The Sun.
London, England, 1851-08-01 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON,

feeling of the House was in favour of the clause he
would not press any amendment.
The clause was then agreed to.
Mr. HARDCASTLE moved a clause, the object of
which was to provide a setter; of 3001. to assistant-clerks,
instead of paying them by the present mode of remu-
neration.
Lord D. STUART said the assistant-clerk, in many
cases, discharged all the real duties of the first clerk, and
ought to receive a fair salary for his labour.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed
the clause.
After some discussion the clause was withdrawn.
The preamble was then agreed to, and the Chairman
was directed to report the Bill.
The House resumed, and the report was ordered to be
received to-morrow.
CHURCH BUILDING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
This Bill was considered and agreed to, and ordered
to be read a third time to-morrow.
EPISCOPAL AND CAPITULAR ESTATES MA-
NAGEMENT (No. 2) BILL.
On the motion for going into Committee on this Bill,
Sir HENRY WILLOUGHBY objected to going on
with the Bill until the House was in possession of the
report and evidence upon which it was founded.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the Bill was not
founded upon the report or the evidence to which the
Hon. Member referred. The Bill was not compulsory,
as that report recommended, but was merely permissive.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY still entertained a strong ob-
jection to the Bill.
Colonel THOMPSON asked if the Bill would force
the parties to whom it referred to enter into certain COn;
tracts whether they would or no?—(Cries of " No,no. )
Well, then, would it merely give power to the parties to
make such contracts if they so thought fit?—(Yes, yes.)
Mr. AGLIONBY urged upon the Government the
expediency of postponing the measure
.t until next ses-
sion. He denied that it was a permissive 8111 as now
stood.
Sir B. HALL thought the lessees who would be
affected
before
t hbey
Ht ho
ue
0B ill
forwarded o u ght t
lot have h
er timest
at
go n
.—(Hee ra
r.i)t
Aini o h
wasrejected by
admirable fo r its purpose,
theh
oter
and
d7ctim branch of Btuhsiell' in
provisions,Legislature
islature after a long deliberation, but
this Bill was to be disposed of in a very different
manner. It was to be pressed forward with indecent
haste, and the parties who were most interested in its
provisions were to be refused the opportunity of
considering its details. Now if the Noble Lord
imagined that he could pass a Bill of this important
character within two days after it had come down from
the Lords, he must be labouring under a species of episco-
phobia that was. perfectly astounding.—(A laugh.) He
protested against the House proceeding farther
with this Bill, which might benefit one or two parties,
but would inflict great injustice upon the majority of the
ecclesiastical ]leaseholdere of the country. He did
not object to the principle of the BUJ, bat to the hurried
manner in which Government were attempting to pass
it through, and he hoped the House would help him
to get it postponed until next session. With
the recent experience connected with the Church fresh
in the minds of the people, it was exceedingly impolitic
to proceed further with this Bill, which would exas-
perate the public mind, and render legislation upon the
subject next session impossible.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said no palpable objection had
been or could be urged against the Bill. The Hon.
Baronet, according to his own statement, did not
object to the principle of the Bill, bat merely to
some of its details. Well, then, why not
go into Committee and see if it was possible to improve
its provisions? There was nothing arbitrary in the Bill.
The lessees would be left to make their own bargain with
the ecclesiastical corporations, and it was quite impossible
that it could inflict injury upon either side. Then what
objection could there be to passing the Bill, even at this
late period of the session, if it contained ,nothing unfair
or unjust? No damage could accrue to any one from the
passing of the Bill, and as the objections which had been
urged by the Hon. Baronet could be removed in Com-
mittee he could not consent to postpone it until next
session.
Mr. HENLEY said the Noble Lord had entirely over-
looked the fact that the parties who were most interested
in this Bill had had no opportunity whatever of con-
sidering its provisions. That was the principle reason
nrgod in favour of delay, and he for one thought the
reason was conclusive.—(Hear, hear.) The arrangements
to be made under this Bill were to be regulated by an ob-
jectionable Board, who might lay down rules
and establish principles which rendered the
Bill virtually inoperative; and when the lessees
themselves came to Parliament to legislate equit-
ably upon this subject, they would be met with the
objection that a permissive law was already in existence
which must have a fair trial before any further legis-
lation could take place. Now, he was anxious to
guard against such a state of things as that, and he
should support the Hon. Baronet opposite in obtaining
the postponement of this measure. More than half the
Members of the House had left town, and after the
pledge which had been given by Government on this
subject it would be a breach of faith to press this Bill
forward with indecent haste.
Mr. NEWDEGATE also objected to proceeding with
the Bill, as it would give the Ecclesiastical Commis-
sioners power to interfere with the rights of tenants, and
lessors the power to avoid all leases without compensate
ing the lessees in the manner which the law and equity
of the land provided.
Mr. SPOONER, on the other hand, supported the Bill,
and contended that it was impossible that any injustice
could be done under its provisions, as before a lease.
could be avoided the consent of the lessee as well as the
lessor must be first obtained for the purpose. He did
not, however, think that the Ecclesiastical Commis-
sioners were the proper parties to negotiate the avoid-
ance, but that was a matter of detail which could be
remedied in Committee.
Mr. J. A. SMITH thought that on the whole the
wisest and best thing they could do was to go into Com-
mittee on this Bill. It mast not be understood, however,
that in consenting to go into Committee ho gave his un-
qualified approval to the principle of the Bill, nor did he
aisagree with those Honourable Members who looked
upon it as an unfortunate circumstance that a
Bill of this nature and importance should be
introduced at this late period of the session. Like other
Hon. Members who had preceded him, he protested
against the Ecclesiastical Commissioners having power
to form the rules and regulations upon which the provi-
sions of this Bill were to be put in force, and when they
got into Committee be hoped the clause giving them
that power would be struck out of the Bill altogether.
Lord D. SrUART thought it a sufficient reason why
they should not proceed with this Bill, that the parties
most interested in its provisions had not yet had an op •
portunity of considering its provisions, and he should
therefore move the adjoarment of the debate.
Mr. ALCOCK said many of his consituents were
leases under the Bishop of Winchester, and as they bad
been afforded no opportunity of considering even the
principle of the Bill, let alone its details, he should vote
against going into Committee.
Mr. AGLIONBY, although somewhat opposed to the
Bill, would nevertheless vote fur going into Committee
in the hope of being able to improve its provisions and
remove seine of the objections which had been taken to
the clauses. For his own part he was quite content to
leave the interests of all parties in the hands of the pre-
sent Commissioners.
Mr. RICE expressed himself entirely of the same
opinion as the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who had
just sat down, that all matters were safe in the hands of
the Commissioners.
Mr. AI ULLINGS was afraid that the interests of the
lessees were being overlooked. He was entirely favour-
able to the principle of the present Bill, but he thought
alterations ought to be made in it to protect the rights of
the les!ees.
Atter a few words from Lord J. RUSSELL,
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the adjeurnment
Against it ... ••• •••
Majority ... •-• •••
On our return to the gallery,
Mr. STUART complained of the conduct of the Go.
vcrnment in forcing on this measure, which Honourable
Members had not had time to consider. He thought
there was great necessity for delay. He hoped the Noble
Lord would not drive the House into discussion and
division in order to obtain time for consideration of
the Bill.

