The Sun.
London, England, 1837-03-04 00:00:00

Geeeral, Mr. Pitt entirely agreed with him except in one..
point. He thought it unreasonable to give a pretereneeof
one-eighth to the tenant in possession. He said he could
allow no more than one-twentieth or five per cent., and that
was all the favour which was given to the leases then under
the Crown. The principle upon which we wish now to act
was acted upon by the Treasury of that day ; and I have no
doubt the same objections were then made by the Crown
leases as are now made by the Church.—(Cries of Hear.)
A memorial was laid before the Treasury on the part of the
lessees of the Crown, which, from the signatures to it, is en-
titled, in my opinion, to no small weight and consideration.
They set forth that their leases were taken or purchased under
an expectation of renewals upon the payment of the fine, and
a small reasonable increase of rent, in the same manner as the re-
newals under the Crown were granted. They say, that they have
been under the expectation that they had the tame rights as the
Crown leases, which had induced the tenants of the Crown to
lay out large sums of money in the improvement of the land,
and they state further, that securities were given foe the
.for-
tunes of childeen on the faith of these engagements. This
memorial is signed by the Duke of Marlborough, the Duche,34
of Dorset, Lord Essex, the Duke of Leeds, Lord Balcarras, the
Duke of Richmond, and several others. I mention this memorial
to show that one more entitled to weight, from the names
affixed was never addressed to the Treasury. But what did
that lead to ? Did it lead to the result of setting aside the ar-
rangement of Mr. Pitt? On the contrary, these arrangements
were preserved, and the result was an improvement in the
Crown lands, as it gave to those who possessed the property
a far wore permanent tenure. It may be well to mention
before I pass this subject by, that in this memorial they stated
that the terms imposed upon the Crown lessee are so very hard
that parties will never accept them. Now, I have had the curiosity"
to get a return of the number of persons who signed the peti-
tion, which stated that the Crown dealt in so very harsh a
manner, and I find this to be the result—that there were 85
persons represented by the memorial, and those who refused to
renew amounted only to the small number of 15. Fifty-
one renewed, and the 18 remaining were only prevented from
renewing because the land in question had been bought IV,
I have, therefore, first the authority of the Legislature of the
country in taking this step in respect to the improvement of
Church lands, as it was taken in the improvement of Crown
lands, and that too without any injury whatever to the lessees
themselves. Now, Sir, I shall endeavour to bring my concluding
observations within a narrow compass. I have endeavoured first
to show to the House that the present state of the law
is that which cannot be defended. I have endeavoured to
show that various remedies have been suggested, to which in
my mind objections more or less existed. I have endeavoured
to describe to the House the nature of the remedy which I
propose ; and then I bring that forward, recommended by the
fact of the result being produced in money, and next, that it
is supported by direct precedent. lam not one to undervalue
the rights of the Church in this matter—far from it. But will
Gentlemen carry their opposition so far as to say that- the
Church in its temporal matters is more sacred and inviolable,
and to be viewed as of greater importance than the rights
of the Crown ? Will Gentlemen say that the lessees
of the Church are entitled to more consideration than the
lessees of the Crown? They stand precisely on the same
tooting. The Church property I view in the same light as I
view the Crown property. The Church lessees I view pre-
cisely in the same ratio of importance as I view the Crown
lessees. And if that be so, we have got the authority of the
Legislature for our proposition. We are entitled to say that
our remedial measures are adapted to the evil, and supported
by precedent.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Now, Sir, what
will be the consequence? I know that Gentlemen are
very apt when any one from this side of the House expresses
his attachment to the Established Church—as a Member 01
that Church—l know there is too frequently a disposition from
gesture, or from interruption, to signify a distrust of that de-
claration.—( Hear.) Sir, it will be for this measure to speak
for itself. It will be for Gentlemen to weigh this measure in
reference to the effects it is likely to produce, and see whe-
ther it will be likely to produce them.—( Loud cheering.)--
Judging from events, and the importance of those events,
I believe it is as far back, though certainly in a different sense,
as far back as the year 1237, that one of our ancient statutes,
begins by a warning to adopt circumspection. If circum-
spection was necessary in 1237, it is above all necessary ill
1837 ; because, if you do ,not touch this subject with the
greatest circumspection and care, you will be sure w
be stigmatised as an enemy to the Church and as on(
who wishes to overthrow that Establishment.—( Hear, hear.)
I say then the Church will derive great benefit from this ar.
rangement. Is it nothing that the Church should arrive at
a time of rest and peace on the subject of Church-rates ?
( Hear, hear. ) Is it nothing to the Church of EnglaM
to say that there shall be a time when there shall be ne
more annual meetings at which discord will arise, ant
at which theological arguments are mixed up with the eees.
time of money payments. I think theological argument
are bad things when taken up with a spirit of virulence
They are dangerous to religious sects, and if you warn
to bring a particular sect into derision, have recourse t(
a theological argument connected with a money payment—
let the place of discussion be a popular meeting, t
which all persons arc admitted—if you wish to endanger are
Institution, if you wish to change Christian security into hatre,
and malignity, continue that system of distraction ; but it is the
system which it is the object of my Bill to terminate.—(Lote
and continued cheering.) Again, I say, the Churcl
would have a direct benefit in the improvement which would le
given to the Church lands of this country, and I say that ever
thing which improves the condition of the Church would int'
prove the condition of the Clergy.—( Hear, hear, hear.
