The Sun.
London, England, 1842-08-06 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Aug. 5.
ECCLESIASTICAL CORPORATIONS LEASING

BILL.

On the motion that the Order of the Day for the third
reading or the Ecclesiastical Corporations Leasing Bill
be read,

•
Sir R. INGLIS said the complaint made against the
late Government was, that they had proposed to convert
property purely ecclesiastical to purposes purely secular,
and he was afraid thepresent Bill had a similar tendency.
Sir J. GRAHAM said the Bill now introduced was
substantially the same as one introduced by the Bishop
of London in the House of Lords.

Mr. V, SMITH supported--the clauses proposed to be
inserted by-the Right Honourable Baronet. There was
no doubt that the revenues of .the Church would be con-
siderably increased. if these clauses were agreed to ;
he hoped, in that event, that the ,agreement which ori-
ginally existed between the lessors and lessees, and which
was a favourable agreement for the Church, would still
be maintained.

Sir R. PEEL expressed-his full assent to the principle
of the Bill. It had been brought in in strict conformity
with the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He
thought they were advancing the interests of the Church,
by giving to the high dignitaries a proper income, and
at the same time keeping sufficient to pay the lower ones.
Mr. ACLAND regretted the manner in which the
present Bill dealt with Church property.
Sir B. PEEL said that he thought he had given suffi-
cient proof of his wish to see Episcopal Superintendence
increased in proportion as the population augmented, by
supporting the proposal of creating two new Bishoprics—
those of Ripon and Manchester.
Mr. ACLAND said that the Right Hon. Baronet had
first abolished two Bishoprics before he agreed to the-
creation of two others. _ _ .

Lord PXLIII/IRSTON said it appeared to him that
theLe could be but two sound opinions upon the present
question ; either the opinion of the Hon. Baronet the
Member for the University of Oxford, who contended
that Parliament bad no right to deal with Church pro-
perty under any circumstances ; or the opinion of Hon.
Gentlemen on his (Lord Palmerston's) side, who main-
tained that Parliament had a right to dispose, according
to its discretion, of any fresh accession to the property
of the Church. .It seemed to him that the intermediate
position taken up by the Government, that Parliament
had a right to deal with Church property in one way and
not in another, was altogether untenable. Those who
agreed with him (Lord Palmerston) were of opinion that
the improved value in Church property would be best
appropriated to Church-rates.
Mr. DARBY contended that Church property ought
not on any account to be devoted to secular. purposes.
Lord PALMERSTON explained.
Mr. HARDY ti•ought the fund accumulated from any
increased value that might be given to Church property
ought to be devoted exclusively to spiritual purposes, and
for that reason he supported the Government measure.
Of the plan of the Noble Lord, which was to devote the
surplus to the extinction of Church-rates, he certainly
could not approve. The fund ought to be devoted ex-
clusively to spiritual purposes.
Mr. HENLEY said that what had fallen from her Ma •
jesty's Ministers had increased his objection to the Bill.
It was avowed that the object of the Bill was to carry
out the recommendation of the Ecclesiastical Commis-
sion.
Now that Commission had originated from a
slight pressure from without ia Ireland, not amounting to
what the Right Hon. and Learned Member for Cork
would call a heavy blow against Church-rates. The Go-
vernment of the day yielded to the pressure, and nine or
ten Bishops .were swallowed up to get rid of Church-
rates. At least, the revenues were swallowed up. He
kneW not what had become of the Bishops themselves.
The Commission had then been appointed, and had dealt
with what it had chosen to denominate the excess of

Church property. Now, if the principle of that Com-
miSsion were carried out, they might next year have an
Act interfering with livings of 1200/. or 2,0001.
What security had they that the holders of these
livings would not meet with the same fate as the Bishops?
In the present state of the House, it would, he knew, be
useless to divide the House upon the clause. He thought
it involved most dangerous principles. The Bill, as in-
troduced by the late Government, was bad enough, and
these gentlemen (pointing to Ministers) had made it
worse.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
every provision was introduced into the Bill that was
necessary to protect the property,of the Church, and to
promote those interests for which it was originally given..
The Bill was then read a third time.

