HL Deb 12 June 1860 vol 159 cc316-21

Order of the Day for receiving the Report of the Amendments read.

THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH

suggested that as notice had been given of many Amendments it would be better that the Bill should be re-committed, in order that the now clauses should be considered.

Order discharged; and Bill re-committed to a Committee of the whole House forthwith; House in Committee accordingly.

Clauses I to 11 agreed to.

Clause added to enable an exchange of patronage.

Clause 15, (Site of Church to be pulled down not to be sold or let without certain Consents.)

THE BISHOP OF OXFORD moved an Amendment. He had no objection to sell the sites of the removed churches; but there were certain cases in which the ground itself under the churches had been consecrated for the burial of the dead. He contended that where the Church had pledged herself in the most solemn manner to maintain for ever a certain parcel of ground it was monstrous that she should afterwards come to Parliament and ask for power to break her pledge, for the purpose of taking advantage of the increased value of the land so consecrated. The deeds of consecration of a church and of a burial-ground were essentially different. One consecrated a building for the purposes of worship, the other set apart a portion of ground from all profane uses for ever. He saw no objection to selling the site of a church to which no consecrated burial-ground was attached, because the occasion for which the consecration of the building took place having passed away, and it being for the glory of God and his increased worship and service that the church was to be removed, he did not see any objection to selling the ground on which the church stood. But it was different with the churchyards in which the dead were buried. It might be said that the same objection applied to churches in which dead were buried in the vaults; but his Amendment did not touch them, because in the first place the vaults being constructed in the ground under the church, and the church alone being consecrated, there could be no objection to the removal of the coffins, as they would have to be removed in any case should this Bill pass; but at all events it would throw on those who objected to the sale of such sites the onus of proving that the ground was consecrated, which would be almost impossible.

Amendment moved, after ("Department") to insert ("nor if it shall have been consecrated for the Burial of the Dead.")

EARL GRANVILLE

said, he was quite at a loss to know how any objection could be raised to the sale of the sites in question, when it was notorious that ground of a similar character had been sold to railway companies; and surely, when the sole object of the Bill was to provide increased facilities for the worship of God, the most tender conscience could not object.

THE BISHOP OF CASHEL

could not see any difference between selling the site of a church and a burial-ground, seeing that both were consecrated.

THE BISHOP OF OXFORD

thought that his right rev. Brother misapprehended the question. In the one case it was the church and not the site that was consecrated, and in the other it was the ground itself. The church might be removed, but the bodies of the dead remained in the churchyard by which it was surrounded.

THE BISHOP OF LONDON

said, that the distinction drawn by his right rev. Brother was so very fine that he could hardly understand it. He could understand the Church being held to the strict performance of all her contracts, but he could not comprehend why she should be allowed to depart from them in the case of churches, and be prohibited from doing so in the case of burial-grounds. His right rev. Brother had no objection to the sale of the site of a church under which hundreds of corpses might have been buried, but the consecration of which for burial it was impossible to prove. The operation of the clause would, therefore, on his own statement, be nugatory. He looked upon this as an insidious attack intended to destroy the whole of the Bill, for if it were carried the good effects of the measure would be rendered entirely nugatory.

THE EARL OF POWIS

supported the Amendment. This point had been settled in a Bill which was passed five years ago. They ought not for a few thousand pounds to shake the confidence of the people in the permanence of these sites for burial-grounds.

THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S

did not think the argument of the right rev. Prelate who moved the Amendment had been at all shaken. This was a Bill for Church purposes, and the question was, would the advantage arising from the sale of these sites, cover the loss arising from the violation of the contract created by the consecration of these burial-grounds?

LORD CRANWORTH

said, that it would be extremely difficult for any one to prove that a particular piece of land had been specially consecrated as a place of burial; and the result of the adoption of the Amendment would merely be to raise uncertainty as regarded the title, and persons would not purchase unless at a diminished value to cover the risk.

THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH

said, if there was any great public necessity for the sale of these sites, he should not object to the measure; but when he found that no such necessity existed, he was disposed to support the Amendment.

