The Sun.
London, England, 1851-08-05 00:00:00

BILL.

On the motion for the third reading of the above Bill,
and after a few words from Lord AIONTEAGLE,
Lord REDESDALE moved that the Bill be read a
third time that day three months.
Their Lordships divided, when there appeared—
For the Bill ... ... 11
Against
Majority ... —4
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
NEW ZEALAND SETTLEMENTS BILL.
_ _

Earl GREY moved the second reading of this Bill.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE expressed his satisfac-
tion that certain clauses in the original Bill, involving
constitutional questions, which would have caused great
discussion, had been withdrawn.
After a few words from Earl GREY, the Bill was read
a second time. _ _ _

The Board of Health (No. 2) Bill passed through
Committee.

The Board of Health (No. 3) Bill was read a first
mP. _ _ _

The Lunatics (India) Bill passed through Committee,
and was subsequently read a third time and passed.
On the motion of Lord REDESDALE, the CoDec-

Lions of Fines (Ireland) Bill, the Constabulary Force
(Ireland) Bill, the Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Bill,
end the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Bill, were severally read
a first time.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

FIOUSE OF COJIMOIVS, August 4.
(Continued from our Third Edition of yesterday.)

EPISCOPAL AND CAN rULAR ES PATES MA-
NAGEUENT (No. 2) BILL.

The House then west into. Committee an this I3ill.
On clause 1,

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL intimated that an al-
teration had been introduced into this Bill for the pur-
pose of recognising more fully and protecting the claims
of the 1• BSPeS.

Mr. YIGO IT objected to going on at all with the Bill,
because the majority of the II ,use bad left town under
the impression that the Bill had been abandoned for the
present session. The rights of the lessees had never
been brought under consideration before the present
moment. _ _ _ _ _

-----
Colonel SIBTHORP also objected to proceeding fur-
;her with the Bill. _

Mr. HEADLAM thought the best course to adopt
would be to go through the Bill now, and to consider, on
the third reading, whether, after all, it would not be
better to postpone making it law until next session.
Lord H. VANE also contended for the propriety of
protecting the lessees.
Sir J. DUCKWORTH said the Bill was introduced
as a compromise between the ecclesiastical corporations
and the lessees, and was, therefore, essentially permis-
sive in its character; but the words proposed by the So-
licitor-General would render the measure compulsory,
and to that he objected.
Sir B. HALL said that his opposition had arisen from
the late period of the session at which so important a
measure was brought in by the Government, when it
was impossible to do justice to the subject. Millions
were at stake in the matter, and yet the B►ll was urged
on with indecent haste, and if it were passed, precedents,
which would be injurious to the interests of the lessees,
would be established. With regard to the proposal of
the Solicitor-General, ho considered it important that
they should pass those words, and then when the clause
was agreed to they should cease legislation on the sub-
ject, and let the proposition thus approved by Parlia-
ment go as an instruction to tho capitular bodies and
bishops to guide them in their dealings with the lessees.'
As for a permissive measure it would he of no use. Out
of 2,000 tenants which the Bishop of London had, he
had only enfranchised 60. That showed the value_of
permissive measures.
Mr. AGLIONBY approved of the words proposed by
the Solicitor-General, but thought that they ought to
go on with the Bill, and endeavour to im-
prove it. He (Mr. Aglionby) would support the amend-
ment, as he had the greatest confidence in the Church
Estates Commission.

Mr. CARDWELL said the clause was the hinge of the
whole Bill. He contended that the strangest of all
reasons for not making a change of the nature proposed
in the Bill was the tact admitted by the Hon. Member,
that a large number of Members interested in the subject
bad arrived in town to support it. The insertion of the
words in question was a total change of the Bill, and di-
rectly at variance with the recommendation of the
Select Committee. He submitted that they would effect
a change in the law which should not be attempted at
this period of the session, and he called on the Commit-
tee not to assent to such a change without evidence.
There was only one of two courses span—either to
pass a comprehensive Bill to meet the whole subject,
or to pass one which should not change the entire
relations between the lessees and the lessors in the case.

Mr. E. DENISON thought it was just and reasonable
that the words proposed should be aaopted, seeing they
formed part of the report of the Select Committee as
well as of the resolution of the Committee of 1839. At
present there were no rules for the administration of
Church property, because the Commissioners would nut
act until Parliament hAd interfered to trame such regu-
lations. It was, therefore, most important that no mea-
sure should pass that did not include instructions to
these Commissioners. He thenglat the words proposed
were a great amendment to the Bill, and that they were
absolutely necessary. For this reason he should support
the amendment.

