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

NATIONAL EDUCATION IN SCOTLAND.

Viscount MELGUND wished to ask her
Government if it was their intention to introduce a mea-
sure on the subject of national education in Scotland
next session of Parliament?

Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to reply in the
affirmative.

ITALIAN INDEPENDENCE.
Mr. ANSTEY wished to ask the Noble Lord at the
head of the foreign department if he had received any
communication from our Ambassador at Venice of a note
which had been forwarded to that Court by the
Pope soliciting the assistance of the Austrian
Government to procure the expulsion of the
Italian refugees from London, and to prevent any Italian
loan being negotiated in this country, which the re-
fugees might propose for the purpose of securing Italian
independence?
Lord PALMERSTON said no such communication
had been received by him, and he had reason to believe
that the supposed note, like another note which had re-
cently appeared in the continental papers, was a fa-
brication, and had never issued from the Vatican.
No application of course had therefore been made in the
spirit of that note. With regard to the expulsion of
foreigners from this country, it was quite true that cer-
tain foreign Governments looked with great anxiety at
the proceedings of foreigners in this country, but no
application had been made to her Majesty's Government
on the subject, and if there had the only answer must
have been that the law of this country gave no power
for such expulsion.

Sir G. PkC HELL presented a petition from Brighton
against taxes on knowledge.

THE NATIONAL GALLERY.

Lord J. RUSSELL, in bringing up the report of the
Commissioners appointed to inquire into this subject,
took the opportunity of informing the Route that the
Commissioners were of opinion that the National Gal-
lery ought not to be left in the present position, but that it
was desirable that a site should be obtained in the neigh-
bourhood of Hyde-park or Kensington-gardens. The
Noble Lord also intimated that next session her Majesty's
Government would bring forward the subject for con-
sideration.

EPISCOPAL AND CAPITULAR ESTATES MA-

NAGEMENT (No. 2) BILL.

The House then went into Comniktee on this Bill.
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 l ssees.

Mr. I'IGO objected to going on at all with the Bill,
because the majority of the Huse had 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-
ther 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. DUCK WORTH 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
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 Ihl
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 the capitular bodies and
bishops to guide them in their dealings with the lessees.
As for a permissive measure it would be of no use. Out
of 2,000 tenants which the Bishop of London had,
bad only enfranchised 60. That showed the value of
permissive measures. _ _ _

- Mr. AGLIONBY approved of the word 3 proposed by
the Solicitor-General, but thought that they ought to
go on with the B►ll, 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. CARD WELL 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 fact admitted by the Hon. Member,
that a large number of Members interested in the subject
had 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 is 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 open—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 adopted, 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 frame such regu-
lations. It was, therefore, most important that no mea-
sure should pass that did not include instructions to
these Commissioners. He thought the words proposed
were a great amendment to the Bill, and that they were
absolutely necessary. Fur 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, fur 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 SIBTH.ORP said the speeches of the Right
Hon. Member for Liverpool and the Hon. Member for
Exeter were for postponement of the Bill. He (Colonel
Sibthorp) believed the best way would b', 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 furtner 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) cueneral rules were laid down by the Ecclesiasti-
cal Commissioners in respect of the administration of
their great trust. The Hon. Member f
said those rules embodied principles which
dis-
honest, and he complained that, in estimating thewere i
nt e-
rest of the lessees, two different tables—as of 5 per cent.
and 3if per cent. —were used. But this was the ample
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 a dishonest man; nor
b© parties that men like Mr. Holehouse
—excluding himself—would Lord Chichester, and others
general rule,
contrary to their conscience. There was to a
as the interest of
the lessee on the one band, and
that of the Church on
the other.—(Heae,)
the He (SirJ.Graham) had always
been opposed to 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
—(Hesee). 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 for 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 tl-e 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 was, in his
opinion, not safe or expedient.
Lord J. RUSSELL said if it was right to consider
the question, vhich he considered it was, as it was in
conformity with the vrishoo of the limo of Lords—if it

