The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-26 00:00:00

property for what was equivalent to a term of 60 years, ad

afterwards obtained an Act of Parliament by which that
property was transferred to his own family, thus depriving
the Church eE what belonged to it. Did the hon. and
learned gentleman desire that state of things to be restored ?
The hon, and learned gentle Man said he did not. (Hear.)
But the hon. and learned gentlenran proposed that instead

cf the right being in the lessee it should be transferred to
the lessee, and instead of the lessee being at the mercy of
the bishops and of the dean and chapter 11.9 should have
an absolute right which should be as good as freehold pro-
perty. Now that was what he should call confiscation, for
it was taking away the right from that body in which it
existed, and transferring it to another who had onlf a
limited right which at a certain period must expire. Th*
hon, and learned gentleman's plan, therefore, was to confis-
cate the property of the church for the benefit of the lessee.
But what had been done in the ease of the landed property
of the crown ? It was said, in the same way as the hon.
and learned gentleman said with regard to the interest
which the church had in the property leased under the or-

dinary tenure, that very little was paid to the crown an ac -
count of its property leased in the same way. What prom
the course taken by Mr. Pitt as to that property ? Did he
give the whole to the lessees, or transfer the whole right_
over them ? No, on the contrary, he took the whole bene-
fit for the lessor. He gave to the lessee no more than was

his right, and gave to the crown, by what he—(Lord J

Russell)—thought was a beneficial act, the whole income
arising from the rack rents of those lands. With regard
to the church not being as powerful as the crown and
having no such patron as Mr. Pitt, he held that the arrange-
ments made on behalf of the church were in the same way

