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

might be granted to them. It was a very convenient
thing in that as well as the other House of Parlia-
ment to get through a second reading by referring a Bill
to a Sr-lect Committee. He could understand the ap..
pointment of a Select Committee to consider the ma-
nagement of episcopal and capitular estate; and then to
refer that Bill to such a Committee. That would be
the course which he thought might be more satisfacto-
rily adopted. It appeared to him, without meaning to
go into the details of the Bill, that it was the com-
mencement of an interference with the property of the
Church which ought not to take place, and a destroying
of that independence which the Church ought to possess
in this country. At such a moment as the present, too,
when they were stemming the aggressions made upon
the Church, he considered the introduction of such a
measure was most unwise, as it seemed a measure cal-
culated to injure the independence of the Church. He
fully agreed with the Right Rev. Prelate that the Bill
was but a temporary remedy fbr a temporary evil, when
it ought to be of a more comprehensive nature to be
really useful.
. _

The Earl of HARROWBY (who spoke in a very low
tone) was understood to observe that the question they
had to consider was, whether they would go into Com-
mittee upon the general subject of Church property of
that description, or refer that particular Bill to a Select
Committee? The mode proposed—namely, that of re-
ferring the Bill to such a Committee, was the usual one
adopted for dealing with such matters, and doing so did
not commit any party on the general principle of the
measure. After having referred to some of the details
of the Bill, and replied to some of the observations made
upcn them by the Bishop of London, the Noble Earl
asked their Lordships whether they were prepared to
reject the only means which just now presented them-
saws for providing for the great and growing wants of
the Church?
Lord STANLEY said it appeared to him that there
was a very general concurrence with regard to that
measure upon two points ; first, that the various com-
munications and correspondence which had taken place
relative to the matter had directed public attention to it,
and then that the inquiry which both /louses of Paella-
meat had made had led to the almost universal consent
that coma legislation ought to take place on the subject.
The public mind had been so excited on the question,
and the public attention so much called to it, that it was
better for the interests of the Church, and those con.
fleeted with its property, that they should come to some
determined course of management with respect to that
particular descripticn of property. On the other hand,
there was a general feeling that the question should not
be approached without giving to all parties concerned
full notice of the matter, as if it were a private Bill af-
fecting property in which they had an intesest. He
should have no hesitation as to the course which he
should pursue were the question before them one
simply to affirm or reject the principle of the
Bill. But the question was a much narrower one—
that of voting for referring the Bill, or not, to a
Select Committee. He did not think they were either
affirming or rejecting the principle of the Bill by
referring it to anSelect Committee; and he conceived
that the Right reev. Prelate had somewhat underrated
the power of a Select Committee when he supposed that
the principle of the Bill would be eflirweey such a
reference, and that the objects to be effected by it were
to be carried out. The objects of the Bill, as stated in
the preamble, was to the effect that it was " for the im-
the Church of England, so as to render
rperaolv epmr
property
theoi present system of management of the
it more conducive to the spiritual welfare of those be-
longing to the Church, and for correcting the fluctuating
annual value of the said property," Sc. Now, it was
not natural to suppose any of their Lordships would ob-
ject to any proposition for making the property of the
Church more conducive to the spiritual welfare of her
children. But the investigation of the present Bill in-
vited to the consideration of two very material subjects,
and these were the respective rights of the lessors and
the lessees. There was another very important part of
the question—namely, in what manner were they to deal
with the property and the episcopal revenues so as to
carry out that proposed portion of the system, the allot-
ment of a fixed income to the bishops? It had been fully
felt that there was a great variety in the amount of the
incomes of bishops, and also of a body of men whose
duties were equally important. And within the last few
years efforts had been made to equalise the revenues
end the labours of their respective sees; and no doubt
it was desirable to do so as far as possible. He believed
that the correctly expressed object of the Commission
was not to obtain a fixed income for the bishops, but a
more equal average one. He did not assent to the doc-
trine that Parliament had laid it down as a principle
that a fixed and not an equalized income was desirable.
If he audersteod the proposed Bill properly, the whole
of the income was to b© taken under the management of
the Commissioners, to be by them after reconverted into
landed property. Now that appeared to him a very
complicated arrangement, and one which required
great consideration as to its details. With respect to
the condition of the lessors and lessees after that Bill
should have passed, he understood the Right Reverend
Prelate objected to giving the tenant a right in per-
petuity. The tenants of the Church had at the pre-
sent moment no indefeasible right to the renewal of their
leases; but their Lordships were bound to consider
what was the practical result of the existing tenure of
that property. He held it to be the case, that the lessee
had the prescriptive right on the lessor, although he had
no legal claim for his lease. The difference between
the value of freehold property, and that held under
the Church by the existing law, was easily ascertained.
Anxious as he was to improve the property of the Church,
and sensible as he was of the proposed benefit, he could
not, looking to the equitable rights of the lessees, agree
to sacrifice them at once, as if the Church was in full
possession of the whole property, and had nothing to do
but to run out the lives and come into its enjoyment.
