HL Deb 11 July 1881 vol 263 cc479-91
THE EARL OF ONSLOW

, in rising to call attention to a statement recently published in the "St. James's Gazette" purporting to be a census of the City of London churches alleged to have been taken on the morning of Sunday, 1st May, 1881, by which it appears that at 57 churches, all situate within one square mile, with, according to the Ordnance Map, 31,055 sittings, and, according to the Clergy Directory, an annual income of £40,266, the total present were 6,731, of which number 571 were officials and their families, 706 choristers—mostly paid, 227 paupers for alms, and 1,374 school children, leaving as general ordinary congregations 3,853—namely, 1,227 men, 1,796 women, and 830 children; also to the present population of the City of London (for which, in addition to the churches, St. Paul's Cathedral and the Temple Church are also available) compared with the population in 1801–81; and to move— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to issue a Commission to inquire into the working of the Union of Benefices Act, 1860, and the state of the several ecclesiastical parishes in the City of London with reference to their population, and to the value of the benefices attached to them, with a view to the suggestion of such further union of benefices, disposal of the sites of churches, and application of the funds arising therefrom, as may, with due regard to the architectural and historical features of the existing edifices, be more conducive to the efficiency of the Church in the Metropolis and its vicinity, said, that, for his purpose, it would be advisable to take only those churches which were situate within the City walls, as those on the edge of the City, such as St. Botolph, Aldersgate; St. Andrew, Holborn; St. Bride, Fleet Street; St. Giles, Cripplegate; and St. Botolph, Aldgate, drew their congregations principally from without the City. Taking, then, those within the City walls, it would be seen that of 48 churches the congregations in 13 did not exceed 20; in 28 churches it did not exceed 50; and in only 4 did it exceed 100. The capacity of the 48 churches was 10 times that required for the congregation (exclusive of officials). The officials, choristers, recipients of charity, and school children constituted three-fourths of the whole congregation; a chorister was supplied for every fourth person, and an official for every six. The total actual congregations did not exceed more than 2,300, or an average of 48 to each church; the stipendiary portion, exclusive of incumbents and curates, consisted of 21 lecturers, 513 choristers, 374 officials, with their families, and the emoluments amounted to an average of upwards of £1,000 to each church. These statistics were taken under the superintendence of one of the most efficient clerks and accountants in the City, who employed for the purpose some 80 clerks, a body far more reliable than that of necessity employed in taking the Imperial Census. Their Lordships were fully aware of the increasing depletion of the City at night, which had been going on for many years; but it was not until the latest Census was laid on the Table of the House that the extent of this could be fully appreciated. And it should be borne in mind, in considering the figures which ho was about to lay before the House, that a largo number of those who were compelled to sleep in the City rarely lost an opportunity of absenting themselves from it during the day on Sunday, especially in summer. In the year 1801, the population of the City was 156,859; in 1811, it fell to 120,909; and did not vary greatly until 1861, when the population was 112,063. The fall in the next decade was rapid. In 1871, there were only 74,897; and the recent Census showed that that had fallen still further to 50,526, of whom only 18,712 resided within the City walls. During the same period the population around London had been increasing at a marvellous pace. He would not enter into the statistics of the East End, knowing that the spiritual wants of that population might be safely left in the hands of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London), further than to say that, with the exception of Hackney, the districts in the East, such as Shore-ditch, Whitechapel, and St. George's in the East, showed a slight decrease of from 2 to 9 per cent. If they turned to the South and West of London, and to the county of Surrey, in which he (the Earl of Onslow) resided, and of whose spiritual necessities he might, therefore, claim to have some knowledge, they would find that the increase had been stupendous. In the districts of Fulham, Hampstead, Wandsworth, and Kensington the increase had been 198, 137, 186, and 85 per cent respectively; and, in the registration district of Fulham, the increase had been 50,000; while in that of Battersea it had increased by 54,000, nearly exactly doubling the population of 1871, and the increase being greater in that one district alone, within 10 years, than in the whole population of the entire City of London. South London, hitherto the centre of the market gardening industry, was now becoming covered with a mushroom-like growth of small bow-windowed houses, inhabited by that class, almost exclusively, whose daily avocations lay