THE BISHOP OF OXFORD

said, that in order to meet the objection of the noble and learned Lord, he had no objection to add the following words, "Provided also that the validity of such sale should not be questioned by reason of any allegation that the ground had been consecrated." It should be recollected that this was a Bill for Church purposes, and it was not for the Church to propose to disturb these contracts, which were made by the Church, and consecrated by her.

THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH

said, the sale of a church or a burying-ground was as repugnant to his feelings as a layman as it could be to that of a clergyman, and he would only consent to it in cases of extreme necessity; but the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate would, in point of fact, put an end to the practical working of the measure. He regretted that such a Bill as the present should not have been taken up by the Government, as without their assistance the right rev. Prelate would never be able to carry such a measure as would produce the full effect desired. Surely, if they were willing that these sites should be sold for the benefit of railway companies, they would not object that they should be sold for purposes of a purely religious character. The Bill would to a certain extent be useful, but this great question could never be fully settled till it was taken up by the Government.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

said, that believing that the measure was one of great public necessity, he would support the clause as it stood.

THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY

was opposed to the removal of any churches. Let the pews be removed, and good clergymen placed in them, and congregations would be drawn thither.

After a few words from EARL GRANVILLE,

On Question, Whether the said Words shall be there inserted? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 10; Not-Contents 21: Majority 11.

CONTENTS.
Marlborough, D. Oxford, Bp.
Salisbury, Bp.
Carnarvon, E. [Teller.] St. David's, Bp.
Powis, E. [Teller.]
Romney, E.
Denham, L.
Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) Lyttelton, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Campbell, L. (L. Chancellor.) Somerset, D.
De Grey. E,. [Teller.]
Newcastle, D. Ducie, E.
Granville, E. London, Bp.
St. Germans, E. Ripon, Bp.
Bangor, Bp. Cranworth, L.
Carlisle, Bp. Dartrey, (L. Cremorne.)
Cashel, &c, Bp. Harris, L.
Derry and Raphoe, Bp. Kingsdown, L.
Durham, Bp. Wensleydale, L.
Lincoln, Bp. Wodehouse, L. [Teller.]

Clauses 15 to 21 agreed to.

Clause 22 (Providing Funds for Payment of Expenses of carrying Act into execution).

THE EARL OF POWIS

said, he thought it extremely undesirable that when a sum of money had been raised by the sale of these sites, a portion of it should be locked up to remain as a fund for future speculative alterations. It would be merely a temptation to the schemers who surrounded the office of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to propose useless plans for making away with this money.

THE BISHOP OF LONDON

submitted that the objection would be met by an alteration, of which he had given notice; and after a short conversation,

Clause agreed to.

Clause 27 (Appropriation of Seats in Church of United Parish).

THE BISHOP OF OXFORD

objected to the power given to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to meddle with pews. He believed the right rev. Prelate had no objection to the Amendment which he bad proposed, namely, to leave the Bishop to deal with them by faculty.

THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH

said, the opinion he held on this subject might be unpopular, but he objected to pews altogether. It was the old custom, before the Reformation, that there should be no pews at all; and in the church which he attended they had been swept away. Whenever he went to church, he sat with the rest of the people, without the smallest distinction; and it appeared to him that nothing could be so inconsistent with the feelings with which a man ought to attend Divine worship as that he should box himself up in a pew. Take power by all means to knock pews down, but do not provide for building them up again.

Then it was moved to add the following Schedule. The Metropolis (including all Places comprehended in that expression, as defined in the Act 18 and 19 Vict. Cap. 120, intituled 'An Act for the better Local Management of the Metropolis"). "Cities of—

"York, Exeter,
"Lincoln, Norwich,"

The same was agreed to.

The Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday next.

LORD REDESDALE

gave notice of some further alterations which he would move on the third reading. Amongst them was a proposal to give powers for re-seating churches without a union of benefices. There were a great number of sacred edifices in the City, in which there was no provision whatever for those casual visitors, of whom there were always many in London. Last Sunday, however, he was at one (St. Michael's, Cornhill,) that had been admirably restored, and there he found exactly the arrangement which he thought desirable. There was a large congregation; and it appeared to him that if a similar course were adopted at some other of the larger and handsomer City churches—Bow church, for instance—the same result would follow.