Sir H. WILLOUGHBY opposed the insertion of the
words, because it cast a discretion upon the Commission
which it was most unjust to place upon any three gen-
tlemen. It was also doing injustice to the lessees to act
without laying down any regulation. The Bill was not
founded on the report, for it dealt with all kinds of pro-
perty—houses and mines inclusive—though the report of
the House of Lords excepted all but rent-charges and
annuities. Until distinct rules were laid down for the
administration of any class of property the Bill would
be of no advantage.
Colonel SIBTHORP said the speeches of the Right
Hon. Member for Liverpool and the Hon. Member for
Exeter were for postponement of the Bill. Ile (Colonel
Sibthorp) believed the best way would be, to put a stop
to the further progress of the Bill, as to let it go on
would be most dangerous. He should, therefore, move
to report progress.
Sir J. GRAHAM thought the importance of the Bill
was too great to obstruct its further progress, but he
was not prepared to agree to the insertion of the words
proposed without further notice. The question was a
most important one, affecting, as it did, the lessees of
Church property as well as the Church itself, in respect
to the provision for spiritual destitution. Six years ago
(1845) general rules were laid down by the Ecclesiasti-
cal Commissioners in respect of the administration of
their great trust. The Hon. Member for Cirencester
said those rules embodied principles which were dis-
honest, and he complained that, in estimsatifietthe
cent.inte-
rest
of the lessees, two different tables—
and 31 per cent.—were used. But this wastables—as
o the simple
imple
difference between the fee simple and the leasehold, and
he (Sir J. Graham) could not admit its dishonesty. He
could not admit that a bishop was dishonest man; nor
that men like Mr. Hobbouse, Lord a
Chichester, and others
—excluding himself—would be parties to a general rule,
eontrary to their conscience. There was the interest of
the lessee on the one hand, and that of the Church on
the other.—(sear.) He (Sir J. Graham) had always
been opposed to the difference between the episcopal and
common fund, as well as to the fluctuations of the
bishops' incomes, But he held it to be impossible that
the spiritual wants of the community could be hereafter
relieved out of the taxation of the country, seeing the
spread of dissent that unhappily prevailed. That from
which it should be relieved hereafter, therefore, was the
property of the Church, and no trust could conse-
quently be higher or more sacred than that of keeping
up this property. There were seven modes of dealing
with this property on the part of the lessors, and it was
time, therefore, to frame a general system of regulations.
They were discussing a question of four years value of
the leasehold property of the Church, involving millions
—(Hear)—in a House composed, for the greater part, of
lessees or those having an interest of that kind, and
scarcely any one representing the interests of the Church
___(near.). If ever there was an opportunity on the part
of the Legislature of dealing with this point, it was
when the Committee had reported; but six years had,
nevertheless, been suffered to elapse without any at-
tempt to frame resolutions foe the management of this
property. It might be right to say, power for the first
time shall be given to sell the property of the Church.
The principle came down unaltered from the House of
Lords, but to this was added a clause by the Solicitor-
General, that a favourable consideration, as far as lessees
were concerned, should be permitted. He was not pre-
pared to combat either proposition, but considering the
past history of the Church, and the interests of the
people, spiritual more especially than temporal, for Par-
liament at this late period of the session to come to a
decision on such an important proceeding vas, in his
opinion, not safe or expedient.
Lord J. RUSSELL said if it was right to consider
the question, which ho considered it was, as it was in
cainmity with the wishes cf the llouso of Iderdaa-if it