in the City. He knew of one contractor, and that only one of many, who had contracted to build 1,000 of these houses, turning them out at the rate of four a-week, which were filled before they were dry, often with two families. It should be observed that while the area of the Metropolis North of the Thames covered 50 square miles, the area South of the river covered 68; and that while the increase of the population in the 20 years from 1851–71 for the entire Metropolis was at the rate of 34 per cent, the increase in the Southern part of it had been at the rate of 57. It should also be known that while the increase in the rateable value in the Metropolis might be calculated to be three times greater than the increase of population, in the South of London it was at the rate of 127 per cent, against 104 per cent for the entire Metropolis, while the increase from 1871 to 1881 had been in still greater proportion. The Metropolitan counties showed no exception to that growth, that of Surrey being no less than 1,344,000 in the decade. It could scarcely be supposed that spiritual provision could have kept pace with that gigantic increase. It was esti- mated by the Secretary to the Bishop of Rochester's Fund that at least four churches should be built immediately, and an endowment of £10,000 a-year secured to give church accommodation and spiritual ministration to the population of South London in that diocese. It was impossible that the inhabitants of these houses, hardly able as they were to pay their rent, could find the funds necessary for the purpose of erecting and endowing additional churches; what more natural, therefore, than that the endowments of the empty City churches should follow those for whose good they were intended to their new homes? He did not wish it to he supposed that no efforts had been made in this direction; on the contrary, the most rev. Prelate and the right rev. Prelate, during their Presidencies over the See of London, had both done their utmost to lessen these anomalies. The right rev. Prelate had succeeded in diverting a sum of £5,500 a-year for church purposes without the City; nor had the right rev. Bench been less active in Parliament. In the year 1860 a Bill was brought in by the most rev. Prelate for the union of benefices, the opponents to which, however, succeeded, ere it passed into law, in introducing clauses with, he (the Earl of Onslow) believed, the avowed design of impeding the objects which were sought to be obtained. The process under this Act might thus be described—The Bishop of London issued a Commission to certain Commissioners; they made a return to him as to the terms of the proposed union. Those proposals were then completed, and submitted to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for consideration. When these proposals came before the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, they had had the general assent of the Vestries, and of the patrons, and of the Bishop of the Diocese. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners then considered the proposals which were put before them; and if they thought they were consistent with the provisions of the Act, and could properly be carried out, they expressed their approval of them, either with or without modifications, and then copies of that scheme were sent to the Vestries and to the patrons of the cures affected. They were allowed two months under the Act to consider any alterations or modifications which the Ecclesiastical Commis- sioners might have inserted; and when their replies were received, the scheme was again brought up before them, and when the necessary assents were given, or the objections overruled, the scheme was, by direction of the Board, laid before Parliament, and after the expiration of a period of two months from that time, the sealed copy was sent to the Privy Council Office with a view to ratification by Her Majesty. When the scheme had been ratified and published in The London Gazette, the subsequent proceedings in carrying out the terms of the union commenced. The consents contemplated by the 17th section of the Act being obtained, the first process generally was the removal of the fittings of the church which was to be pulled down, taking care of the sacramental plate, the font, Communion table, and all things which were not to be sold, and then the arrangement for the removal and re-interment of the human remains which were under the church. That was usually a very long process, and when everything of that kind was complete, then the sale of the site took place. Their Lordships would observe that it was necessary to conciliate two bodies whose veto was absolute. The first and most difficult to deal with was the Vestry, a body which had passed into a proverb for narrow-mindedness and incapacity for organization. The length of time also necessary for the completion of the scheme frequently allowed of a complete change in the constitution of that body, which was at all times a small one, and swayed by the minds of one or two of its more active members. With the patrons of the livings less difficulty might be experienced in the City than elsewhere, inasmuch as they were, for the most part, what he might term public bodies. The patronage was thus disposed of.

