The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-07 00:00:00

On the motion of Mr. 'I‘i'MAHON, the s?cond re:‘4!rie.
4.f °
of the bill was postponedfor six weeks.
Mr. CARDWELL observed tha, there was no efiance
of-the bill being passed this session.
ECCLESIASTICAL, &e., BILL.
On the order fn• the second reeding of this bill, -
Mr. SELWYN moved that the bill be read a second
time this day sir months. He considered that a measure
of this kind should, on the motion for its second roLding, ire
introduced with some preliminary remarks. lie rep; ded
the bill as a measure which had for its object the vesting of
the whole landed property of the Church in the bands of
the Ecclesiastical Commission, and in his opinion there
were three great objections to it, namely that it was a Mea-
sure Which comprised centralisation, compensation, and
confiscation. The centralising element of the bill 4Ould •
have the effect of severing to a considerable extent, in some
cases, tht important ties that at present existed between
the Church and landlord and tenant. Having stated the
opinions expressed by the Committee of the House of Lords,
of which Lords Brougham and St. Leonards, and the Duke
of Buccleuch, and other competent authorities, were Mem-
bers, on ibis subject, in support of his views, he adverted
to the last report of the Ecclesiastical Commission in 'No-
vember, 1859. That report stated, that the property en-
trusted to its care already was situated in different counties,
which rendered its collection very difficult ; and that the -
annual income amounted to no less than £173,560. It was
now proposed to vest the cathedral property, as well as the
property belonging to the deans and canons, in the 131111111'.
commission. In his objection to the functions exercised by
the Commission he wished it to be understood that he did
not object to the constitution of that body, as he believed it
was composed of gentlemen the best qualified to discharge
the duties entrusted to them ; but practically they merely
carried out the instructions of a subordinate official body.
He referred to the mode in which the accounts were au-
dited, which he described as most imperfect, and Hilaire-
live of the defective principles on which the 'bill !was
founded. . There was another defect arising out of the sys-
tem of centralisation, one of the main elements of the bill,
namely, the expense incurred in collection and manage-
ment, which in one year amounted to £43,583 15s. 10d.
With regard to the application of the money collected, it
:veered that the magnificent sum of £404 was ap-
-peed -to schools, to necessitous livings £52,003,
to new distric!s £36,400 making a total in round
numbers of £89,003 appropriated to meet the spiritual
destitution that• prevailed in the country, and that out of
an income of £173,000, being about double the amount ex-
pended in, the expenses of mere management. With'
respect to his second objection, that of compensation; the
other principle of the bill. At present the whole
management of the cathedral estates was in the hands'
of chapter clerks, whose duties were proposed to be
transferred to other officials. These chapter clerks
would have to be compensated for the loss of
their office, and their successors would have to learn
'their duties. The hon. and learned member then proceeded
to argue that the bill would lead to extensive litigation, the
expenses of which would have to be defrayed out of the
income that would b 3 vested in the hands of the commission.
With reference to the third objection, confiscation, he would
ask whether, looking at the question practically, it could
be expected to work satisfactorily or equitably ? How was
anyone to know the time when confiscation should take place,
and in its operation it would lead to litigation that would be
'unavoidable and expensive. He should be happy to see
alterations that would remove any defects -in the Church,
but he strongly deprecated any attempt to deprive it of the
property to which it was as well entitled as any lay corpo-
ration. The Emperor of the French had set the country
an example in dealing with Church property, but his con-
duct liad been described as spoliation and confiscation,
terms which applied with equal propriety to the attempt in
this bill to infringe the vested rights of the State Church
in this country. What he would suggest was that the
Crown should exercise its right in remodelling the estates,
and that the commission should have only that fair propor-
tion of the property to which they were justly entitled. If
they desired to create a new body let them form a board of
a diocesan character and possessed of local knowledge._ To
a proposition of the kind the members of the chapter were
ready to accede, and nothing of a fairer character could be
submitted for the adoption of the house.
Mr. Alderman COPELAND seconded the amendment,
and went into figures to show that the commission incurred
an extravagant expenditure, and before conferring on them
additional powers, he thought it right that there should be
some inquiry into the mode in which they had managed
their business. He dwelt particularly on the item in the
account of the commission of £8,675 annually for clerks,
which, as a man acquainted with commerce, he was satis-
fied was a sum that should not be appropriated to such a
purpose, considering the duties these clerks were called on
to discharge.
Mr. FRE ELAND said this bill was only a step in a
a certain direction, and not a settlement of the question.
He considered the bill might have been divided into two
bills, the one that would deal with capitular estates
and the other with lessees' claims. He was opposed to the
principles of centralisation, but he was of opinion that, in
the present case, what he would call intermediate cen-
tralisation would operate beneficially. He heard the
statements put forward by the chapters, and he thought
that so far as their interests ware concerned they had taken
care of themselves, and not paid much attention to the in-
terests of the lessees. He thought they should have fol-
lowed the principle which they had laid down in the Irish
Church temporalities, which gave the Irish Church lessees
the power of compulsory enfranchisement of 'Church
land in Ireland. He objected also to the political
operation that would result from the proposed new
system, by which cathedral towns, being also
Parliamentary boroughs, would virtually be converted
into nomination boroughs in the hands of the clergy.
