The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-23 00:00:00

he proposed taking a vote for 300,0001. If he was dis-
appointed in that hope, he would have to ask for an ad-
ditional vcte.

Mr. HUME said his communications from the Cape
led him to believe that the expense would be upwards of
1,000,0001.

Mr. ADDERLEY asked from what revenue the two
commissioners would be paid who had been sent out?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
proposed they should be paid by this country.
The nomination of the Committee on the income-tax
was postponed till this day.
On the order of the day for considering the Lodging-
houses Bill,

Lord ASHLEY said he propoged referring it to a
Selo et Committee.

The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
The House adjourned at 20 minutes past One o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS, May 22.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Wo3l.
sack at Fiv© o'clock.

PETITIONS.

The Duko of NEWCASTLE presented a petition
from Newark against Papal aggression.
The Duke of ARGYLL presented several petitions
from places in Scotland to a similar purport.
Earl FORTESCUE presented several petitions from
places in Devonshire against Papal aggression; also a
petition from Barnstaple in favour of the Copyhold En-
-1 ranchisement Bill.

Lord STANLEY presented a petition against the
Episcopal and Capitular Estates Management Bill from
the Dean and Chapter of Wells (es we understood).
PROPERTY-T Al BILL.

On the motion of the Marquis of LANSDOWNE this
Bill was read a third time and passed.
EPISCOPAL AND CAPITULAR ESTATES
MA.NAGEUENT BILL.

