COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 3 May 1872)

§ THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH
said, he objected to this clause altogether. It might become necessary for the maintenance of the church that a scale of pew rents should be appointed; but if this clause stood part of the Bill there would be a perpetual prohibition of any pew rents. He therefore moved that the clause be omitted, and that the following be inserted in its stead:— 171 It shall be lawful for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, in the exercise and fulfilment of the powers and duties conferred or imposed upon them by the Acts administered by them or any or either of the same Acts, to accept a church site under a grant or conveyance in which it is declared that the pews or seats in the church erected or to be erected on the same site, or some specified portion of the same pews or seats, shall not for the space of thirty years be let for any payment of money, and thereupon it shall be unlawful to let the same pews or seats, or portion of the same, for payment of money during the aforesaid period: Provided always, that at any time during or subsequent to the expiration in any case of the aforesaid period of thirty years, if the bishop of the diocese in which such church is situate shall see fit, a scale of pew rents may be appointed in the same church, by and under the authority of an instrument executed by the said Commissioners with the concurrence of the patron of the church.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK
said, he would support the Amendment of the noble Duke. He objected to the erection of any churches in which the churchwardens would not be able to exercise the power they now had by the law of the land of seating the worshippers in seemly order.

EARL NELSON
would point out to the most rev. Primate that the 5th clause of this Bill expressly reserved power to the churchwardens or other authorized persons of regulating the temporary occupation of church seats, so as that due order and decorum may be observed during the time of Divine worship. The latter part of the noble Duke's clause would utterly defeat the object of the Bill, which would entirely fall to the ground if that Proviso were carried.

THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE
asked their Lordships how the Bill would operate if a wealthy man were building and endowing a church, laying it down as a condition that the seats should not be appropriated as now by the churchwardens. Any alteration in the law would require careful consideration; but if properly guarded it was a privilege which a number of persons throughout the country anxiously desired, and with the concession of which they should be gratified.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, that if their Lordships should create a perpetuity it might cause great inconvenience, and perhaps lead to the scandal of resorting to a special Act of Parliament to set aside the will of some generous benefactor of the Church.

THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL
begged their Lordships to observe that while the Amendment of the noble Duke provided that no money should pass, it did not bind the churchwardens to appropriate seats as they presently did.

THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER
thought it was not desirable that the whole area of a church should be open to be scrambled for by the congregation. He said so in the interest of the poor, for no persons were so modest in the way of not taking good seats as the poor. It was, therefore, advisable to keep them from being continually thrust out by the accidental presence of richer and better dressed people. If there was no appropriation of seats poor men and their families would go to the worst part of the church or out of it altogether.

EARL NELSON
said, he would accept the first portion of the noble Duke's Amendment down to the word "period," but omitting the words "for the space of 30 years." But he could not consent to adopt that part of the Amendment commencing with the words "Provided always."