§ On the Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate on the Farnham Rectory Bill.
§ Mr. Easthopehad a petition to present against this bill, from Samuel Hackvale, of Chipping Norton, in the county of Oxford; which stated, that a proposed provision of the bill would entail great hardships upon the lessees of this property, and upon all persons similarly circumstanced; and praying to be heard by counsel against the proposed provision.
§ Petition read at length, and ordered to lie on the Table.
818§ The Order of the Day having been read,
§ Mr. Easthopehoped the House would not be induced to go on with this bill until they had given to those persons who were to be affected by the bill, and who had so recently known the intention of the hon. Baronet, to remove the compensation clauses, an opportunity of fairly being heard by the House. He hoped the hon. Baronet would not object to such a postponement as was necessary to give the party time to be heard by counsel against the provision which the hon. Baronet proposed. [Sir R. Inglis: I shall decidedly, and I shall press my amendment.] He thought it was impossible that the House of Commons could go the length of deciding a question of this sort without giving the individuals interested a full opportunity of being heard. He would, therefore, move that the further consideration of this debate be adjourned to Wednesday next.
§ Captain Pechell seconded the motion.
Mr. J. Stewart, as a member of the Committee to which this bill was referred, would state shortly the reasons that induced himself and the Committee to come to the conclusion that compensation ought to be given to the lessees of the property affected by this bill. The hon. and learned Member for Exeter, and the hon. and learned Member for Ripon, both on the occasion of the great question of church-rates which was debated in 1837, gave a decided and distinct opinion that the right which the petitioner claimed, and which was claimed before the Committee, was a good and valid right—a right which had been recognised for 300 years, and which could not be set aside in the very summary manner in which the hon. Baronet seemed prepared to set it aside. This was a question of the greatest importance; it interested thousands, and involved interests of great magnitude, and he certainly expected to find Gentlemen on the other side prepared to state their reasons for striking out a clause of this nature in violation of the settled law of the country—in violation of Acts of Parliament—in violation of the decision of a select committee appointed to inquire into the whole subject—in violation of the decisions of the House of Lords, and in violation of the rules of equity and common sense. The settled maxims and 819 practice of conveyancing recognised a tenant right as a species of property. A man might go into the market with it. If any hon. Gentleman would go into the library, and consult the authorities, particularly Butler's Notes, he would find that a tenant right had been treated as a matter of property, and had been distinctly recognised in all dealings with property. He admitted, that a tenant had no right to go and say to a landlord "you must renew my lease," but courts of equity, in dealing with this species of property, where the tenant was dragged before the court by others, distinctly recognised it. Were they, then, prepared to set aside these solemn decisions of courts of equity, and Acts of Parliament? The Gentlemen on the other side proposed to break down the settled rules of property; to reverse the solemn decisions of courts of equity; and to repeal an Act of Parliament. Moreover, they wished the House to reject the opinion of the committee on this bill, an opinion which was in conformity with the opinions of former committees of that House. Under these circumstances, he sincerely trusted that the House would not expunge the words which the committee had inserted. He should certainly vote for the proposition of the hon. Member for Leicester.
§ Sir R. Inglissaid, that the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down, and the hon. Member for Leicester, had complained that he had not spoken on this question. The same complaint had been made at the close of the last discussion. In point of fact, he had not that desire of making the same speech very frequently, which appeared to influence those two hon. Members. After a discussion of three hours and a half, as to what the provisions of this bill were, be certainly thought it more respectful to the House not to occupy their time upon the subject, and more especially after stating his view of the case in the first instance. The hon. and learned Member for Honiton, perhaps, was not present on that occasion, or did not attend to him, but he certainly stated, at some length, and with as much clearness as he could, the grounds on which he recommended that the amendment should be introduced into the bill. The attention of the House had been called that evening to a petition from a Gentleman who prayed to be heard by counsel against the provision which he wished to be introduced into the bill. He 820 naturally supposed, and particularly from the solemn tones with which the petition was brought forward, that he was a Gentleman whose rights would be affected by the bill on the table. Incidentally, his rights might be affected, as the rights of any other church lessee might be affected, but the petitioner had no more to do with the Farnham Rectory Bill than the porter at the door of the House. This person, who signed a pamphlet in the shape of a petition, stated that his interests were involved in this bill, and he prayed that the privilege of a petitioner might be extended to him, and that he might be heard by counsel against the bill. The party was out of court—he had no ground of complaint as regarded the bill on the table. The hon. and learned Member for Honiton had not committed his professional reputation, and he was glad he had not, upon the principle that there was any right which these lessees had, under their existing leases, which could be maintained in any court of law; but that hon. and learned Gentleman had endeavoured to infuse an opinion into that House, and to impress upon that House the conviction that these persons would be injured, and deprived of a right, if this bill were to pass. The hon. and learned Member was not afraid even to state, that this bill would repeal an Act of Parliament. He certainly had not expected that any hon. and learned Member of that hon. profession—the law—would have stated that, in passing a private bill, the House of Commons was repealing the Church Temporalities'(Ireland) Act. If the hon. and learned Member did not mean this, why use the phrase? The hon. and learned Member laboured under a most erroneous impression, with respect to the operation of this bill upon the Church Temporalities' (Ireland) Act. There was no more connection between the two acts than between any two acts placed in juxta position, in the volumes on the table. But the hon. and learned Member said, that this was a precedent now for the first time sought to be established. The hon. and learned Member was not in the House about sixteen years ago, when a bill precisely of the same kind was passed. That bill had reference to certain