as beneficial to the lessor, and were generally in the spirit
of the petition which had been read. The effect of that ar-
rangement was, that the lessor said to the lessee, " You
take your choice of one of two courses, either sell to the
church all your remaining interest in the lease, or else buy
the property and pay to the church that which is the value
of the lease to us when it expires, viz., the reversion." He
thought the proposal made in the House of Lords was the
fair one—he need not enter into the precise terms, for they
had nothing to do with the present bill—but he re-
garded it as a fair proposal on the whole, under
which much of this class of property would be re-
leased from its present disadvantage--that disadvantage
being, that those who held it could not build or
plant, or dispose of it as they wished, as
they could do if the property were their own, or held under
a more certain tenure. A great extent of this kind of pro-
perty had in this way become freehold, and was held by
farmers, yeomen, and other proprietors, who had improved
it in a manner they could not otherwise have been justified
in doing. Generally then this was the purport and object of
the bill. Ho believed it was in principle perfectly fair, and
with regard to its provisions, ho thought that they were such
as ought to receive the sanction of the house. With regard
to the particular clause alluded to by the hon. and learned
gentleman, that was not the time for discussing his objec-
tions, but when the bill was in committee the hon. and
learned gentleman's suggestions would receive every atten •
tion. For his own part, he thought it was in every way de-
sirable that bishops and chapters should hold landed pro-
perty. If they were to dispose of their property and invest
the proceeds in the funds, the bishops and chapters would
perhaps have a more certain income for a time, but they
would not have such a dependence on the landed interest of.
the country as he thought they ought to have, and there-
fore he should be sorry to see any change in that direction ;
and with regard to the ecclesiastical commissioners, it was
no doubt possible that a body managing landed property to
the extent of £200,000 a year might commit mistakes occa-
sionally by not being able to visit the whole of thatproperty
and superintend it personally in every part, but that was
an inconvenience inseparable from any great scheme of
management, or from the management of any great pro-
perty. The hon. and learned gentleman had himself referred
to the cases of a landed proprietor who had not seen some
portions of his property for 25 years, but he would hardly
on that ground say he ought not to be allowed to hold the
property at all.
Mr. MALINS—I said it, was an inconvenience to be re-
gretted.
Lord J. RUSSELL—The same might be said in the pre-
sent case, that it was in some respects an inconvenience to
be regretted that the ecclesiastical commissioners could not
personally visit the whole of this church property, but they
must bear with that inconvenience in any large scheme of
this kind involving property do widely spread and so exten-
sive.
Mr. S. ESTCOURT thought the noble lord had placed
the bill in as fair a light as it was capable of bearing. At
the same time he was sorry that a measure of so muchim-
portance should have been accidentally, and in consequence
of an unexpected alteration in the proceedings of the house
for the evening, brought forward while many hon. members
who were interested in the question were absent. The im-
portance of the bill was great, whether the amount of pro-
perty involved in it or the mode in which it was proposed to
deal with that property .were considered. They were not
dealing with the whole amount of the property which had
at any time belonged to the Church, but the only point
raised by the bill was whether they should deal with the
estates held by the different capitular bodies in the same
manner as they had already dealt with those held by the
bishops. For thefirst tier a they were about to deal with the
estates of gentlemen who had not been consulted upon the
matter ; and one of his objections to the measure—if it could
be called an objection—was that these persons had no op-
portunity aforded them of making out their case. An-
other objection was that the bill proposed to make use
of the machinery of the ecclesiastical commission not
merely for the sale but for the future management and
possession of these estates. He could not but acknow-
ledge the force of the noble lord's remarks with regard
to landed property. There was no doubt a greater stability
in the possession of land than in the possession of funded
property, but he complained that not only was the land
taken, but the manner in which it was proposed to take
it was objectionable. How, for instance, were they to dis-
tinguish between a lessee who held property under a capi-
tular body, and a lessee who held under any college at
Orford ? (Hear, hear.) He preferred the old mode under
which ecclesiastical property had been held, and viewed in
a less favourable light the holding of land in mortmain by a
capitularbody than the holding of land in mortmain by the
bishops. He considered it objectionable thatany body con-
stituted as the ecclesiastical commission was should have
the management and control of the large estate which would
fall into their hands if this bill passed. No doubt the ques-
tion of the bishops had been already dealt with, but the
result of legislative interference in their case gave him no
confidence in the future. Indiyidually he had the highest
respect for the ecclesiastical commission, but if Parliament
granted to them not only the prolongation of their powers,
but the extension of those powers, ho thought it was not
too much to ask for some explanation of the exact terms
and conditions upon which the concession was made. He
hoped that that which had been shadowed forth by the
noble lord in reference to the mode in -which the Govern-
ment intended to deal with the details of the measure would
be carried out ; and under these circumstances perhaps it
would not be desirable to press the amendment to a division.
Mr. SELWYN said the house had been taken by sur-
prise in the bill being proceeded with that evening, and he
felt that under the circumstances it would be useless to
press the amendment. Ho would therefore withdraw it.
The' amendment wag accordingly withdrawn; and the
bill was read a second time.
MINES REGULATION AND INSPECTION BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill.
Mr. RIDLEY said several hon. members who were inter-
ested in the bill were absent, not having had the most remote
idea that it would some on. Under those circumstances he
appealed to the Home Secretary whether it wits fair to go
on with the committee that evening.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said he should be ready to postpone
the bill if the house were unprepared to proceed w;th it, but
he did not believe any inconvenience would result from
taking the discussion upon the clauses now.
Mr. RICARDO expressed a hope that the right hon.
gentleman would consent to report progress.
Lord PALMERSTON remarked that he had been asked
at an early period of the evening by an hon. member oppo •
site what the course of business during the evening would
be, and he had then stated distinctly that the orders of the
day would be gone through, and hon. members who were
interested in any of the bills which stood upon the orders
ought therefore not to have left the house.
Sir J. PAKINGTON thought it would be unfair to the
Government to require them to postpone the committee. If
such a course were taken upon all occasions the Government
would never be able to get through the public business.
After some conversation, the committee proceeded with
the discussion of the bill, and clauses 4 to 6 inclusive were
agreed to without amendment.
On clause 7,
Mr. H. A. BRUCE moved an amendment to the effect to
limit the inspection to mines connected with coal; There
had been no necessity shown for extending inspection to
iron mines. In a mine with which he was connected there
had been only one death to 498,000 tons of ore raised, and
the deaths that did occur in iron mines were not caused by
want of ventilation, but by the accidents inseparable from
such work. It might be taken generally that the removal
of one ton of ironstone necessitated the removal of five
tons of rubbish, and looking at it in that way there was not
more than one death caused by the removal of 235,000 tons
of ironstone separated from the rubbish. He thought there-
fore there was no case for the inspection of iron mines.
Mr. CLIVE said the hon. gentleman seemed to think that
inspection was good for everybody's case but his own. The
unanimous opinion of the inspectors was that inspection
should be applied to iron mines. He could assure the com-
mittee that the inspectors of coal mines were unanimously
of opinion that inspection should also be extended to iron
mines, and the great majority of coal-owners were of the
same opinion.
Mr. CAYLEV thought the clause was exactly framed to
meet the case suggested by the hon. member (Mr. Taylor).
i
MT he
AamyelindimoeNntswu
gagiensetegdattihvaetd pwo t
ehrdoasuiphdtponoauioludtd:
invobbieesjniaeotelnstoo.
After a few remarks in explanation from Mr. TAYLOR,
fttoasukthbene_
a-vigendrseptehetcaottoirhhsee.
suggestion,f ors ti
rh eG appointment p
cp o.
biLnuEt
tmwceonui tlsdo
ofnbsosutebr
inspectors unless in cases where it was shown to be abso-
lutely necessary.
Mr. INGHAM urged that Without sub-inspectors it