were right to consider the terms on which Church pro-
perty should be dealt with, he did not see how it was
jaet to say that equitable consideration towards lessees
should be lefi out of the case; though with respect to an
alteration of the proposed terms he considered the
House was precluded, by the lateness of the session,
from taking that matter into consideration. He thought
lessees had greater reason to complain than he at first
supposed. What he understood was, that the Ecclesias-
tical Commissioners, on the one hand, ware to make an
agreement with lessees and others for the purchase of
their property; and on the other, that the Church Estate
Commissioners were to have a superintending control, so
that neither the Church nor the public could be injured.
But judging from the course of the debate it would only
be the strict legal right a court of equity Would enforce
which would be attended to, and tne Commissioners
were only to say whether any agreement that might be
come to was within the strict meaning of the law or not.
This was the view of his Hoo. and Learned Friend the
Solicitor-General and several others who represented
the interests of the lessees. Now what was proposed
was not compulsory—binding on the Commissioners—
it only give them a certain latitude to consider cer-
tain things—it empowered them to have a just regard
to any reasonable claims arising from long practice.
There was no question about the character or fitness of
the Commissioners for their office. They had been
jointly ap,:oiuted by the Crown and the Bishops, and in
considering the just and reasonable claims of lessees they
were to be restrained from going beyond what they
might consider a fair and reasonable compensation.
The whole question received itse:f into this: whether
equitable cleuns—not claims that could he enforced in
court of law—should be compensated in any case. He
wished the plan had been placed in another shape before
the House of Lords, it would have been fairer, and be
should have been better pleated than with the Bill as it
at present stood. But he considered the House were not
in a condition to agree to the Bill unless they took care
that the interests of the leeees in some degree were re-
garded. He could not deny that when it had been the
practice for ecclesiastical corporations to renew leases as
riot only the bust mode of managing the property, but
because income would cease unless they adopted this
renewal, that the lessees ought to have some considera-
tion, when not only a practice existing for years was to
be altered, but the property was to be dealt with in an-
other form, and either sold or purchased. With these
views he was quite ready to support the Solicitor-Gene-
ral's motion, as it was not compulsory, but only gave the
Commissioners power to do what was just and reason'
able. If legislation did not take place now with regard
to those rights it would be necessary next session to con-
sider other measures. But if measures of a more com-
pulsory character were proposed, still they must have
those elements of justice in them from which he was not
willing to depart.—(hear.)
Mr. J. A. SMITH wished to retract any objectionable
expression that might have fallen from him in relation
to the Church Commissioners, but he could not help
thinking the rules he had referred to were unfair. Be
would give an illustration of his meaning. The estate
of the Church was valued at 30 years' purchase, the es-
tate of the lessees was valued at 20 years, and this he
could not consider fair. The Bishop of Lincoln had ex-
pressed his opinion that the rules were unfair, and he
believed the Church Estates Commissioners had refused
to act on those rules, because they also considered the/
were unfair. In ordinary transactions of life it would be
deemed unfair to estimate the seller's interest at one rate
and the buyer's at another. Though he raised these
ob-
jections, he was as strong a friend to the Church as
there could possibly be—but he was not disposed to ant
unjustly by sacrificing the interests of the lessees for the
benefit of the Church, nor would he consent to
deprive
the lessees of their just rights and property, even though
advantage and benefit were to be conferred on that
Church. It was not the charge of not being friendly t°
the Church that would frighten him from, that course
which his sense, of duty constrain, d him to take.
Mr. CAYLEY said the interests of the Church would
..
not be advanced by acts of injustice. The rules la
down down by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners outraged the
sense of propriety of every man throughout the cone'
try. It was necessary, therefore, knowing the bias of
their minds, that something should be done to alter th,e
.
system and to prevent injustice from being perpetratee.
The rules of the Commissioners, if acted upon, svotlia
have the effect of taking 12,000,000/. out of the pockets
of the lessees.

