve demolition of City churches on the scale which has been suggested in the past. As the hon. Member for Finchley (Sir J. Crowder) reminded us, when there was a previous scheme 25 years ago which would have involved the destruction of a number of churches, this House very wisely rejected that scheme.

The City has suffered very severely in that way. Between 1781 and 1940, I think 19 of the City churches were destroyed, all of them with some claim to be saved, some for their beauty, some for historical associations and some merely for the beauty of the names which adorned them. The last City church to be demolished went as recently as 12 years ago. In these days we cannot allow that sort of thing to continue.

I was very glad that the "News Chronicle" reminded us today, in an article entitled "Stupidity Street," that our heirlooms go, piece by piece and we accept each loss with the dull apathy of fatalism. That is what the Church of England has decided is not to happen in the City of London. That is particularly good, at a time when museums and art galleries have been closed and when we have discharged from Government service artists and specialists whose duty was the protection of ancient monuments. The Church is setting us an example in this respect. That is another reason I particularly commend the Bill to my hon. Friends.

There are two points I would like to put to the hon. Gentleman responsible for the Measure. I gathered from the discussions on the Select Committee that the ecclesiastical authorities are retaining power to demolish churches in the future without reference to this House. Where there is a need for designating new churches as Guild churches, would the proposals have to come before this House for approval? If that is the case, it would be better to make provision in this Measure for designating the churches and to leave out the proposals for demolition, in order that future proposals for demolition would have to come here for approval. The Church authorities should realise that if any proposals of that kind came before this House, it is probable that the House would refuse permission for any demolition.

I hope that the Church authorities will be imaginative in the way they allocate Guild churches. It is splendid that the Chapel-of-Ease in St. Benet's, Paul's Wharf should be used especially by the Welsh congregation in the City of London. I should have thought it possible to have other Guild churches allocated to parts of the British Commonwealth. That would be in the best tradition of the City of London. The Northern Irish inhabitants of the City of London may from to time be in need of spiritual help which could be given in that way.

I hope that the Church will bear in mind the suggestions made by the Select Committee, in particular that attention should be given to the needs of various religious orders and that some approach should be made to other denominations which are ill represented in the City by places of worship, and have little chance of acquiring any. This is an excellent Measure, and I commend it very seriously to my hon. Friends.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. C. H. Gage (Belfast, South)

In accordance with custom, I should disclose my interest in this matter, because I am the Official Principal to the Archdeacon of London. It is rather a negative interest, because the effect of the Bill upon me, so far as I can see, is to reduce the fees that I obtain from my office. The only other matter which affected me, and which I believe was in the Bill at one time, was that I should advise the Archdeacon in regard to certain matters. It has now very properly been taken from the Bill.

I think the whole House will be glad to receive this Measure. It is a great tribute to the industry and idealism of the Bishop of London and the Archdeacon of London that the Bill comes before us virtually unopposed. It is very rare that that can be said of ecclesiastical Measures that come before us. Normally, they arouse the fiercest feelings on both sides.

Perhaps I may deal with the points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) expressed the view—and we are all in sympathy with the idea—that the clergy who will be assigned to the Guild churches should be used outside them in the parish churches of London and in other places. I can readily give him the assurance that that is the purpose. Primarily, the duty of these clergy will be to minister to the day-time population of the City of London. They have been freed from the obligation which applies to incumbents of parishes of reading matins and vespers on Sundays, and they will be able to assist,, and it is hoped, and indeed is fairly certain, that they will assist, outside. Their duty is not only to the people who come into London day by day but to London and to the Church as a whole.

As to the demolition of churches, a matter which was raised by the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood), it is not expected or thought, of course, that any of these guild churches should ever be demolished. Indeed the whole purpose of this Bill is to retain these beautiful and historic churches in a way in which they will best serve the needs of the City. Therefore, it is not visualised by anyone that a time will come when it will be required or desired that any of the guild churches or parish churches that remain should be demolished.

There is the additional safeguard that a church cannot be demolished unless the matter comes before this House. I understand that a Measure would have to be laid on the Table of this House and that it could be prayed against in the ordinary way, so there is that additional safeguard. I hope that what I have said will be sufficient to satisfy the hon. Member.

As regards the other matter he raised—the use of these churches by other denominations—many people of other denominations now use them, and it is hoped that they will continue to do so. No bar or difficulty will be placed in their way should they desire to do so. As for, as it were, giving a church completely to another denomination, there has never been any request by any other denomination for such a church. I am certain that hon. Members will agree that it was no duty of the authorities of the Church of England to offer such a church if there was no request for it.

That is the position, and it is hoped and believed that many people of other denominations will use these churches, as they have done up to now, because many of the churches are functioning, although the Bill has not yet been passed, more or less as they will function under the terms of the Bill. That has been so for some time; they have been used, and it is hoped they will continue to be used.

I need only say that this Bill marks a great and novel experiment in Church matters. It is the first departure in a thousand years from the parish system, and these churches, which will in other respects be similar to parish churches, will have congregations which will not have, so to speak, a residential qualification. In that respect it is, as my hon. Friend said, very fitting that this should be done in the City of London, with its enormous day-time population. These churches will become what one might call week-day churches in order to benefit and help those people who come in to work day by day in this great City.

In achieving that, I feel that a solution has been arrived at of the problem that has always existed in the City, where there were obviously too many parish churches for the resident population and yet nobody wanted to see any of those churches disappear. I believe that in this Bill we have found a solution to that problem. I think it is a great solution, and that it will redound to the greater glory both of London and the Church, and I unhesitatingly commend it to the House.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Forward to