HC Deb 20 May 1842 vol 63 cc584-94
Sir James Graham

staled that in proposing they should proceed in committee with the Ecclesiastical Corporations Leasing Bill, he had postponed the consideration of it, at the request of the hon. Member for the county of Durham, and also at the request of the hon. Member for Northampton. It had been intimated to him by the hon. Member for the county of Durham, that all doubts as to the nature of the bill had been removed from his mind; and he had also received a similar intimation from the hon. Member for Northampton. He wished to state to the House that this measure was an important one; for it proposed to give to ecclesiastical corporations, aggregate and sole, a power of granting leases for a longer period than hitherto they had been permitted by law. It would enable them to grant leases for ninety-nine years for corporation purposes, and in order that they might increase the value of the property. He thought it Tight thus frankly and at once to state the purport of this measure; because he was aware that it involved considerations that had been already much agitated in that House. Some years ago it had been proposed to deal with this very property, which it was now intended to make the subject of legislation. It had been the proposition of the late Government that they should take advantage of the increased value that might be derived from a more suitable management of this property, to apply the surplus that might I arise from the improvement of the property to a particular purpose—the payment of Church-rates. It was then proposed to apply the sums thus raised in liquidation of that demand on the public. That proposition had been negatived in the last Parliament, although, by the measure then proposed, it was conceived that there must be a considerable increase to the value of Church property. When property was held by a corporation aggre- gate, there had been an appropriation made by Parliament. With respect to the property of deans and chapters, whenever there was a surplus in their funds, there was to be an appropriation of that surplus to the augmentation of small livings. Prospectively there had been an appropriation by Parliament of that surplus, and the present measure so appropriated it. Whatever increase might arise to the funds of a corporation aggregate, the Members of that corporation aggregate would, as individuals, not derive any benefit from it. The measure was not the same as to corporations sole. It gave them the power of leasing also for ninety-nine years, but then it was not proposed to deprive them of their individual interest in that increase, as it would be generally found that they went to the augmentation of small vicarages and insufficient livings in large towns. He thought it to be his duty thus shortly to state the nature of the measure he was about to propose. He did not think, that any objection would be taken as to the details, and if hon. Members objected to the principle, they would have two further stages on which they might contest it—both upon the report, and on the third reading. If any Gentleman did not think, that they should go into a bill of such importance, in so thin a House, he would not press the motion. He concluded his speech, which could be but very indistinctly heard in the gallery, by moving that the House resolve itself into a committee.

House in committee.

On the first clause,

Mr. Hawes

must say, that this bill had taken him very much by surprise. It was nothing more nor less than raising the appropriation principle in another shape. The late Government had proposed to grant the power of leasing Church property, and thereby of increasing the value of that property, for the purpose of relieving the people from the payment of Church-rates. All that was done in that respect was following the example that had been given in the Irish Church Temporalities Act, brought in by the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies. As well as he recollected, it would be found that by that act power was given of converting short leases into leases of perpetuity, and the surplus went to the consolidated fund, to be applied to certain purposes. The increased value derived front the Church property was, in the Irish Act, applied to the liquidation of the church cess. If he understood this measure aright, the right hon. Baronet would give an increased value to Church property; he proposed that where there was now only power to give short leases, there should be a power to give long leases, and that the surplus should be applied to the augmentation of small livings. It was, then, to be understood, that any expectations that might have been entertained of there being a fund which might have aided in relieving the people from the payment of Church-rates, that the right hon. Baronet would put an end to such expectations—that the right hon. Baronet would extinguish all such hopes—that there was to be no advantage derived from this large fund, which the late Government intended to apply to the diminution of Church-rates. The right hon. Baronet determined to apply this fund to no such purpose--he only asked for it, in order that it might he the means of augmenting the small livings. In the present state of the House it would be idle in him to oppose the proposition of the Government, if they were determined to persevere in it. Indeed, he might say the same of his opposition to the measure in any state of the House; but this he must say, that he was quite sure that what was now about to be done by the Government would excite a very great sensation out of doors. A right hon. Baronet, who was not then present, bad given notice of his intention to move for a grant of public money to extend church accommodation in this country. Thus then there was at the same time the probability of a large grant of the public money for Church purposes, but there was to be also this larger sum of money, now about to be created by the dealing with Church property, to he applied to the same object. It had been laid down by the noble Lord opposite that the increased value of such property created by act of Parliament was a thing with which the Sate might deal. Let them, he said, distinctly understand that the increased value of Church property which they had created was not to be so treated that it was to be applied solely to Church purposes, even while there might be called for an additional grant of public money for Church Extension. The right hon. Baronet might conceive it wise, proper, and consistent with Conservative principles so to act with regard to the Church; but he ventured to tell the right hon. Baronet that it would create very great discontent out of doors. The right hon. Baronet Sad stated very frankly what were his objects. But for the right hon. Baronet doing so, they might not so soon have known what this was done for; and now, if the House did not think fit to esist the proposition, it certainly was not the fault of the right hon. Baronet, for he had plainly stated his intentions. The public now, however, must be fairly and fully informed on the matter. He, on behalf of a very large class of persons—on behalf of those who differed from the Church, protested altogether against this mode of legislation. The dignity of the Church did not consist in its riches, nor was its usefulness increased by the augmentation of its wealth. The Church had enough of wealth at present, nor could the present proceeding procure for it more support, nor greater respect. On behalf of the dissenting body he protested against this appropriation of Church property. It could not be, he was sure, conducive to the interests of the Church, nor tend to promote peace and harmony in the country. He felt it to be his duty to protest against the principle contained in this bill.