That which could not be obtained without an Act of
Parliament ought not to be obtained without giving
some equivalent advantage to the other party whose in-
terests were effected. If ho could be shown how the pro-
perty could be increased to a similar amount without
altering the relations in which they at present stood, he
would approve of that in preference to any other mode.
There was now a portion of the value of the property
in abeyance, which was to benefit either the lessor or
the lessee. That increased value, however, should be
divided between them. The Bill, moreover, proposed to
do away with leases of lives renewable for ever. Now,
although in agricultural property leases of lives were not
found to be an advantageous description of tenure, yet,
when the leases were renewable for ever, it was like a
freehold. They contemplated, therefore, making a very
serious alteration in converting freehold into mere
personal
property. In such a case they took away civil
and political rights. He should be unwilling to reject
that which was said to be the principle of the Bill, but
there were words in the preamble which threw some
doubt upon his mind. There was allusion made to cer-
tain Commissioners, and when they went on to say from
the recommendations of those Commissioners such and
such things were to be done, it seemed like binding
themselves to the principle of the Bill. Ile did not
think it was desirable to reject that Bill,
but he believed
it was desirable their Lordships should consider that
question as fairly and as deliberately as possible. For
considering cot only that Bill, but any other preposition
brought forward on the part of the lessees, he
rwonld
suggest to the Noble Marquis opposite,
course might not be the most advisable to
be
ta
course which would neither affirm or reject
pilito a Seile
the
print plcet
of the Bill. They could not refer the whetahkeen this
reeding.
was, whether It
What he would venture to suggestbe second ' reading
might
not be advisable to
postpone t
t a Select Committee, to which
Committee without its having received a second d'
for the present—to appoint
in the preamble of
might
f the Commissioners, and other
the Bill, the reports o
the
subject,
and
meantime the
matters connected with
could remain standing over without prejudice
Bill itself
Committee should have made its report. Such
be referred the matters stated.
which he ventured to recommend upon
was the course
which should be admitted was a difficult
LLIAM said there would be very con-
• leant one, and one which required the fullest
and important
and fairest deliberation.—(Hear, hear.)
n thatnEt i
al
srtullblej
,eiCeTto,
zmi
vm
faerable danger in adopting the proposition with which
his Noble Friend concluded. He thought he might ven-
ture to affirm that if that proposal were agreed to their
Lordships would not pass any Bill on that subject during
the present session of Parliament.—(n
Hear
the Government side). They all knew h hear," from
ow long that
question had been hung up for consideration; and he
thought their Lordships would agree with him that it
would not be desirable to take a course which would
have the effect of postponing
all legislation on the sub-
ject for au indefinite space of time.—(Hear, hear.) If
hadintoveryconstsriodnergatioenla.
the interests of the lessees were to he injured by that
Bill then ho would say let them take those
lesseesinterests
whatever might be done on the question.
They had strong claims, inasmuch as those whoyewdeir)e
the legal trustees of the property had been
landedreepro-
prietors, system of leases of all the troubles
of reference
which, speaking for himself,
and withdto be not at all
to the last twelve months, he had foundhat
imslieuponbelPeavrellanif
he approved of
inconsiderable. He could not ea
saudocubtedly, there were
every clause in the Bill, for,feuctions; but he did not
some parts to which he hado
postponement of legisla-
tionthink be ought to vote for the
should therefore vote for the
on that account, and
of the Bill being referred
second reeding with the view
to a Select Committee. d
. LAN6DOWNE felt it incumbent on
The Marquis of
him to make a few remarks with reference to the
mini
•
which the Noble Lord . opposite had advised their Lord-
ships to pursue on this question. He believed that the
ted most correctl
Noble Lord boas.a y all that had passed
on this subject. But at former pon
Noble Lord, on reconsideration, would see that the
the
course proposed to be taken by his Noble Friend near
bins was perfectly
consistent with the objections which
the
Noble Lord and other Noble Lords entertained to
• sof the Bill. '
the provision The course proposed by his
Noble Friend was for their Lordships to read the Bill a
second time without pledging themselves to any one
provision of it, beyond that stated by the Noble Lord
himself, and to which reference was made in the pre-
amble—viz , that the present state of Church property
was not such aP, ought to be continued, and that it was
desirable for the Legislature to interfere, with a view
of putting it on a better footing with respect to the in-
terests of those who own that property, and with
due consideration of the interests of those who hold
under them. Beyond that be believed nothing would be
affirmed as the principle of the
.mea
amend might besure. Any details
which the Noble Lord might wish to
as the object of
considered in a Select Committee; endhisown—to
have the
the Noble Lord was Ilse same
n
o remind the Noble Lord
that before a Scent t
Bill considered—ho needcommittee could do so, the Bill
must be read a second time by their Lordships. Ho
wished the Committee to have
the opportunity of cocai-
daring. the report,
t and the evidence on which it was
founded, and, at the sane
time, the provisions of the
Bill itself. Lie asked their Lordships kwho had had •
in