(NO. 61.) COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 22 May 1882)

THE BISHOP OF LONDON
said, that, when the Bill was read a second time, the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon) had spoken in strong terms of the non-residence of many of the City incumbents. Now, it was difficult to define residence; but it was the fact that a large proportion of the City clergy were non-resident, and that was a very great evil. Probably, there were many clergy houses which, for a long time past, had been used for business purposes, and it was impossible now to buy them back, except at enormous prices. It was one of the main objects of the Bill to deal with this difficulty, and, as far as possible, to do away with the evil complained of.

THE EARL OF CARNARVON
said, he agreed with the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) that it was desirable, as far as possible, to reduce the evil of non-residence. He hoped, also, that by judiciously arranging the times of the various services to meet the requirements of those who frequented the City another evil, the scanty attendances at some of the churches, might be removed.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW
, in moving to insert words providing that one Commissioner shall be nominated by the Council of the Royal Institute of British Architects and one by the Bishops of Rochester and St. Albans, said, the object of the first was to protect the interests of Art and Architecture in the City churches, and of the second to secure that the proceeds arising from any union of benefices should be applied where most needed in the suburban dioceses of Rochester and St. Albans.

THE BISHOP OF LONDON
said, he saw no objection to the insertion of the Amendment.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW
said, that the area of distribution laid down by the Bill—that of the Metropolitan Board of Works—was much too limited. It would exclude Wimbledon, Croydon, Edmonton, Tottenham, Finsbury Park, and other suburbs. Having in view the enormous increase shown by the recent Census, some allowance ought to be made for the probable increase of population in the suburbs during the next decade. They ought also to recognize the fact that 20 minutes' run in a fast train brought 1227 a residential suburb as near to London as one that was but a mile or two away, without railway communication. He, therefore, proposed to substitute for the area defined by the Bill that of the Metropolitan Police District, as laid down by 2 & 3 Vict., c. 27.

THE BISHOP OF LONDON
said, he would accept the Amendment.

Lord LAMINGTON and The Earl of SHAFTESBURY
supported the Amendment.

THE BISHOP OF LONDON
thought the Commissioners, who would be a Con- 1228 servative body, might be trusted to carry out the objects for which they were appointed.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, that the Commission would he invested with very despotic powers; and, therefore, he was glad that some check was proposed to be put upon them, for he did not think they would necessarily be of so Conservative a character as the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) thought. It was true there was an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; but that could only be on questions of law, as the Privy Council would not interfere on questions of policy. The Commissioners had power to deal with rights of property and other rights which the inhabitants of London had enjoyed for a very long time; and he hoped and believed that they would deal with those rights in a judicial and Conservative spirit. Still, when he recollected the way in which the despotic powers confided last year to the Commissioners under the Irish Land Act had been used, he was not disposed to place despotic powers in the hands of any Commissioners. He, therefore, supported the Amendment.