were right to consider the terms on which Church pro-
pen), should be dealt with, he did nut see how it was
just to say that equitable consideration towards lessees
should he left out of the case; though with respect to en
alteration of the proposed terms ho 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-
ticel Commissioners, on the oue hand, were 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
he the strict legal right a court of equity would enforce
which would be attended to, and the 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 Hon. 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 gave 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 os
the Commissioners for their office. They bad been
jointly at); ointed by the Crown and the Bishops, and in
considering the just and reasonable claims ot lessees they
were to be restrained from going beyond what they
might consider a fair and reasonable compensation.
The whole question resolved itee:f into this: whether
equitable claims—not claims that could be enforced in
court of law—should be compensated in any case. lie
wished the plan bad been placed in another shape before
the House of Lords, it would have been fairer, and be
should have been better pleased 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 ot the lessees in some degree were re-
garded. He could not deny that when it had been the
practice for ecclesiastical corporations to renew leases as
not only tho best 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 Solicitors Gen"
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 net
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 bad ex;
pressed his opinion that the rules were unfair, and 13,
believed the Church Estates Commissioners had refuse's
to act on those rules, because they also considered they
were unfair. In ordinary transactions of life it would
deemed unfair to estimate the seller's interest at one rate
and the buyer's at another. Though he raised these 010_
jections, he was as strong a friend to the Church al
there could possibly be—but be was not disposed to act
unjustly by sacrificing the interests of the lessees for I%
benefit of the Church, nor would he consent to deprive
the lessees of their just rights and property, even thoti.gl
advantage and benefit were to be conferred on te,ue
Church. It was not the charge of not being friendly 1."
the Church that would frighten him from that course
which his sense of duty constrained him to take. ,a
Mr. CAYLEY said the interests of the Church vsoti.,
not be advanced by acts of injustice. The rules laid
down by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners outraged the
sense of propriety of every man throughout the
:n" e!
Of
try. It was necessary, therefore, knowing the bias
their minds, that something should be done to alter the
system and to prevent injustice from being perpetrateidi
oaks
The rules of the Commissioners, if acted upon,
S
have the effect of taking 12,000,000/. out of the 13
of the lessees.

Mr. SPOONER said the R;ght Hon. Gentleman
had stated he was a lessee under the Church. 11° was
so to a very small amount, but he could assure tba
Right Hon. Gentleman his conduct would not be biese
by that circumstance. He was at ens time willing
to take the Bill without the instruction to take into Ow'
sideration the interests of the lessees, because he be-
lieved the interests of the lessees would otherwise i,
considered in other clauses of the Bill and the report
and because he considered the Bill would do °theh
good. But after the turn the debate had taken, and
declaration that Parliament had never recognised, Sot
the equitable, but the moral right of the lessees, be con'
sidored it was es,ential to have the words Bil
which would put the question beyond doubt. The
was to be passed as a permissive Bill, and thereby the
f
recommendations in the report would have a chance -
being carried out. Besides the question of the lessees,
there was even a more important question involved: in
it. He referred to the interests of the Church, whin
to do
would be seriously sfficted if the Bill, professing
insertecli
an act of justice to lessees, were thrown out on that al-
eount. II the Bill were thrown out on that grotto-,
Government would find that future legislation o°-&"
subject wauld become very difficult.
Mr. BARROW was anxious to have the words elatecil
in the Bill. He considered, as the Jesse© had made
the improvements on the soil, which had increased - the
value of the Church property, he ought to have Some re-
turn for his outlay.
Mr. HENLEY said that the question before them wagt
that the Chairman report progress, and be must 'AY th_
everything that had taken place since last the subje!!
was discussed strengthened him in the opinion that the
measure ought not at present to be further proceeded
"
with. One thing quite clear was that no one bad denied
l
the justice of the amendment, which, in his opinion, did
interfere with the permissive nature of the Bill.
Tbo
difficulty which ho felt was that they were asked to
come to a decision upon it with imperfect informatiotil
and in too great a hurry. If compelled to vote he should
vote in favour of the introduction of the words, because
without such words the Commissioners would not have
the power to give that favourable consideration to the
claims of lessees which all agreed they ought to receive-
Bat, as no notice had been given of an intention to pro-
pose such words, he thought the better course would be
to stop at once, and not compel the Committee to insert
words which might not sa isfy any party.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, in answer to those
Honourable Gentlemen who urged delay, asked them to
recollect the mode in which the Bill bad been intro-
duced. The Bill had come down to them founded upon
the report of the Cominittee. The principle of it had
been affirmed at every stage, and the members of
the Committee were unanimous in opinion that
the claims of lessees should be dealt with this seas
;
sion. He could not agree that the proposed words would
thenalter thethe BPitlilemcipuslet ohfavtehebeßen foundedill on a principle, for if they would do SO
injustice.—(Hear, hear.) In his opinion the Bill io'
n'
tended to do that which he wished to do by the words
he-had proposed. Unless some step was taken to Bef,it
the matter amicably this session, they would h° st-b-
-further removed next session from any agreement °°-e
question. In his opinion it would he °
most disastrous
tee true interes of the Church to leave the question
un-
settled.
Mr. J. STUART raid it was in vain to expect on a
subject of so much importance that u
could be e°
tistactorily done without full f anything
ddue
cons
sideration. A. blue book conz3l.alati°ll a
tanl-n the evidence and
proceedings of the Lords' Committeelon the subject bad
just been issued, and time ought to be given for the pe-
rusal
of it. The importance of the -estion was very
great, for
there was nut a county in England which did
not contain property of the nature that with of
they were asked to deal. His Hon. and Learned FrieDa
the Solicitor-General was not correct when he stated
that they were asked now to deal with the Bill as it ba!
come from the Lords, for they were called on to consider
a most important alteration proposed by his Hon. Pf°"'
Learned Friend himself. Although friendly to the prin-
ciple of the Bill, he should certainly under the areal:o"
stances vote in favour of reporting progress. Bill,
Mr. ALCOCK approved of the principle of the
but thought that some notice ought to have been taken
of sub-lessees, a numerous and important body. He had
drawn up a clause on that point, and had placed it in then
hands of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, but he Ws
not aware how the Hon. and Learned Gentleman pro-
posed to deal with it.
Tho SOLICITOR-GENERAL thought the ehianse
and the point to which it referred well worthy of con
sideration.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said that the Hon. Member for
Surrey had anticipatei him on the subject of sub-lease:ll
The point was one deserving consideration, for it would
not do to allow sub-lessees, among whom were great
many tenant-farmers, to be handed over like serfs or
change of lessees. No doubt, if due time were give°ic:h
consideration, some decision might be come to wt
would avoid all injustice to lessees, and save the prof
of the Church from confiscation. A short time ego
meeting was called of persons interested in this queatino,,a
and it had separated without coming to any decision,
the belief that Parliament would not legislate with°
further information on the subject.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared'
For reporting progress 20
Against it
Majority --38
The Committee then proceeded with the consideration
of the clause.
Mr. CARD WELL proposed to add at the end of the
clause the following words:—" Provided alwayg, that
nothing herein contained shall be deemed or ta.ken 4,3_
vary or affect the legal or equitable rights, estates, c
interests of such ecclesiastical corporations, or of their
lessees respectively." the
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL objected to
amendment, and said that, without this proviso, the
clause in no degree altered the legal or equitable position
of the parties. ed to
Mr. CARDWELL, upon this assurance, consent
withdraw the proviso; but •
Mr. CAYLEY and Mr. IV AWN insisted upon a ch