Now, I wish to touch this part of the subject veil
lightly ; but arc there no such things as suspicions of proceedioki
with regard to Church leases that bring the clergy of this coup
try into contempt ? I say the mode in which the leases hay,
been granted, the mode in which these leases have been pro
vided, and further, I say, the power which a young Bisho]
or young Dignitary has of running hii life against the inte
rest of the lease, introduced a collusion, and introduced
jealousy which was any thing but creditable to all parties
I find in this pamphlet of Sidney Smith, to which I befor
referred, in speaking of the mode in which the patronage °
Bishops is disposed of, these words :—" The worst case i
that of a superannuated Bishop ; here the preferment is give
away by the wives, daughters, or sons, persons utterly una(
quainted with ecclesiastical patronage, and the poor (Vin
man's hand is guided to the signature of papers, the conten'
of which he is unable to comprehend."—(Hear.) But if tb
be true with respect to the patronage of Bishops in the Churcl
does it not become equally true with respect to the leases
Bishops ? And will not any plan which puts the leasing pow,
of the Bishops upon a better principle, and removes, I tvi
nut say the temptation, but the suspicion of yielding
to tin
temptation, be beneficial to the Church ?—( Hear, hear.
New, if there be an advantage in this to the Bishops, I hum
bly contend there is an enormous benefit to the lessees. Lc
it not be said, for the purpose of raising an argument here--
or let it not be said elsewhere, for the purpose of raisin, of
stacics to the passing of this Bill—that the Church lessee has
defined legal right capable of enforcement, and one for which h
is entitled to receive compensation. lie has no such thing---b
stands precisely in the same position as the Crown Lesse
does, and I am almost afraid of being guilty of the appearano
of pedantry in referring to a legal authority. I will take th
liberty of referring to the observations of Mr. Butler in- hi
edition of Coke upon Lyttleton, upon the question of TTitherights. Ile says that the granting of tenants a preference beycit
that of strangers, or the giving them a preference which is calls
the tenant's right of renewal, is peculiarly applicable to leas'
from the Church, or leases from the colleges. These lii
produced what was called the tenants' rights, but although al
tempts bad been made to establish the right of the landlord I
renew, it was still a matter of favour and chance. Sir, I will so
further, that those who are concerned in the ecclesiastic,
leases know what they have now to submit to, not onlY
the shape of renewals but fees, and they know that every 10
is a matter of great charge for Bishops, secretaries and officer
All this will be abolished under the proposed Bill. They sv,i,
also have the power of exchanging Church lands i`
others, which at present they arc unable to do. IWe
Sir, to read to the House an instructive passage from a spec(
which was delivered upon this subject in the House of Coo
mons so lung ago as the year 1600; and may serve as a f:
specimen of what is called the wisdom of our ancestors. An is
was introduced into this House to prevent Bishops from givit
leases in remainder, until within three years of the expiration ;
current leases. A country gentleman stood up and opposed t
Bill, contending that it would be prejudicial to the Church,
the Bishops, an to their servants. The Bishops, he said, i4le
hardly dealt with. They had a great deal to pay and but lit!
to receive.—(" Hear, hear," and a laugh.) The greateet
°
come enjoyed by any of the Bishops was 2,5004 a year.
(Cheers from the Ministerial Benches.)
Colonel SIBTHORP—That was two hundred years. ail'
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER-4:h'
well. But this is not all. Let me go on.
Gentleman proceeded : " The highest income °1
Bishop is no more titan 2,5001. a year; and out
that he has to pay a subsidy of 5001. a-year to the Crown' „
(Cheers.) Now if the Hon. Gentleman opposite whoso
mark implied that the income of 2,5001. was at that ea
equal to what the income of a Bishop is at present--( fel
hear)—the Hon. Member agrees with me. Very well. Butts
cannot object to raise the nominal amount of the subsidy ellfroi
same principle.—(Cheers, and a laugh.) The speech 're-:
which I have quoted goes on to argue that it would be a g an
hardship to the Bishops who were so poorly provided ibrh'oal
who had that heavy subsidy to furnish, that they 561
not be able to provide for their old and faithful
vants, by granting them those leases in remainder. bis,
the chief ground on which he opposed the Bill was top.
For, Sir," said he, " I am myself the father of a 13's e- tt
_( Cheers.) Thus it was not because the interests •°f tics
Church or of the tenants of the Church, or public Pose
would be injured by the Bill that he opposed it, hot bc,eee•
he was the father of a Bishop.—( Hear, and cheei-eo!
Gentlemen on both sides of the House cheer this•
who say that it should belong to the Church, and theseceei
maintain that it should be the property of the lessee pet
this; but if those be right who maintain that it is the prc°oo
of the Church, then they take it from the lessee keep
hear, hear)—and if the lessees have a right to of
for themselves, then the Church must be deprive° to ti
Therefore let those who consider that it should belong fit t
Church and the lessees vote with me for the application °;
Church-rates, but let them not confederate ; let not th°t it 1(
wish to get it for the Church, and those who wish to ge
the lessee unite, for it cannot be applied to two °nPtilraa
objects.—( Hear, hear, hear.) The Right Hon• things
opposite cheers me.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, this br,buee
to the consideration whether this surplus belongs to the riot 1,1
not.—( Hear, hear.) Sir, I maintain that it doe: therm
long to the Church, but to the State, and I have an “of tb
to that effect, on which—and I intreat the attenti.onfooodet
House to this authority—on which this supposition Lent, (re!
in order that I may protect myself and the Gove2nu'rch pfc
the accusation that we are interfering with the (-43