Sir J. GRAHAM then brought up the following
clause :—" And be it enacted, that it shall be lawful for
any Ecclesiastical Corporation, aggregate or sole, except
as aforesaid, from time to time, with the consent or con-
sents hereby required in the case of leases of land, to
grant or demise, by lease, for any term not excceding
sixty years, to take effect in possession and not in re-
version, or by way of future interest, any mines, mine-
rals, quarries, or beds, belonging to such Corporation.
together with the right of working, or of opening and
working the same, and together also with such portion
of land belonging to such Corporation, as shall be
deemed expedient ; and every such lease shall contain
such reservations by way of rent, royalty, or share of
the produce in kind, all or any thereof, or otherwise,
and such powers, provisoes. restrictions, and covenants,
as shall be approved by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners
for England, due regard being had to the custom of the
country or district within which such mines, minerals,
quarries, or beds are situate ; and no fine, premium, or
foregift, nor any thing in the nature thereof, shall be
taken for or in respect of any such lease."
The clause was read a second and third time, and was
added to the Bill by way of rider.
Sir J. GRAHAM moved the following clause, to fol-
low clause 12 :—" Provided always, and be it enacted,
that in case of any lease of mines, minerals, quarries, or
beds, granted under this Act, such portion of the im-
proved value accruing thereunder as by the like autho-
rity shall be determined on, not being more than three
fourth parts, nor less than one moiety, of such improved
value, shall forthwith and from time to time, as the same
shall accrue, be paid to the said Ecclesiastical Commis-
sioners for England, and shall be subject to the provi-
sions hereinbefore contained, relating to monies payable
to them in respect of any lease of land ; and the re-
mainder, of such improved value shall be deemed to be
an improvement within the meaning of the provisions
' relating to the incomes of Archbishops, Bishops, Deans,
and Canons, and Archdeacons, respectively."

Mr. AGLIONBY asked what would be the effect of
this provision ? .
Sir J. GRAHAM explained the details of the clause.
Sir R. INGLIS said the proposition for which he had
been, and was now contending was, not that Parliament
had no right to deal with this property, because he be-
lieved that it had a full right to (10 so, but what he had
denied was, that Parliament had more right to deal with
this property than any other in the kingdom. • He had
always contended that where ecclesiastical property was
increased, the spiritual wants of the people living on
that property ought to be provided for out of the in-
creased value, but he objected to fixing a minimum income
for• Bishops or any other ecclesiastical dignitaries, and
thought that they were as likely to expend that income
wisely and justly, which God's Providence, not Parlia-
ment, had given, as any other parties on which it could
be bestowed.

Mr. HAWES thought the Bill had bexn greatly im-
proved by the clauses which the Right Hon. Baronet
had introduced ; but the Bill was important as recog-
nising the principle of appropriation.—(Cheers.) The
principle recognised by this Bill was that Parliament had
a right to appropriate the surplus revenues of the digni-
taries of the Church to other purposes, and to take those
revenues out of. the control of those dignitaries. Parlia-
ment was now dealing with Church property as it ought
to deal with it. There were two principles, either of
which the Right Hon. Gentleman might have adoptei
He might either have asserted the right of Parliament
to appropriate this Church property, or have left it to the
Church to appropriate its own property. The Govern-
ment had adopted the wiser course, and had asserted the
right of Parliament to deal with the property. That
principle had been before adopted with regard to Ire-
land. It had been propounded by the late Government.. It
had been wisely adopted by the present Government. Yes
the Government had adopted the principle of appropriation
by the present Bill. They appropriated the surplus of
ecclesiastical property to a different purpose from that
to which it had been proposed to appropriate it by the,
late Government ; but, nevertheless, they did appro-
priate it to a different purpose from that for which it had
been originally intended, and this was a distinct acknow-
ledgment of the principle of appropriation.—(Cheers.)
If they were to take from the Duke of Northumberland
a portion of his income, and give it to a poor Peer,
would that not be appropriation ? Would it do to say,
Oh, we do not go out of the Peerage, we only take from
one Peer to give to another ? He apprehended that,
nevertheless, the Duke of Northumberland would consi-
der that an appropriation. He was rejoiced to see the
Government recognising the principle of appropriation
by this Bill, and he regretted that they had not had the
courage to carry out the principle to its full extent.
The clause was then agreed to, and ordered to be added
to the Bill by way of rider.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM then proposed a clause for
rendering leases void in certain cases, which was agreed to.
Several verbal amendments in the various clauses were
likewie agreed to,
Sir JAMES GRAHAM proposed a clause for the
purposes of rendering the ,revenues of Christ Church,
Oxford subject to the provisions of the Bill, if the Chapter
of Christ Church should avail themselves of its pro-
visions with regard to leasing.—Agreed to.
The Bill, with the several additional clauses, was then
passed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

Messengers from the Lords brought down certain Bills.

COVENTRY BOUNDARY BILL.

The order of the day for the House resolving itself into
Committee on the Coventry Boundary Bill, having been
read, on the motion that the Speakerldo leave the Chair,
Sir J. MORDAILINT said that the Magistrates of
the county of Warwick were exceedingly desirous that
a short Bill should be introduced defining the boundaries
of the borough of Warwick„ and that the other matters
to which this Bill related should be left in entu quo until
next session. Ho had had an interview with the Right
Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department,
on the subject, and that Right Hon. Gentleman had said
he would withdraw the Bill if it were opposed by the
Magistrates of the county of Warwick ; and that on
them would rest the responsibility of any inconveniences
that might occur in consequence. He would not oppose
the Bill under those circumstances, but he thought it
was rather a strong measure to introduce such a Bill at
the close of the session.

After a few words from Sir J. GRAHAM,

The House went into Committee on the Bill.
The Bill with amendments passed through Committee,
and was reported to the House.—Third reading on
Wednesday next.