Lords Sitting of 9 May 1882

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Local Government Provisional Order (Highways) * (82).
Second Reading—Union of Benefices (London) (61); Pluralities Acts Amendment (74); Militia Storehouses * (76).
Select Committee—Report—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London) * (56); Elementary Education Provisional Orders Confirmation (West Ham, &c.) * (55).
Report—Married Women's Property * (52–83);

IRELAND—IRISH POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I desire to say a few words with reference to the Notice which stands in my name for Thursday next. On that day I had intended calling your Lordships' attention to the statement recently made by my noble Friend (Earl Granville) with regard to the Irish policy of the Government; and I intended dwelling more particularly on that part of the statement of the noble Earl in which he told us it was the intention of the Government to introduce measures in Parliament for the purpose of strengthening the administration of justice and for the protection of private

  327
  rights. My Lords, I had intended to ask for some information with regard to those measures, and to inquire whether amongst them would be any for the purpose of giving effect to the recommendations of the Juries Committee. I wished to press earnestly on the Government the undesirability of, on the one hand, making large concessions in compliance with popular demands in Ireland, without, on the other hand, carrying out some of those compensatory measures for strengthening the law which were included in the noble Earl's statement. I have since become aware that a Bill for this purpose is shortly to be introduced by Her Majesty's Ministers, and that it will be proceeded with forthwith. Under these circumstances, I do not propose to go on with the Motion of which I have given Notice.

UNION OF BENEFICES (LONDON) BILL.
(The Lord Bishop of London.)
UNION OF BENEFICES (LONDON) BILL.

  (NO 61.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, was understood to say that the facts out of which the necessity for legislation arose involved the consideration of the resident population of the City, compared with that of the rest of the Metropolis, and the rapid increase of the latter as contrasted with the decrease of the former—facts which he illustrated by quoting the statistics. The multiplication of railroads and tramways had enabled the working population to leave the crowded districts in which they formerly lived in order to go and reside in the outside or border parishes; and there was, therefore, less use for the churches in the City than there was at the time of their foundation. In his opinion, the churches ought to follow the people. The old diocese of London had been altered, part being annexed to the diocese of St. Alban's and part to the diocese of Rochester; and this Bill would include in the parishes which were to be benefited some in those dioceses. In 1860 his Predecessor in the See of London carried the Union of Benefices Act, which was at present in force. It could not be said that that Act had been without results. On the contrary, it had done a considerable amount of good,
  328
  though not so much as was anticipated. Ten unions of benefices had been effected, and nine churches had been taken down. Out of the proceeds 12 churches had been entirely built in the suburbs, while seven or eight others had been assisted in the building. But the proceedings under the Act were extremely tedious. No general plan had been laid down as to what churches might be united. Consequently, the unions that had been formed were those in which it was most easy to obtain the consents of the various parties interested. The unions that had been thus effected were not those which would have been most advantageous, but those which were most practicable. This Bill would give greater freedom to the Commissioners to deal with the subject-matter of the Bill—the removal of some of the City churches, and the re-building of them in outside parishes. It was identical with the Amendment Bill which he brought in in 1872, and which passed their Lordships' House. The same Bill was brought into the House of Commons in the following year, and was there referred to a Select Committee; but it was too late in the Session to pass. The most strenuous opposition to the present Bill came from the Liberation Society. By the passing of the Bill the real intentions with which the City churches were founded would be carried out.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid, that last Session he had called attention to a Return published in The St. James's Gazette which showed how sparsely churches in the City were attended. He had also moved for a Royal Commission. He still thought that a Royal Commission would deal with the subject better than it could be dealt with by a Bill. The success of the Royal Commissions established for similar purposes, he thought, was evidence in favour of that opinion. The Royal Commission which inquired into the revenues of the Episcopal Sees, and out of which issued the present Ecclesiastical Commission, was an instance in point. Such a Commission would take a comprehensive view of the subject, and might frame a Bill with the same end in view as the Bill of the right rev. Prelate. Objections from all quarters might have been heard before such