In the gift of—

£
Bishop of London 10,584
Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's 5,565
Archbishop of Canterbury 4,240
Lord Chancellor 4,081
£
Drapers' Company 950
Grocers' Company 813
Mercers' Company 165
Merchant Taylors' Company 1,250
3,178
Five Trustees for St. Olave's, Hart Street 2,100
Parishioners 1,511
£
Crown 1,215
Corporation of London 1,136
Dean and Chapter of Westminster 1,108
Dean and Chapter of Canterbury 1,034
Balliol College, Oxford 340
St. John's College, Oxford 550
890
Corpus Christi College, Cambridge 584
Magdalen College, Cambridge 292
876
Simeon's Trustees 496
Eton College 340
Committee of St. Benet's Welsh Church 300
St. Bartholomew's Hospital 250
Six Private Patrons.
Duke of Buccleuch 1,095
Trustees of W. Phillips 850
Mrs. Birch 400
H. G. Watkins 225
Sir Henry Peek, Bart., M.P. 200
Mrs. Storketh (Reprs.) 140
2,910
£41,814

He believed that if some power were given to override the caprice of the Vestries far more might be done than hitherto had been effected; for it could not be denied that self-interest was the ruling spirit amongst these bodies, which was clearly exemplified in the case of the union of St. Benet's, Grace-church Street, with another benefice. In that instance, the scheme was assented to, gazetted, and became law; but then, under the 17th section of the Act—where four consents of Her Majesty's subjects were required, after she had signed it, to the pulling down of the church—the late Archdeacon of London exercised his veto on the church coming down, and the reason was because it was not to be sold by tender, he objecting to having it sold by auction; the consequence of his refusal was that they were obliged to have a supplementary scheme to change "auction" into "tender." The parishioners then woke up and said—"Well, but now we will have something; we will not give our consent to the supplementary scheme, unless £4,000 is given to us as a reparation fund;" and it was obliged to be given. Then they said—"We will stand out that the Commissioners of Sewers shall have these two frontages for nothing;" that was resisted; a long battle was fought as to what the money should be; ultimately they agreed to £3,000, so that it was calculated that £12,000 must have been the loss to the church.

He believed that if a Royal Commission was granted which could consider the City parishes as a whole, and which would have the public confidence, they might recommend a large scheme for the union of benefices, selecting at once those churches which, from their historical or architectural interest, should not be touched, forming them into mother churches for groups of parishes, to serve a real, not a phantom, population, and, where that might not be the case, they might transfer their wealthy endowments—leaving sufficient to repair the fabrics—to some of the adjacent districts, whose spiritual destitution he had pointed out. Thus those who worked in the City by clay, and for whom these endowments wore intended, would derive the benefit from them to which they were entitled, while a principal weapon would be removed from the enemies of the Church of England as to the alleged great waste of her rich possessions. He begged, in conclusion, to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice. Moved, that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to issue a Commission to inquire into the working of the Union of Benefices Act, 1860, and the state of the several ecclesiastical parishes in the City of London with reference to their population and to the value of the benefices attached to them, with a view to the suggestion of such further union of benefices, disposal of the sites of churches, and application of the funds arising therefrom, as may, with due regard to the architectural and historical features of the existing edifices, be more conducive to the efficiency of the church in the metropolis and its vicinity.—(The Earl of Onslow.)

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

said, he quite concurred in the sentiment that this was a question that could only be dealt with by a Bill in Parliament. There could be no question that in the City of London there was great waste of ecclesiastical power. They had there a large number of churches with no congregations to fill them on the Sunday. For years the population of the City had been steadily diminishing, and that of the suburbs increasing. There were very few clergymen of such exceptional abilities as to tempt the people back to the City churches from their residences in the suburbs. So far as regarded the Union of Benefices Act, the machinery was of far too cumbrous a character to render it workable, and the result was that no- thing had been done under it which was worthy of the name of reform. He confessed that his experience was that unless the recommendations of Royal Commissions were backed up by the aid of the Government they very often failed in their object. In point of fact, the success or failure of a Royal Commission depended very much on the encouragement given to them by the Government of the day, and he instanced the case of the Alkali Commission as an example. In regard to the present question, he pointed out that a very large amount of evidence had already been taken on the subject. There had been an attempt to introduce a general measure by a private Member in the other House; but they all knew how very little chance a private Member had of getting a Bill through unless the subject had the hearty sympathy of the Government. He would suggest that if Her Majesty's Government saw its way to supporting any measure on this question, the Ecclesiastical Bench were well able to deal with it. He thought that a Bill dealing with the question would be a more satisfactory solution than the issue of another Royal Commission; but if the Government thought otherwise, if they wished to be fortified with another Royal Commission, then he should support it in preference to nothing being done. At all events, looking at the great importance of the question, he hoped that it would be dealt with at no distant date.

