HC Deb 08 May 1817 vol 36 cc294-6

Mr. Newman moved the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill.

Lord Ebrington

observed, that great expectations had been excited in the country by this measure, of some beneficial arrangements. He was aware of strong objections to any parliamentary interference, which some considered as a sacrilegious attack on church property. He wished, however, to preserve the clergy's rights, without unnecessary burthens on the country.

Sir W. Scott moved an instruction to the committee, "That they have power to extend the provisions of the bill to the leasing of lands substituted for tithe, or annexed to small livings by means of queen Anne's bounty."—Agreed to.

Mr. Davies Gilbert moved an instruction to the committee, "That they have power to make provisions for continuing current leases to the end of the year, in cases of avoidance of benefices and for rateably dividing the emoluments between the late and present incumbent."—Agreed to; as was also an instruction, "to extend the provisions of the bill to glebe land under certain conditions."

On the motion for going into the committee,

Mr. J. H. Smyth

said, he thought it would be injustice to a successor to be bound by acts to which he was not a consenting party. There were three provisions proposed—the consent of the incumbent, patron, and a sworn surveyor; but he did not think they would be adequate to protect the successor against the act of an incumbent, Blackstone had observed, that the old provisions were found insufficient. He did not oppose the bill; but doubted its effect, and feared it might increase instead of diminishing dissensions.

Sir W. Scott

said, he looked with great anxiety at the removal of ancient usages. Such measures in the present state of the world, were not free from great danger. He should be better able to judge of the bill when it came in a regular shape from the committee; but it seemed to strike at a great principle of law, that a tenant for life should not injure his successor. He did not mean now to press his observations farther, but must call the earnest consideration: of the House to the whole subject. Pie therefore trusted for a full consideration of all the details of a measure that might affect the security of a most valuable class of persons; and hoped that time would be given for it. The university which he represented had not yet presented any petition en the subject, but its members felt a corresponding anxiety with Cambridge. He then read part of a letter from Oxford, stating that the bill was objectionable in principle and professions.

Lord Palmerston

did not rise to oppose the bill, but trusted that the objections to it would be done away in the committee. It related to a subject that might disturb many people's minds, when it was said that tithes, were a grievous tax, though they were as much the property of the church as any property was of the landlord.

Mr. Ponsonby

understood no attack to be made on the clergy or their rights, but thought that a bill regulating clerical property might be passed as well as a bill regulating any other species of property. With this view he would go into the committee. He was favourable to the bill, because he believed its provisions would be as beneficial to the clergy as to the other parties interested.

Mr. Savile

considered the church property as inviolable as any other property.

Mr. H. Martin

concurred in the principle of the bill, not more because it was agreeable to the landholder than because it would promote the interests of the clergy, whose right to the enjoyment of tithes was as sacred as that of any landholder to the lands that yielded them. From his situation he was acquainted with the interests of the church, and the sentiments of the clergy; and he was sure that the measure before the House would promote the one and meet the other.

Mr. Lockhart

supported the bill, and replied to an observation of sir W. Scott, relative to the principle of English law, that a tenant for life could not bind his successor. Much of the prosperity of the country had arisen from an interference with this maxim. The guards in this bill were sufficient to prevent injury to church property.

Mr. Brougham

said, that the principle of the bill had his support. He denied that any attempt was made to alarm the clergy.

Mr. Newman

understood, when he undertook the measure, that it would be agreeable to the clergy, and would promote their interests. He had consulted their rights and wishes more than that of the other class, whose property his bill might affect. He was averse to delay in passing the bill. Much had been said of plans for relieving the poor. This measure, by encouraging agricultural improvements, would be found to be more practically beneficial than any of them.

The House then resolved itself into a committee, when the instructions moved in the House were received. After some time spent in the committee, the chairman reported progress.