Sir James Graham

observed that the details of the measure could not he objected to. There could be no question that the property ought to be so managed as to be rendered as available as possible. This principle being agreed upon, then the question was narrowed as to wheather there might not be a better appropriation of the additional sum raised from the extended powers of leasing proposed to be given. He did not feel that they could be sanctioned in the appropriation of that sum to any other than ecclesiastical purposes. Stating this as the principle by which he was prepared to abide, he did not at that moment wish to follow the hon. Gentleman into the question of Church-rates in Ireland, which, he conceived, stood on a perfectly distinct footing from Church-rates in England.

Mr. Wakley

was sure that the public would not object to an increase in the value of Church property. The public regarded Church property as their own property; but then they did not approve of the manner in which it was appropriated. He thought that the right Bon. Baronet had explained that the individual mem- bers of a corporation aggregate were to derive no benefit from the increase in the value of the property; but then, when the right hon. Baronet came to speak of corporations sole, he stopped short in his explanation. Was the incumbent in the latter case to obtain the full benefit arising from the increased value? [Sir J. Graham: Yes.] Why then, was there a different principle adopted in treating corporations aggregate and corporations sole?

Sir J. Graham

replied that, with respect to the corporations aggregate, there had been an appropriation prospectively. The amount to be derived by each individual was limited, and any surplus of the fund, after answering these demands, was to be applied to certain uses— the augmentation of small livings. With respect to corporations sole, then, no prospective appropriation had taken place. It was provided, whoever should be the life incumbent, the augmentation should be for the value of that incumbent, and for his exclusive benefit. The bill did not make any alteration in the condition of the incumbent. As the corporation aggregate was to have the power of making leases for ninety-nine years, the same power was to he given to the corporation soles; but then the leases must be made with the consent of the patron and the ordinary.

Mr. Hawes:

It appeared then that if a beneficed clergyman held more livings than one, he was to have the power of granting leases, which would increase the benefit of the living for himself. [Sir J. Graham: And for his successor.] But then the dean and chapter were to have the power of leasing property, and when they increased its value, the surplus was required to be paid over to the ecclesiastical commissioners. Why, he asked, should these incumbents, many of whom were pluralists, and had a very considerable interest in the livings they possessed—not have to pay over the surplus to the ecclesiastical commissioners? Why should they not do this in all cases where the value of the incumbency exceeded 500l. a year? He protested altogether against this appropriation of the surplus. It ought to go in a totally different direction. He did not see why they were to depart from the principle laid down by the noble Lord opposite—that if a new and increased value were given to the property, it should go to the State, and not to the Church. The increased value of the property being formed by the Legislature, it belonged to the public, and the Legislature ought to regulate its application to public purposes. He should be glad to hear the noble Lord opposite on this point. Why, he asked, was a pluralist, with 2,000l. a year, when his property was greatly augmented by this measure, not to pay over this surplus for the augmentation of small livings? Why were individual pluralists with large I incomes not to do this, when it was required of corporations aggregate? Why was the distinction drawn?

Sir J. Graham

stated, that from the best information lie had been able to obtain, he believed that the property would be found in large towns, and the property was that of vicars, generally ill-endowed, and the incomes attached to them were small. This he believed to be the case; and not that of rich pluralists, which he believed was contrary to the fact. The principle on which he acted was, that these benefices were the property of the incumbents. He denied that there was any principle in the law of England by which there was any maximum fixed beyond which property might be enjoyed. Any such maximum would be a novelty in the law of England. It was a novelty to the introduction of which he should most decidedly object. The surplus was to be applied to church uses strictly. Here, it, would be found that the augmentation would go to those who were inadequately endowed in large cities. As to an appropriation by the State from any increase in the value of Church property derived from new and good leasing, would be, in his opinion, an appropriation that would be unjust and highly inexpedient.