The Earl of CARLISLE, in moving the second read-
ine, of this Bill, claimed their Lordships' indulgence.
Tne Bill was one of a most complicated nature, on a
subject to which he had not until recently directed his
attention, and ono the provisions of which were sure to
militate against the interests of powerful parties.
He had, however, the encouragement to know that it was
one which was unconnected with party politics, and he
hoped that after giving it a second reading their Lord-
ships would consent to refer it to a Select Committee—
(Hear, hear, from the re
-T-___l-7 benches)—earefully consti-
tuted, when its provisiens might be maturely considered,
sled he hoped that it would not be thought
that by consenting to this second reeding any
peer would be pledged to any one of the provi-
sions of the Bill, or to any principle, except that it
would be advisable to introduce a better management of
Church property, so as to make it more profitable and
more available for ecclesiastical purposee.—(Hear,
hear.) Is was admitted that the present management
of that property was unsatisfactory both to the
lessors and the lessees. It was stated, upon high
authority, that these estates might be let on terms
more advantageous both to the Church and to the
lessees. The Committee of the House of Commons had
reported that the system of fines was equcily unpro-
fitable to the Church and to the lessee, and militated
against the improvement of the property. It had long been
expected that some legislation would take piece on this
subject, and this expectation bad materially interfered
with the formation of agreements between the Church
and the lessees. In 1849 a Commission had been ap-
pointed to consider the subject. In 1850 the Commis-
sioners, who were the Earl of Harrowby, the Dean of
Canterb ary, the present Solicitor-General, Mr. Archbold,
and Mt... Tones, precented two reports, and the Bill now
on their Lordships' table embodied the recommendations
of those two reports. The tenure of the property hold
on lease from the Church, in which he believed there
had been very little variation, at least since the days of
Queen Elizabeth, was by lease fcr three lives, renewable
at the termination of one life; or on lease for terms of
years, either for 21 years, renewable at the end of every
7 years; for 30 years, renewable at the end of every 10
years; or for 40 years, renewable at the expiration of
every 14 years. There were some elites in which the
Church had the power of granting leases for 90 years,
but that was under special Acts of Parliament. The
rent received under these leases had always been very
small in amount, and almost nominal, and the fines re-
ceived in renewal constituted the main portion of the
property of the Church. It appeared that on leases for
lives the system had always been to assees the fines upon
a calculation of 5 per cent. or upwards, that is so as to
secure to the lessee 5 par cent. or upwards on the money
he paid down as his fine. In the case of leases for
terms of-years, the intention had been to give the lessee,
when he paid down his money, interest as high as 7,8,
or 9 per cent. In the most ordinary case, which was a
lease for 21 years, the custom of most dioceses had been
to make the fine equal to a year and a half's purchase of
the annual value of the property to be let. That was
giving the lessee 7 per cent. for his money. Their Lord-
ships were aware that the landed property of this coun-
try generally sold for about 30 years' purchase, which
gave a purchaser not much above 3 per cent. Were he
to get 5 per cent. he would give oniy 20 years' pur-
chase; if 6 per cent. 16i years' purchase; and if 9 per
cent., only 11 years' purchase. It would seem, there-
fore, that there was ample opportunity for making
these estates produce a mush larger income to the
clergy, and at the same time to put the property on a
footing more conducive to the well-understood interests
of the lessees. Of course, very different views had been
entertained as to the principle which ought to regulate
the foal adjustment of this species of property. Some
contended that it should be dealt with as though the
Church had the right and power to run ail the leases out,
and at the end of subsisting terms to come into the full
and undivided enjoyment of the whole property. In the
contrary view, it was assumed by others that the lessees
were entitled, if the aid of Parliament were called in, to
a perpetual renewal upon the same terms as those to
which they had heretofore been accustomed. Let it be
remembered in what position the parties respectively
stood. The bishops and other ecclesiastical dignitaries
could not afford to renew, for they had no other
moans of subsistence. Tho lessee often could wait, and
it was often his interest-to do so, for the church digni-
tary might be in infirm health and not expected long to
remain in the enjoyment of his office, and might be
tempted to renew on disadvantageous terms; and their
Lordships would agree with him in thinking that no class
of men ought to be less exposed to uncertainty and pre-
cariousness of income than those who filled places of
ecclesiastical dignity. Therefore without the aid of Par-
liament it would be impossible to effect an arrangement
which should materially increase the income of the
Church by taking away from bishops or other ecclesi-
astical dignitaries the temptations which they now had
to renew. The recommendation of the Commission was
a compromise between the extreme views which
ho had stated, and this was the object of the Bill which
he then had the honour of introducing to their Lord-
ships. The main ground of compromise which the Com-
mission recommended was to give to the lessees a perpe-
tual right of renewal. This, he admitted, was a very
large concession, but he did not see in what other pos-
siale way they could materially improve the income of
toe Cnurch than by making some terms with the lessees,
who had many ways of making their wishes and just
claims felt in Parliament. It was proposed, therefore,
that leases should have a perpetual right of renewal.
Jle would deal first with leases for Eves. This had
always, upon good grounds, been thought a most objec-
tioeable arrangement. It exposed both parties to the
greatest amount of uncertainty, and rendered insurances
necessary. It was therefore proposed to convert all
leases for lives into leases for an equivalent term of
years. There were special cases which might render
it undesirable to substitute a term of years in all cases of
this description of tenure, and power would therefore be
given to the Commissioners, whom it was proposed to
ap,Point to leave the tenure undheturbed in these cases,
only substituting a term of years for the last life. Thus,
Gradually, all leases would be under the same category
of leases for years. How were these to be dealt with?
He would take the instance referred to by the Com-
missioners by way of illustration. A farm or estate,
worth 1001. a year, was to be let on lease for 21 years,
and, at the expiration of the first seven years, the
lessee would be entitled to have a lease for seven years
more to be added to the fourteen remaining unexpired.
It had been ascertained that the septennial payment of a
fine of a year and a half's purchase, or 150/., was equi-
lent as nearly as possible to a rent of 251. a year, to com-
mence, as it was said, in prcesenti. If the lessor should
choose to run his lease out he would for fourteen years
receive no fine whatever, but at the end of fourteen years
would become entitled to the full enjoyment of 100/.;
and it had been ascertained that the payment of 1001. a
year to commence fourteen years hence, which was the
extreme right of the lessor, would be equivalent to 631.
a year. The present receipts of the lessor might be
computed to be equivalent to 25/. a year, and his extreme
rights to about 631. a year, a difference which gave an
ample margin for adjustment; and the Commissioners
proposed to divide the advantages in the following way
—that henceforth the septennial fine should be paid to
the Church calculated at the same rate of interest as at
present, but only on a part of the annual finable value,
and at the end of the now existing term an annual rent
should be thenceforth paid to the Church equal to the
other half of the annual finable value. To apply the
same instance which he had already given—instead of
paying as now a fine of 150/. upon the renewal of
his lease, the lessee would have to pay 751. as a fine
upon half the annual value, and for the other half he
would have to pay SU/. at the end of fourteen years,
when his interest would have expired. Other equivalent
arrangements were proposed as alternatives, by which
either a rent of smaller amount
might commence at an
earlier period, or the relative proportions
of fine and rent
might be respectively increased or diminished,
rent to IFulshed, or the
whole might be resolved into an immediate
com-
mence at once. But the upshot of the whole transaction
I
was, that the lessor, out of the whole annualv,alnleuototfe
4th 41.
e
property, would receive what would beeq
uilu
`)5/, which
a year, that is, just the precise mean between
was equivalent to the present receipts
ettorefmthee CrihauhrtCs. h, and
e
651., which was equivalent to its -
knew the difficulty which there mustbut be in lu
resultmaking
t the
calculation upon so nice a
arrangement might be stated thus—that
questiota
the Church
lin-
stead of running out the
run out the leases only so fawrhause lease would practically
half of the annual value
of the property was concerned; and instead of renewing
the fine at its present amount on the whole annual value,
it would renew, on half the annual value,
.half of the pre-
sent fine; and thus the Church would gain exactly one-
half of its extreme rights, and the lessee would come
into possession of one-half of his extreme claims. It was
appointed by the ..re precise
tiosfe
rightsuf
proposed to employ the spy of the present Church
Estate Commissioners,
ses-
sion, for the purpose of ascertnaning the e
fine, or the proportion of the fins to tho value of the pro-
perty in each particular instance. They would also be
invested with a further discretion. It appeared from
the evidence taken upon the subject that there wore cer-
tain districts, and more especially in the north of
England, where, either from some extreme notion of an
old right, or from invariable usage, the lessee had been

Y 23 1651,