  329
  a Commission, and the interests of all protected. At the same time, the subject was more likely to command attention when brought forward by the right rev. Prelate than it would be if introduced by himself. He was glad to see that the right rev. Prelate, in the Commissioners whom he had nominated, had endeavoured to secure the representation of many of those who opposed the Bill of 1872; that there was someone to represent the Corporation of London, which was greatly interested in the question; and that power was given to deal with churches in such a way as to admit of the widening of streets, which was so necessary in some parts of the City. The rights of Vestries, as defined in 1860, were by the Bill, he was glad to find, somewhat limited, although care had been taken to preserve their just rights. The claims of the existing incumbents who formed the society known as Sion College, too, had not been forgotten. But he was sorry to see that provision had not been made that those who drew the revenues of the Church should always be members of the Church. The right rev. Prelate did not seem, however, to be aware of the quarter from which the most serious opposition to the Bill would probably emanate, for he had not given in the Bill any power to the Commissioners, beyond what was stated in the Preamble, to deal with the architectural and historical interests of churches. He himself should be inclined to move in Committee that a Commissioner be specially appointed to look after the interests of Art. In the year 1873, when the Bill was in the other House, a Memorial was presented from the Council of the Royal Institute of British Architects praying that the President of that Body might be allowed to report upon cases where, in the opinion of that Body, churches should be preserved or re-erected. In accordance with the spirit of that Memorial, he should move that the person appointed to look after the interests of Art be nominated by the Institute of British Architects. Again, there was in the Bill no provision as regarded funds for the maintenance of churches which it was proposed should continue to exist after the alienation of the endowments. A clause dealing with that matter was, in his opinion, very necessary. With reference to the area of distribution, he thought that
  330
  provision should be made for future as well as present needs. He failed to understand why the parish of Chingford was to be included in that area; while such places as Croydon and Wimbledon, which had grown from 77,000 to 100,000, and 9,000 to 15,000 respectively in the last few years, were to be excluded. He intended to suggest in Committee that the area of distribution should be increased to that of the Metropolitan Police district. On the whole, he congratulated the right rev. Prelate for his attempt to deal with the glaring scandal by which a sum of £30,000 per annum was appropriated to provide for the spiritual wants of an aggregate congregation of 4,000 persons. He felt sure that the Bill dealt with a case where the wishes of the minority ought to give way to the urgent needs of the majority; and he therefore trusted that their Lordships would allow the Bill to be read a second time.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONwas understood to say that he was the last person who would criticize in an unfriendly spirit any measure brought forward by the right rev. Prelate; but he must say he doubted whether this Bill would altogether meet the objects for which it was intended. The essence of the Bill lay in the powers and the constitution of the Commission, which, he maintained, was not sufficiently representative of all the interests involved. Under the City Church Act of 1860 powers were reserved to the Patron and the Vestries; here the Patron had no voice, and the Vestry comparatively little. The hypothesis on which this Bill rested was that population was fast deserting the City. This was not an unnatural opinion, as drawn from the recent Census; but in this vast town, where there were so many eddies and counter-eddies of life and business, small changes might often affect the flow of population. There were signs, though he would not press the argument, that even now such changes in the habits of business as would draw men more towards this great centre were going on. It must be remembered that a reduction in the amount of the Inhabited House Duty would make a vast change in the number of permanent inhabitants in the City, and would, consequently, largely increase the spiritual wants of the district, and the different congregations of

  331
  the various churches. Even as it was, however, the churches were comparatively deserted, not because they were too numerous, but because the necessary services to meet the wants of very large classes were not provided. There was, for instance, a large class of professional men, who came into the City in the morning and who left it in the evening, who would be glad to attend daily services if they were performed at certain times of the day. Instead of that course being adopted, however, the custom was only to open the City churches on Sundays, and to keep them closed during the week. He could remember when the same difficulties existed at St. Paul's; now there was no nobler sight than to see that noble temple crowded with worshippers. It was very greatly a question of services; and if the service was such as to attract the people would not be wanting. Statistics showed that when one of the large City churches in a leading thoroughfare had been thrown open for public worship during Lent some 50,000 persons had attended. One substantial ground of complaint, however, in connection with these City benefices was the non-residence of the City clergy. According to a Return which had been furnished on the Motion of the noble Marquess behind him (the Marquess of Salisbury), and which he had corrected up to date, it appeared that of these clergymen 31 resided in the City, 25 in the country, 13 in the suburbs, and that five had no address at all. [The noble Earl then cited a recent case of Jeremiah Murphy, who, when he was convicted of stealing a book from a bookstall, and was sentenced to two months' imprisonment, pleaded hard that he should be released on bail, on the ground that he had to preach in the Parish Church of St. Olave, Jewry, in the City, as substitute for the Rector.] It was no wonder that, in these circumstances, the City churches should be abandoned by their congregations. It was obvious that this Bill would require a great deal of care and consideration before it was allowed to pass into law. It would disturb many questions which were not altogether safe to touch; and it would raise up opposition from many parts of London. He thought the right rev. Prelate opposite was sanguine if he expected it to pass this year.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONstrenuously supported the Bill, and reminded the House that the principle of a similar measure had been affirmed in both Houses of Parliament in previous Sessions. They had to meet the broad fact that while the population of the Metropolitan area was increasing by something like 40,000 a-year, that of the City had decreased during the last 10 years by something like 2,000 a-year, the City population in 1871 being 74,000, and in 1881 something like 53,000; and yet there were 61 churches, with accommodation for 32,500 worshippers, while the attendance on ordinary occasions only reached one-fifth of the number for whom sittings were provided. If they deducted the "official congregation"—that was the clergy, school children, choristers, &c, only one-tenth of the sittings were occupied. Nevertheless, the endowments of those churches amounted to something like £40,000, and were annually increasing. That state of things, surely, was most unsatisfactory, especially in view of the fact that no adequate means existed for meeting the spiritual necessities of the ever-increasing population outside the City boundaries. The population of London, he thought, had pretty nearly reached its most extreme limits Eastward, owing to the prevalence in that quarter of noxious manufactures; and it was pretty certain that the future extension of the Metropolis would be mostly towards the South and West. Now, the inhabitants of those districts were mostly toilers within the City or near it; from early morning until the dusk of evening their labours were carried on in that district, and yet they were debarred from the endowments which were intended for their benefit. He did not think that the matter was one which could best be dealt with by a Royal Commission. That course would not solve the difficulty, for, having had some experience of Royal Commissions, he knew them to be slow in moving, in addition to which their recommendations, even after they were made, were apt to fall to the ground. Besides, they had before them at the present moment all the evidence they required. Every argument had been already urged, as the matter was not a new one. Twenty-two years ago they had passed an Act dealing with the subject; but, unfortunately,