Mr. Roebuck

did not think that the right hon. Baronet went straight to the point in both cases. The corporation aggregate was composed of various persons. There then was a general property to be dealt with by the bill. Then where a surplus was contemplated by the act of Parliament, that surplus was dealt with by the State. By the act of Parliament it was to be applied to a worthy purpose, He did not quarrel now with that, but rather with the argument of the right hon. Baronet. Having then thus dealt with the corporation aggregate, how did they deal with the corporation sole? They made the three or four persons contribute; but then when it was one person, that had a certain benefice or property, the Parliament dealt with that property. They increased the value of that property. And here was the divergency in the argument of the right hon. Baronet, who said that he did not admit the principle that the State had a right to interfere with those beneficed clergymen, for though it might increase the value, yet it could not divert the present benefices from the clergymen. How, then, did it do so with the corporations aggregate? In the one case it was said to be sacred property— that it could not be diverted from the purpose for which it was originally given; and then, in another case, it was said that there might be a diversion from the original purpose. He did not understand the argument thus used. He was prepared to deal himself with this in a very off-hand manner; but he was not now called upon to do so. All he had now to do with was the argument. It laid down one principle when dealing with corporations aggregate, and it laid down another principle when dealing with corporations sole. Let it be supposed that there was a piece of ground belonging to an incumbent in a large town, which, by leasing for ninety-nine years, he might increase in value so much, that it would be worth 2,000l. a year or 5,000l. a year. Was, he asked, the right hon. Baronet prepared to stand by his principle boldly, that he would not take care that the surplus should be given for the purpose of a better religious education, for the purpose of more fully accomplishing that for which the estate had been originally given? Was that property not to be appropriated for the benefit of the Church—for the advantage of the persons inhabiting the parish? Was it to be that when the income of the incumbent was above a certain sum, that then the State was not prepared to take the property and apply it (if they would only to ecclesiastical purposes)? and were they to enhance its value without increasing the spiritual benefits that might he derived from it, and for which it had been originally given?

Sir J. Graham

considered that nothing could be more fair or candid than the manner in which the hon. and learned Gentleman placed his objections. He was not now discussing the propriety of the application of the surplus under that bill. That had been disposed of by Parliament; but lie conceived that it would be contrary to polity and justice, in dealing with ecclesiastical property, if they applied it to any other than ecclesiastical purposes. The bill did not introduce any new appropriation of property belonging to corporations aggregate, or with respect to the property of corporations sole. Now, referring to all the circumstances of that property, he did not think that any new application was expedient. He believed the fact to be, that the property held by the vicars in towns was small in amount. These benefices were generally ill-endowed, and now any increase to the value was one that was required; and nothing, he believed, could be more just than such an augmentation. He did not deny the right to deal with these matters for the benefit of individual members of the Church; but it was not just nor expedient that they should appropriate the income to other than ecclesiastical purposes.

Lord J. Manners

was of opinion that in many cases the grounds on which Church property was held inviolable were of a far higher character than those which affected lay property. He did not wish to enter into the discussion of the principle of the measure, but he must say, that he thought that that principle was just and correct.

Mr. Hawes

said, that with reference to what he had stated as to the arguments brought forward, and the principles maintained upon the subject of ecclesiastical property by the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, he would refer to the debates which took place upon the Irish Church Temporalities Bill, when it would be found that the doctrine which he had stated was that maintained by the noble Lord.

Mr. Wynn Ellis

thought it rather extraordinary that a different principle should be proposed to be applied to the property of corporations aggregate, from that to be applied to the property of corporations sole. If the measure before the House should pass into a law, corporations aggregate would be very ill-used; for it was proposed to take from them the fruits of any improvements in the value of their property, but to leave the fruits of Duch improvements in the hands of corporations sole. He thought that the measure would produce an injurious effect.