30
51
-21

Mr. FREWEN said that ho should move that the
' House should go into Committee on the 13111 on this day
three months, for the purpose of giving time for consi-
deration. He protested against Bills being brought
down from the other House at this late period of the
session and forced through this House.
Sir B. HALL hoped that if the House went into
Committee, it would be on the understanding that the
Bill should not be passed into law this session.
Mr. CAYLEY thought that unless some provision
were introduced into the Bill for the protection of the
lessee, they ought not to attempt to carry it on. He
hoped the Government would make a promise to this
effect.
Colonel SIBTHORP supported the amendment.
Lord J. RUSSELL declined to pledge himself to in-
troduce any clause into the Bill, as suggested by the
Hon. Member for the North Riding. In reference to
this subject, he wished to inform the House that it was
not his intention to proceed with the Charitable Trusts
Bill this session.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HENLEY thought the best course would be to
go into Committee now on the Bill on the understanding
that it should not be proceeded with further this session.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he did not think that they
would be
Members would not consent next year to take the Bill
gaining anything: by this course, as Hon,
intact as it came from the Committee of this year, with-
out proposing
Eoor gs eo
itnh
their amendments anew.
The llu
48
genindtoivicdoemd,mwithteene there appeared—
Against it 37
Majority ..• • • ••• --11
Lord J. RUSSELL, in reply to Mr. Cayley, said he
would consent to the Bill now going into Committee pro
forma, and then to postpone the further proceeding of the
Bill in Committee until Monday.
The Bill then wont pro forma through Committee
and was fixed for Monday at five o'clock. ,