THE BISHOP OF LONDON

said, he should have preferred to have the matter left over until another Session of Parliament, when something practical might be done; but as the subject had been brought forward he could not avoid offering a few words on the question. The population of the City of London had been reduced to 52,000, which was 900 less than the increase of only one of the parishes referred to—that of Kensington, and for that population there were 60 churches. But even the sleeping population was much larger than the average Sunday population, for a large number of those who lived in the City left it on the Sunday. Meanwhile the population of the suburbs had increased enormously; and whole towns had been built and inhabited by artizans and others of a class quite unable to provide themselves with churches and clergy. The action of the Union of Benefices Act had done something to cause this disproportion. Of the 70 churches in the City nine had been removed and 12 built in the suburbs entirely, and eight others materially aided. But the Act was too cumbrous to work effectually and required two many consents. It was said that if these City churches were properly served, and if the services in them were made attractive, they would be filled. Those who argued thus pointed to St. Paul's as an example. But it must be borne in mind that there was a limit to the supply, and if the population went to fill one church another church must suffer. Others deprecated any attempt to reduce the number of the churches on the ground that they were ornaments to the City of London; but he ventured to say that a large proportion of the 60 City churches were passed by hundreds and thousands of people who never observed that they were churches at all. The question then was—Could it be maintained that this large number of churches, with a diminished surrounding population, should be left untouched, while the wants of the increasing suburbs were so great? The great difficulty, as had been stated by the noble Earl, was as to the rights of the incumbents, and others interested in the maintenance of the churches. All these had vetoes. In consequence of the difficulties thus interposed, there was hardly any means of dealing with the City churches at all. The present state of things, however, was acting injuriously to the Church, inasmuch as it prevented many who were willing to assist in Church extension from giving that help while there existed that disproportion of churches to population that was seen in the City of London. But he ventured to doubt whether a Royal Commission would expedite a settlement of the question. The proceedings of a Commission would cause much delay; the facts were already known, and the question was one which should be settled as soon as possible. In his view, the best way to deal with it was by Act of Parliament. He trusted that next Session the question would be taken up by the Government, when, it was to be hoped, more time could be devoted to such a subject than could possibly be expected now, and he hoped that they would then arrive at some settlement of this difficult question. He quite agreed that they ought to proceed on one general plan, and pointed out that a Bill founded on that basis, which he introduced in 1873, was considered by a Select Committee, and passed their Lordships' House. If any Bill was again brought in, he hoped that it would deal with the question by way of a general scheme.

THE ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY

said, he felt called upon to defend the ecclesiastical patrons of benefices in the City of London from any charge of opposing difficulties in the way of settling this question. It was a great mistake to suppose that the ecclesiastical patrons as a body were opposed to the union of benefices allowed by the Act of 1860. Certainly he could speak on that point for the right rev. Prelate the (Bishop of London) and himself. Never, so far as he knew, had they offered any objection to the removal of City churches which were not required, and the erection of them where they were much wanted. On the contrary, perhaps it was worth noting, considering the use that had been made of these statistics elsewhere, to call attention to the fact that all movements for the improvement of the City in this respect had emanated from the Episcopal Bench. It was found by experience that no improvement could be effected when the origination of the movement was left to the Vestry, because the controlling power of the Vestry was generally the Vestry clerk, and as the Vestry clerk was very unwilling that his parish should disappear, it was very difficult indeed to get a Vestry to move in the matter. He was quite sure of this—that every well-wisher of the Church of England was desirous to see such an anomaly as the noble Earl had so well pointed out removed, consistently with the principles of justice. At the same time, he ought to remark that the effect of the Act for the Union of Benefices had been that 10 churches in the City had been removed in 20 years, which was a considerable result, and the funds derived from the removal had formed a fund to erect 12, and partly eight more, in the suburbs. The existing law might be cumbrous; but he did not think it was much more cumbrous than the necessities of the case, except in the number of consents, required. The difficulty was that the churches had to be dealt with one by one. He did not think a Commission could add anything to the information that had already been obtained. What was wanted was a vigorous effort, if he might be allowed to say so, on the part of those who had the control of Parliament, to carry this question to a solution. There was no slowness on the part of the Episcopal Bench or the clergy, though there might, no doubt, be interested persons who were not willing that their livings should be interfered with during their own lifetime; but there was great slowness on the part of Parliament in adopting a general measure. The matter required to be dealt with cautiously. He thought that the only mode in which much could be done, under the difficulties of the case, would be by the Government introducing some such measure as had been suggested by his right rev. Brother.