Mr. Brotherton

was sure that the object of the bill would excite much discontent through the country. It seemed to propose, by a general measure, to effect what had hitherto been accomplished by local and partial measures. But there was a wide distinction between corporations aggregate and corporations sole in this respect. With respect to the former there might be good security, that increased value of Church property would be property appropriated, but he was not so sure that the security was so perfect with reference to corporations sole, that an increase in the value of their property would be applied for the benefit of the Church. There had been many instances in which special acts of Parliament, enabling individuals to grant leases, had been turned to the advantage of themselves and their families, for the benefit, not of the Church, but of those out of it; and the bill at present before the House would, he believed, have the effect of enabling persons to alienate Church property to their own private advantage. He thought that if an act was passed, enabling these individuals to grant long leases, that the House should take care that good security should be given that the benefit to emerge should be for the Church, and not for individuals not connected with it.

Mr. Shaw

said, that with reference to the statements of the hon. Member for Lambeth as to the principles held upon the subject by the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, white he admitted that such principles had been once held by the noble Lord, he also maintained the noble Lord had abandoned the argument, and the clause affected by it had been struck out of the Irish Church Temporalities Bill with the consent of the noble Lord. It was not under such circumstances fair to quote the conduct of the noble Lord as a precedent.

Mr. Hawes

was astonished at the defects in the recollection of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, because he had been in the House at the time when the clause in question had been discussed, and he had used very strong language with reference to it, terming it a "spoliation" of the Church. Now he would beg leave to correct the hon. Gentleman. The noble Lord did not voluntarily give up the clause. The bill went up to the House of Lords, and the clause was there struck out; it then came down to this House, and the noble Lord vindicated the principle of the clause. He believed that he was not mistaken in that statement—at any rate, he was sure that the noble Lord would not say, that at the time in question he did voluntarily give up the clause, because no one more stoutly defended its principle, and that principle was, to give to the Irish Church power to grant leases to perpetuity, instead of for lives, thereby increasing the value of Church property, which increased value was to be paid into the consolidated fund, and would therefore be under the control of Parliament.

Lord Stanley

had not before thought it worth while to enter into a discussion upon events which had taken place eight or nine years ago, but, according to his recollection, the following was what passed upon the occasion alluded to. He would not be quite positive as to whether the withdrawal of the clause took place in the House of Lords or Commons, but he believed that the hon. Member for Lambeth was mistaken in supposing that the bill had passed through the House of Commons in the shape in which he maintained that it had so passed, but he would admit, that on the second reading of the bill, he had contended that increased value given to livings was property with which the State should be allowed to deal. The clause in question was opposed by some hon. Members, on the ground that its effect would be the alienation of Church property from Church purposes; and it was supported by other hon. Members who generally differed from him, because they believed it to be the first step towards the appropriation of ecclesiastical property. Finding, therefore, that the construction put upon the clause by hon. Members on both sides of the House was, that its effect would be to alienate from Church purposes Church property, although that was a construction which he himself could not admit, he stated that he was ready to withdraw the clause, and he would do so rather than it should be thought that he for a moment should have sanctioned the doctrine, that Church property should be applied to other than Church purposes. It was, as he believed, on going into committee, that he had thus bowed to the sense of the House.

Mr. Wakley

said, that although the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department, had stated, that with reference to corporations aggregate, Parliament had laid down a precedent, and had dealt with their property, yet with regard to corporations sole nothing of the kind had ever taken place. The right hon. Baronet had said, that his measure contem- plated no new principle. Now, this was a mistake. It was proposed to appropriate to the sole incumbent all the benefits all the advantages, all the value of improvement in Church property. That was a new principle. The right hon. Baronet had also stated, that he believed that the increase in the value of property would be applied chiefly to augment the incomes of vicars in large towns, who were often badly paid. Now that was all very well. Certainly, pay these gentlemen according to their labours—according to their station in society—pay them equal to their deserts; but he believed that in many of these cases the property would be applied to individual, and not, as it should be, to public purposes. Such was a principle which the House ought never to sanction. The House should have the interests of congregations, rather than of individuals, for its object. He trusted that the House would not proceed with the bill that night; they should have another discussion in a fuller House, for he believed that the measure would be productive of great injustice, and would occasion general dissatisfaction.

Sir James Graham

had not conceived that the bill would have experienced such opposition, especially as it was necessary for the interests of the public that as much land as possible should be let for building. He could have no doubt but that the land in question should be let; and if so let, the lessor must be either the corporation aggregate or sole as the case might be. In the present instance the case narrowed itself to a corporation sole, and he conceived that any fresh proposition in the case was unnecessary. Those who thought otherwise would have the opportunity of introducing such a proposition, putting corporations aggregate and sole on the same footing, at a subsequent stage of the proceedings. He hoped that at present the House would allow the bill to pass through committee.

Bill went through committee.

House resumed. Report to be received.