Mr. SPOONER said the Right Hon. Gentleman
had stated he was a lessee under the Church. lie vras;
so to a very small amount, but he could assure ,e
Right Hon. Grentlernan his conduct would not be blase"
by that circumstance. He was at one time willing
to take the Bill without the instruction to take into co°.
sideration the interests of the lessees, because he be.
lieved the interests of the lessees would otherwise be
considered in other clauses of the Bill and the reports
and because he considered the Bill would do mu?
good. But after the turn the debate had taken, and the
declaration that Parliament had never recognised, sae.
the equitable, but the moral right of the lessees, he ecli
sidered it was essential to have the words inset ill
which would put the question beyond doubt. The
was to be passed as a permissive Bill, and the! ebY the
f
recommendations in the report would have a chanc° °
being carried out. Besides the question of the
tesse e.si:
there was even a more important question involved, ih
it. He referred to the interests of the Church, s/13'13,1,,
would be seriously affected if the Bill, professing t°
an act of justice to lessees, were thrown out on that ead:
count. If the Bill were thrown out on that groan
Government would find that future legislation on tb6)
subject would become very difficult.
Mr. BARROW was anxious to have the words acloPtecill
in the Bill. He considered, as tl.e lessee had roadie ,ah-
the improvements on the soil, which bad increase"
value of the Church property, he ought to have aonie
turn for his outlay.
Mr. HENLEY said that the question before them 11
that the Chairman report progress, and be UMW, say tlll
everything that had taken place since last the subieb.o
was discussed strengthened him in the opinion that ta d
measure ought not at present to be further proceedede
with. One thing quite clear was that no one had des74
the justice of the amendment, which, in his opinioo,cl;.
not interfere with the permissive nature of the Bill• to
difficulty which he felt was that they were asked
13
come to a decision upon it with imperfect inforinsti°4
and in too great a hurry. If compelled to vote he shun t e
vote in favour of the introduction of the words, beestlshalo
without such words the Commissioners would not
the power to give that favourable consideration to the
claims of lessees which all agreed they ought to reeelvee„
But, as no notice had been given of an intention to Pr beZ
pose such words, he thought the better course would ..t
to stop at once, and not compel the Committee to Wei'
words which might not saisfy any party.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, in answer to those
Honoureble Gentlemen who urged delay, asked them t°
recollect the mode in which the Bill had been intro-
duced. The Bill had corns down tea them founded upot;
`
been affirmed at every stage, and the members 0
the report of the Committee. The principle of it bee,
the Committee were unanimous in opinion thatthe claims of lessees should be dealt with this Bela
won. He could not agree that the proposed words won
alter the
V
principle of the Bill. for it they week) do of
then the Bill must have been founded on a princiele.°
he
the se
hear.)
)he wished to do by In his opinion the I I
orees
ie
injustice—(Gear, jeudsetdi c et
that which
he had proposed. Unless some step was taken to 50111
the matter amicably this session, they would be sthile
further removed next session from any agreement ens o
question. In his opinion it would be most dist"
use true interes of the Church to leave the questisie
settled.
Mr. J. STUART raid it was in vain to expect on a
Aof
tbhleueLobrodosk,
Committeecon
subject of so much importance that anything could be se
tiisdfearctorily done without full information and due cild
proceaetdi°innies
just been issued, and time ought to begiven for the P-;
rusal of it. The im g g • was
vend
portance of the question eid
great, for there
was not a county in England Wh`c • h
not contain property of the nature of that With °hied
n
they were asked to deal. His Hon. and Learned Fr-et a
the Solicitor-General was not correct when he stated
that they were asked now to deal with the Bill ati "9der
come from the Lords, for they were called on to con land
a most important alteration proposed by his 11°n' rine
tit
i n ill o
the
teh ee Yeindheintelcitti ab
Learned Friend himself. Although friendly to the P
a
ciple of the Bill, he should certainly under the circ
stances vote in favour of reporting progress.
Mr. ALCOCK approved of the principle of the key,
but thought that some notice ought to have been :303
of sub-lessees, a numerous and important hods% ~i the
drawn up a clause on that point, and had placed' it
14,
hands of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, but be ro..
not aware how the Hon. and Learned Gentleman P
posed to deal with it. lallse
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL thought the ene
and the point to which it referred well worthy °-
sideration. for
Mr. NEWDEGATE said that the Hon. Member
Surrey had anticipated him on the subject of sub' could
The point was one deserving consideration, for it rest
not do to allow sub-lessees, among whom were fe on
many tenant-farmers, to be handed over like set " for
change of lessees. No doubt, if due time were gips hick
consideration, some decision might be come to vi
erty
would avoid all injustice to lessees, and save the pr°P 0 0
of the Church from confiscation. A short time toe,
meeting was called of persons interested in this quFose,
la
and it had separated without coming to any decist too
the belief that Parliament would not legislate viatu
further information on the subject. are
The Committee then divided, when there apPea
20
For reporting progress ...
Against it ••• ••• ••• •• 58
8
Majority •••
3eta:,
The Committee then proceeded with the consider
of the clause. the
Mr. CARD WELL proposed to add at the end °f that
clause the following words:—" Provided alwal99
oirPto
nothing herein contained shall be deemed or Dikes or
vary or affect the legal or equitable rights, estat.e!theit.
interests of such ecclesiastical corporations, or of
lessees respectively." the
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL objected to tbs
amendment, and said. that, without this proviso,6,.joi
clause in no degree altered the legal or equitable re
of the parties.
consented t°
Mr. CARD WELL, upon this assurance, copse
withdraw the proviso• but divisie°'
Ler. CAYLEY and M'r. AWN insisted upon a
The galleries were then cleared of strangers. etieed
No division took place, the proviso being "leg'
by consent.
The clause was then agreed to. bad
gense
Sir B. HALL complained that after the
of loges
come to a unanimous decision that the riglilfeber for
should be fairly considered, the Hon. of the ficele-
Liverpool (Mr. 'Cardwell), who was one
resolution
staetical Commissioners, having proposedvr
from let'e
directly opposed to that decision, wit"
pored out of tu°
House—or he should rather say
come to a decfsioti on
House—when they were about to come..
_s_g
provio
RIM; hi (Min that be Wight Puw