§ Mr. Aglionby moved a clause to the effect, that the ecclesiastical commissioners for England shall, upon the application of the lessee of any messuages, lands, tithes, or other hereditaments, being the separate property of or belonging to any vacant canon, prebend, or dignity, if in the case of a lease for lives one or more of the persons for whose lives the same was held on the 4th day of February, 1835, be dead, or if in the case of a lease for years the period shall have elapsed, at which it would have been lawful for the holder of such canon, prebend, or dignity, if the same had not been vacant, to insert a life or lives, or grant a renewal of such lease in like manner, and on the payment of fines to be calculated on the same principle, and subject to the same terms and conditions as have been heretofore used in each instance on the insertion of a life or lives, or on the renewal of such leases, as the case may be.
§ Clause read a first and second time. House resolved itself into a Committee on the clause in Committee.
Sir T. Acland
proposed to limit the operation of the clause to lives now existing, and moved to substitute "the 1st January, 1839," for the "4th of February, 1835."
§ The Committee divided on the question that the date be the 4th of February, 1835—Ayes 33 Noes 38: Majority 5.
§ Lord John Russell
objected to the clause 529 being made retrospective, as it would operate exclusively in favour of the lessees, and entirely against the Church.
§ Sir James Graham
thought the clause was due in strict justice to the lessees. So far from its giving an undue advantage to them, he was of opinion, that the course of legislation for the last four years had been most unjust to them. He certainly should support the amendment of the hon. Member for Kilkenny.
§ The Committee divided again.
§ On the question that the blank be filled up with the words "first of January, 1839."—Ayes 37; Noes 40: Majority 3.
§ Blank filled up with the words "fifth of February, 1835."
§ The House resumed, and the clause was reported.
§ On the question that the clause be added as a rider to the bill,
§ Lord John Russell
objected, as it went back four years, and he should certainly divide against its adoption.
§ Mr. Warburton
could not understand how the noble Lord could oppose the clause, after having so far adopted it as to have voted with the hon. Baronet for filling up the blank with the words "1st January, 1839;" thus, in fact, recognising the principle of the clause. What possible difference could the fact of the clause going back to an earlier period make as to the principle of it?
had been unfairly treated. He had no personal interest in a moving the clause. He had formerly submitted the clause to the hon. Member for Chichester, who fully approved of it, and he was ready to have moved it when the report was brought up, but then the noble Lord had left the House. He had thus, however, only one other stage left, and had accordingly brought it forward on the third reading. The noble Lord now told them he could not accede to the clause. Was it not fair to assume, that when the noble Lord had acceded formerly to the clause in his place, that it would not meet with after opposition? He left it to the House and the public to decide. He regretted that he had been obliged to make these remarks, but the course followed by the noble Lord had left him no alternative.
§ Lord John Russell
said, with respect to the understanding said to have been entered into between him and the hon. Member for Chichester, when that hon. Member spoke 530 to him about moving this clause on the bringing up of the report, he had stated that he thought such a course would be attended with inconvenience, and that it would be better to move it on the third reading; and the hon. Member for Cockermouth now blamed him for acceding to that course. He did not see that he was so much to blame for having clone so. The mode of proceedure which had been followed, and the very unusual course adopted by the hon. Member for Kilkenny, left him entirely free still to oppose the clause; and he felt that be was fully justified in opposing it.
§ Sir James Graham
must say, that according to the practice of the House the noble Lord was fully entitled to take the sense of the House against the clause.
§ The House divided.
§ On the question that the clause be added to the bill by way of rider:—Ayes 39; Noes 45: Majority 6.
|List of the AYES.|
|Briscoe, J. I.||Jervis, S.|
|Brocklehurst, J.||Liddell, hon. H. T.|
|Brotherton, J.||Lushington, C.|
|Duncombe, T.||Macleod, R.|
|Ellis, W.||Muskett, G. A.|
|Evans, G.||O'Brien, W. S.|
|Evans, W.||Pechell, Captain|
|Ewart, W.||Rice, E. R.|
|Fielding, J.||Salwey, Colonel|
|Fenton, J.||Scholefield, J.|
|Finch, F.||Smith, B.|
|Gisborne, T.||Vigors, N. A.|
|Graham, rt. hn. Sir. J.||Walker, R.|
|Hawes, B.||Williams, W.|
|Heathcoat, J.||Williams, W. A.|
|Hector, C. J.||Wood, C.|
|Hodgson, R.||Wood, G. W.|
|Hoskins, K.||Yates, J. A.|
|Howard, P. H.||TELLERS.|
|Hume, J.||Aglionby, H.|
|Hutton, R.||Warburton, H.|
|List of the NOES.|
|Acland, Sir T. D.||Harcourt, G. G.|
|Attwood, W.||Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.|
|Baring, F. T.||Hodges, T. L.|
|Baring, H. B.||Hope, hon. C.|
|Barnard, E. G.||Howick, Viscount|
|Buck, L. W.||Irton, S.|
|Buller, Sir J. Y.||Kemble, H.|
|Cole, Viscount||Labouchere, rt. hn. H.|
|Darby, G.||Law, hon. C. E.|
|Dick, Q.||Lushington, rt. hn. S.|
|Euston, Earl||Maule, hon. F.|
|Fleetwood, Sir P.||Monypenny, T. G.|
|Gordon, R.||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Gonlburn, rt. hon. H.||Morris, D.|
|Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.||Packe, C. W.|
|Palmer, C. F.||Seale, Sir J. H.|
|Parnell, rt. hon. Sir H.||Stock, Dr.|
|Pendarves, E. W. W.||Style, Sir C.|
|Plumptre, J. P.||Troubridge, Sir E. T.|
|Praed, W. T.||Turner, W.|
|Protheroe, E.||Wood, Colonel T.|
|Rolfe, Sir R. M.||Dalmeney, Lord|
|Russell, Lord J.||Seymour, Lord|
§ Clause rejected. Bill passed.