The__ galleries were then cleared of strangers.
No divhien took place, the proviso being negatived
by consent.
The clause was then agreed to.
Sir B. HALL complained that after the House bad
come to a unanimous decision that the rights of lessees
for
should be fairly considered, the Hon. Member
Liverpool (Mr. Cardwell), who was one of the Eccle-
siastical Commissioners, having proposed a resolution
directloposed to that &vision, withdrew fr"n tbe
House-or he should rather say scampered t o
ouf the
o c
House—when they were about tome to decision oti
thy RID r, orders that lie h t aniti bzg Floe"

moi
Mel
leg

the
rais:
mon
land

beot

plies
Bill,

coon

Pow,
BeCu
Won]

addi

for E

T 1
ap,,c

that
fore
Clans

Th
Place
Th
CIE
CIE

o
theCl3
lug bi

madel
e
Aft

not The
RoodltLotiid
object
the Hi

ea
ae
bt
st
s•
In
of
te
30
d.
ly
?.0
ra
ae
t.
10
r-
-d
e.
of
in
n.
er
Ie
re
be
it
of
re
.8-
be
as
ut
'is
a-
to
n-
se
le-
he
in-
-11-
ou-
6ye
10$
)10
on
ulp
de
,to
is-
be
be
ed
ey
be
,te
b-
as
let
be
ye
zb
at
to
ae
ka
id
10
Of
30
d.
Id
is
in
as
ae
ed
)g
e-
be
rt,
ae
of
13-
d,
ill
3e
Of
;Sp
in
311
Jo
a-
d,
ia
11l
00
0-
ag
at
et
le
ad
id
le
to
0,
Id
10
re
Le
e.
)0
rt
50
10
)•
of
at
0,
is
0
11
a
a
a
1

- `~.