LORD HOUGHTON

said, that, looking at the question from an æsthetic point of view, it was a great pity that these fine old architectural edifices, some of which were products of the genius of Sir Christopher Wren and other eminent architects, should be pulled down and ruthlessly destroyed. He thought it would be a good plan, if any of these churches were found not to be requisite for religious services, to put them to other uses, and especially to make them available for educational purposes. He believed the School Board for London, if they were handed over to that body, could utilize them to great advantage in the promotion of higher education in the Metropolis.

EARL GRANVILLE

agreed that the noble Earl (the Earl of Onslow) had raised a very useful discussion, and had adduced facts tending primâ facie in favour of an alteration of the existing law. He thought, however, it was not probable, after the discussion that had taken place, that the noble Earl would carry the question to a division. He agreed in almost all that the noble Earl and those who followed him had said, but thought he had been fully answered by the difficulties which had been pointed out by his right rev. and most rev. Friends. No doubt the evil was a great and increasing one; but he very much doubted whether the mere fact of appointing a Commission would tend to expedite legislation on it, because that was certainly not his experience with respect to other Bills; and considering that this subject had been on more than one occasion referred to a Committee, he thought it would be worse than useless to send it to another. There were several views to be taken of this subject. There was the sentimental and aesthetic, so well represented by his noble Friend (Lord Houghton) and those who agreed with him, who thought the churches might be utilized for other purposes. If it could be shown that of a certain number of churches some were absolutely useless for religious purposes, but could be made use of for very important moral purposes, he, for one, certainly would not object. There was, however, this difficulty in the way of the suggestion of his noble Friend (Lord Houghton), that if there were no people to go to church there would be nobody to go to school. It appeared, moreover, that the greatest difficulty was with the Vestry clerks, and he doubted whether the Report of a Royal Commission would have very great effect upon them. It had been suggested that the Government should deal with the question. This was not a very opportune moment for making that suggestion, and certainly he could give no undertaking in the matter. To him it seemed that the question was one which would most fitly be dealt with by those persons who took an intelligent view of it, such as had been expressed in the House that night, communicating with the right rev. Bench. Any proposals that might be made as a result would not meet with discouragement from the Government.

LORD DENMAN

said, the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) had expressed a wish for something practicable. He (Lord Denman) could recollect the removal of a house stone by stone and timber by timber to a distance of three miles; and he thought that churches might be removed to the more healthy places to which City congregations had migrated, and even their ministers go with them.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, he thought their Lordships would share his opinion that the speech in which the noble Earl had introduced this question was most interesting. Nevertheless, the state of mind of noble Lords was rather nebulous in regard to the question. They all desired some improvement in the present state of things; but even the noble Earl himself did not appear to perceive more clearly that the rest of the House the precise mode in which that improvement could be made. He would not, therefore, express any opinion on the general subject; but he agreed with the most rev. Primate that the difficulty had always been the Vestry and the Vestry clerk. A letter had been sent to him by the Rev. W. J. Hall, President of Sion College, who took very grave exceptions to the kind of evidence on which this movement was based. The rev. gentleman said that in the Return 125 was given as the number of his congregation. The rev. gentleman demurred to the census being taken exclusively on Sunday morning, and stated that the number of attendances in his church in the years 1876, 1877, 1878, 1879, and 1880, were 117,500. These figures showed a yearly average of 23,500, or a weekly attendance of something like 450 persons, which would not seem an inadequate number for the spiritual ministrations of a single incumbent. He did not venture to state any opinion in opposition to that which both spiritual and temporal Members of that House had expressed as to the existence of a grievance which required redress; but ho had merely said these few words in order to impress on their Lordships' Minds that these statistics ought to be received with care.

Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.