  333
  that Act had been practically inoperative, only 10 consolidations having taken place under it. The provisions of that Act were far too cumbersome to be effective. He had applied to the Ecclesiastical Commission, and had been shown one case in which, after a correspondence of 300 letters, the scheme proposed proved abortive, as it was impossible to obtain the number of consents required from parishioners. The question could not be treated in a permissive form. Unless it could be regarded as one of great need, no project of reform would be satisfactory. He was very glad, therefore, to find the present scheme was to be strictly compulsory. The question must certainly be dealt with some day, and its difficulty was only increased by delay. It was anxiously looked for by many persons, and, he believed, would tend to the welfare, not only of the Church, but even of those parishes which were deprived of endowments not intended for them. He hoped the Bill would be read a second time, and that any objections to its details would be considered in Committee.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that he had very little to say, and that little had become almost infinitesimal in consequence of what had fallen from the noble Viscount. There seemed to be no real opposition to the Bill, although the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) had certainly dealt with it in the tone of a very candid friend. When the Government were pressed on the question of bringing in a Bill on the subject last year, he stated that, although he could not give a pledge that they would do so, they should be very glad to support any measure emanating from the right rev. Bench or any other quarter, and the present was one to which he was very willing to give his support.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday the 22 nd instant.

PLURALITIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 74.)
(The Lord Bishop of Exeter.)
PLURALITIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 74.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE BISHOP OF EXETER, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time,
  334
  explained that it professed to be an amendment of the present existing Acts upon the subject. Certain changes had become requisite with regard to three or four points to which the amending Act referred; but the most important point was the last, which dealt with the stipend of the curate whom the Bishop was empowered to appoint in case any clergyman was judged unfitted to perform his ecclesiastical duties. The Act of 1838 had fixed the stipend of the curate so low that it was sometimes impossible, as he knew from his own experience at Exeter, to procure a clergyman who would accept the post. These defects the Bill proposed to deal with in the following way. It proposed to define ecclesiastical duties, as not only the regular and due performance of Divine Service on Sundays and other days, but all other duties which had been promised by a clergyman of the Church of England at the time of his ordination, and which might be required of every spiritual person having the cure of souls, and all ecclesiastical duties required by law. Further, instead of the Bishop appointing the Commissioners, the composition of the Commission was fixed by the Bill in such a way as to make it independent of the Bishop altogether. Its members were to consist of clergymen engaged in parochial work; and, on their reporting that the duties were inadequately performed, the interference of the Bishop was to be permitted. It was not proposed to interfere with the appeal to the Archbishop. Provision was made for the compulsory attendance of witnesses, and for their examination on oath. If a Bishop were compelled to appoint a curate, he might assign him an addition not exceeding £70 to the stipend originally required by the Pluralities Act. It was not proposed to interfere with the stipend the incumbent might give; but it was felt that where the Bishop was compelled to make an appointment, he should have the means of paying a stipend which would secure adequate service. The Bishop might require the appointment of two or more curates where the incumbent was nonresident, the population exceeded 2,000, and there were two or more churches not less than a mile apart. A nonresident incumbent would not be at liberty to interfere with a curate during the time of his licence. In dealing with

  335
  vacant benefices, power was given to make more adequate provision for the discharge of clerical duties during the continuance of the vacancy. As there were many cases in which the prescribed distance of two miles between one church and another prevented adequate provision being made, that limitation was struck out; and in order to facilitate the placing of adjacent parishes under one clergyman, it was proposed to increase the allowable distance between the churches from three to five miles. The Bill was based on the recommendations of a Joint Committee of both Houses of the Convocation of Canterbury; and he would not have introduced it if he were not assured that it had the support of the representatives of the parochial clergy, who were quite as desirous as the Bishop could be that the parishioners should have the full benefit of the services of the Church, as far as the incomes of the benefices would make it possible.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Bishop of Exeter.)
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKapproved the general principle of the Bill, but thought some of its details would require amendment. There were provisions in the Bill which were so very vaguely expressed that he must ask the right rev. Prelate to reconsider his definitions, or he feared his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack would have some difficulty, should they come before him, in construing them. For instance, the Bill spoke of duties undertaken by a clergyman at the time of his ordination, while there were no special duties referred to by the Ordination Service. What was required was to enforce the duties that were known to the law, and it was desirable that the enactments of the Bill should be precise and free from vagueness. It would be well that these points should be considered before the Bill went through Committee.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday the 22 nd instant.
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.