(NO. 33.) THIRD READING. (Hansard, 16 March 1868)

§ LORD REDESDALE
asked, whether the Orders made had not been irregular, and in transgression of the powers contained in the Acts of Parliament of the Commissioners?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said a number of Orders had been made by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners professing to be in pursuance of the powers contained in the Acts of Parliament, and dealing with the capitular property mentioned in the Schedules of the Bill. He was not prepared to say all, but under many of those Orders purchases and sales had taken place, and the titles of the purchasers had not been questioned. But when two Orders which had lately been made had been presented for the confirmation of Her Majesty in Council, objections were taken by a dignitary of the Church, who presented a petition in the usual form. The petition in the ordinary course was referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, who felt it to be their duty to report to Her Majesty that those two Orders ought not to be confirmed; and, as some doubt might thus arise with respect to the validity of the other Orders under which purchases and sales of property had taken place, the present Bill had been introduced for the purpose of removing any such doubt. The measure was, he believed, framed in entire conformity with the general practice of removing all doubts with respect to the legality of the action of public bodies who had exercised powers with which they believed they were invested, and under whose sanction large amounts of property had changed hands without any opposition.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, that, so far as he knew, and had been informed, all the cases mentioned in the Schedules of the Bill were cases of Orders where property had changed hands.

§ LORD REDESDALE
said, it was a question whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had power to pass Orders which transferred chapteral property to them; but, at the same time, he agreed with the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack that any sales which had been made on 1678 the faith of these Orders being good ought to be confirmed by Parliament.

§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
asked, if there was any objection to stating in the Schedule what was the nature of the transactions?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, their Lordships should bear in mind that every one of the Orders had been published verbatim in The London Gazette from time to time, and the dates of their publication were given in the Schedule. There had therefore been ample notice to the public as to everything which those Orders professed to do; and their Lordships might infer, from the fact that no one had ever appeared to object to the Orders, that it never occurred to any person, until the two recent occasions to which he had referred, that any objections could validly be entertained.

§ The DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH
said, that the Orders having been passed by Her Majesty's Council, had, in themselves, the effect of validity in law. In consequence of a recent decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, however, a doubt arose as to whether the Act of Parliament was sufficient to authorize the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in what they had done; but there could be no doubt as to the validity of Her Majesty's Orders in Council. Large transactions having taken place under those Orders, both in the alienation of property and in the re-transference of estates to the ecclesiastical corporations, it was necessary that an Act of Parliament should be passed to set at rest any doubt as to the power of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in their share of the transactions; but the Orders of Her Majesty in Council might be supposed to have the effect of validity in law.