(Strong expressions of dissent on the part of several mem-
bers.) He wished it to be understood that he used the
terms only in a figurative sense. He had other objections
to the bill, but he thought it could be properly amended in
committee, and therefore he would not oppose its second
reading.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said that the bill originated with a
committee of this house, of which the noble lord the mem-
ber for the City of London was chairman. It passed this
house in 1858, but at too late a period of the session to be
introduced into the House of Lords. The following session
it was passed by the House of Lords, having been made the
subject of an inquiry before a select committee, but
it was then too late in the session for its going through this
house. He thought under these circumstances that its
provisions were so well known as to render any explana-
tion inmoving the secondreading unnecessary. The present
bill was only in conformity with the policy of the house in -
respect to Church property. Hon. members must be aware
that they had proceeded is recent legislation on the prin-
ciple of preventing the incomes of those high in the
Church being increased in proportion to the augmented
value of the Church property. The management of that
property was accordingly entrusted to the Eccle-
siastical Commission, and he believed that it could
not be imputed to that body that they had
neglected or improperly discharged their duties. Ho
thought that this bill should essentially be debated in
committee, and not made the subject of a rambling discus-
sion on a motion for the second reading. This bill was
merely a "collection of provisions in order to give effect to
the powers previously conferred on the Ecclesiastical Com-
mission, and the proper course for its opponents to have
adopted;would have been to bring in a bill to repeal the act
whiCh constituted that commission. Having referred to
some other objections to the bill, he contended that the
commission could not permanently alienate or confiscate
Church property. With reference to the accounts
it could not be doubted that they formed a very
important subject for consideration, but he denied that
they were open to censure in the case, because they had
not been presented in an intelligible manner to every person
who investigated them. The fact was that they were kept
in a most perfect manner, and could be easily understood by
persons accustomed to accounts of a necessarily complicated
description. The right hon. gentleman said he would give
every assistance to the amendment of the bill, for which he
had no parental affection, as it was not his own, but he called
on the house to permit the bill to go into committee, unless
they were resolved to adopt a retrograde policy in reference
to church property.
Mr. MO WBRAY said that although he could not
approve of all parts of the bill, still he would vote for
the second reading, as he did not wish to offer any obstacle
to legislation on the subject which was most desirable.
The hon. member then proceeded to detail different objec-
tions to the bills, which he said he trusted would be re-
moved by the amendments introduced in committee. He
thought that the Government had mixed up too many mat-
ters in this bill, and he trusted that ,the Home Secretary
would consider whether he could not withdraw the present
bill, and introduce two or three short bills on the subject.
This was extremely desirable, for the bill contained matter
on which it was most requisite to legislate without
further delay, while there were others with respect to which
there was considerable difference of opinion.
Lord H. VANE agreed with many of the observations
of the weeding speaker, and, he considered that it would
have been far more desirable if the matters contained in the
bill had been decided, and he much doubted whether the
measure would pass this session. However, as he deemed
it necessary that there should be speedy legislation on this
matter, he would follow the example of the preceding
speaker, and vote for the second reading of this bill ; but
he hoped that clauses would be introduced in committee
that would afford greater protection to the interests of the
lessees than they at present possessed. He thought
that
be
in
the directions to the Ecclesiastical Commission should
very specific, for there were many things eis conduct
that were censurable.
Lord J. MANNERS opposed the bill on the
whiff
was
principlesthegrhou.tnd of
in it, an-c
the general
proposed to increase thein p volvowed ewers of the commissioners,
and rendering them a perpetual body. He thought
entrust to a commission
it would bo most impolitic t
sitting in London absolute control
over the whole property
of the Church situated in different parts of the country.
He contended that the bill was not only not in accordance
with, but directly contrary to, the recommendation of the
committee of 1856. It was a most preposterous proposal,
according to the provisions of the bill, to hand over the
income of the chapter property. to a body whose audit of
accounts was admitted to be unintelligible. The noble lord
concluded by stating that he felt called on to vote for the
amendment.
Mr. INGHAM supported the second reading of the bill,
which he considered would prove beneficial to bishops,
deans and chapters, and would obviate invidious
collision between the clergy and laity.
Mr. HOWARD said that through the North of Eng-
land there was great indignation entertained at the con-
duct of the Ecclesiastical Commission, and he trusted that
the house would not confer on that body additional powers .
Mr. NEWDEGATE opposed the second reading, and
censured the conduct of the -Ecclesiastical Commission.
After some remarks from Mr. LIDDELL,
Mr. DEEDES, as one of the commissioners, defended
the conduct of that body. They endeavoured to discharge
their duty conscientiously, but they had various parties to
contend with, and they therefore could not satisfy all.
On the motion of Mr. HENLEY, the debate was ad-
journed until this day fortnight.
MASTERS AND OPERATIVES BILL.
This bill passed through the committee.
TRAMWAYS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
NEW WRIT.
On the motion of Sir W. JOLLIFFE, a new writ wa s
ordered for Belfast, in the room of Mr. Davidson, wly, hoe
accepted the Chiltern Hundreds.
The house adjourned at six o'clock,