leases of land held under the Bishop of St. David's. What were the objections to the present bill? The hon. and learned Gentleman admitted the merits of the Archdeacon of Surrey, who was one of the parties interested in this bill. He said, that the in- 821 habitants of Farnham were greatly interested in the passing of this bill. The Church also was greatly interested, but he defied any hon. Member to show that any of the parties interested in the bill derived any pecuniary benefit from it. On the contrary, the Archdeacon of Surrey would lose a considerable sum, or rather he would omit to receive. The hon. and gallant Member (Captain Pechell) said, that the Archdeacon could not lose what he never had. True, but if the House refused to pass this bill, the Archdeacon would come into a position where he might receive it. It, therefore, depended upon the hon. and gallant Officer, and those near him, if they should eventually gain a majority on this bill, contrary to the precedent of Friday, and to the appearance of the House that day—it depended upon them whether the Archdeacon should receive it or not; it depended upon them, or rather upon the rejection or passing of this bill, whether the inhabitants of Farnham, and the adjacent parishes, should or should not receive the spiritual instruction that was to be derived from the grant of four new churches, and five additional clergymen. The means of providing this additional spiritual instruction were now in the hands of the House. Let them refuse their sanction to this bill, and they transferred to the Archdeacon of Surrey 11,200l. They had been told that the lessees were greatly to be pitied. Now what were the facts, and what were the sums which these lessees had expended in obtaining the interests they enjoyed? They had this stated on what would appear to be sufficient authority, and indeed part of it was stated in evidence, to the effect that the original parties paid not more than 16,000l. for the renewal of their leases. [Captain Pechell: Who are the parties?] He was alluding to the principal lessee. He had expended on another renewal 4,000l.; on suits for titles 7,000l.; and upon the kilns and barns about 4,000l. —making an aggregate of 31,000l. What was the amount of the profits? For the first seven years they amounted to 800l. per annum, and for the next forty years the profits amounted to 2,350l. annually; thus putting into the pockets of the lessees 94,000l. Did the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Pechell) mean to deny that the sum of 2,350l. multiplied by forty years would give the amount of 94,000l.? The result then was, that for an expenditure of 31,000l., this lessee had received, up to the present time, near 100,000l.; and 822 the value of the remainder of the unexpired lease had been valued at 3,000l. To say, therefore, that this bill operated hardly upon the lessees, was perfectly ludicrous and absurd. These parties appealed to their rights, but did not the Ecclesiastical Duties' and Revenues' Bill, deprive persons of their rights in a precisely similar manner, with respect to prebendal stalls? If the House did right in the one in-stance, they were not doing wrong in the other, the present instance. Those who supported the wholesale suppression of the rights of existing prebendaries, complained of the present bill, by which, in a minor and detailed way, the same principle was carried out. The principle might be wrong, or it might be right, but it could not be right at one time and wrong at another. He hoped that hon. Members would no longer complain that he had not endeavoured to state to the House, as fully and as fairly as he could, the grounds upon which he rested his proposition.
§ Sir G. Greyrose to express an earnest hope that his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester would not persevere in his amendment. When he had voted for the adjournment of the debate to this day, it was with the prospect that they should proceed at once to the question of compensation, and that there should be in the first instance, at least, no further delay.
Mr. Aglionbyconcurred in the recommendation of the hon. Baronet. There certainly was a distinct understanding when the party on the other side had a majority, and yet entered into a compromise with the minority, that no other motion should be interposed.
§ Amendment withdrawn.
§ On the question being again put.
§ Mr. Lambtonthe representative of a constituency containing a large body of Church lessees, could not allow this bill to pass without making a few observations upon it. He thought this bill, if it came into law, would establish a very dangerous precedent. The principle of compensation had been admitted by that House every time that the subject of Church leases had come before it for the last eight or ten years. The principle also was clearly established when the Church-rate question was debated in 1837, and by none more ably than by some distinguished Members of the other side. Not only the right hon. Baronet the Member for Pembroke (Sir J. Graham) expressed his opinion on that 823 occasion, but two of the most distinguished lawyers of this country spoke most ably on the subject. The hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Sir W. Follett), amidst the approbation and loud cheers of Gentlemen opposite, clearly laid it down that church lessees had the strongest equitable claim, and that the House could not interfere with their property without giving them fair compensation. The hon. and learned Member for Ripon (Mr. Pemberton) spoke even still more strongly than the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (The hon. and learned Gentleman quoted these two authorities at some length, for which see Hansard, Vol. 37, Third Series, p. 396, and 434). After referring to the rights of tenants in general the hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded to say—thus the principle of compensation had been distinctly admitted on the subject of Church lessees. He hoped hon. Gentlemen opposite, for the sake of consistency, would not sanction the wanton and unjust proposition of the hon. Baronet.
Mr. Phillpotssaid, that upon every occasion lessees of Church property had always been considered, as having an interest which it would be the greatest injustice to deprive them of. Hon. Gentlemen knew that properly of this description had been to a great extent tied up in family settlements, and he was quite sure that if by a measure of this sort they rendered the title doubtful, no person would be found hereafter ready to advance money upon property of this description. He believed that this bill was extremely excellent in its object; the establishment of new churches and the extension of spiritual instruction, but desirable as that object was, it could not justify an act of injustice. With that feeling he must vote against the motion of the hon. Baronet.
Lord Stanleyhad no doubt whatever that the object of the promoters of this bill was pure and laudable, but the interests of the parties who held leases under the existing incumbent would be affected by the provisions of this bill, and in this way, that whereas they now held leases renewable upon certain conditions, namely, upon the payment of fines regulated by the interest of the individual who happened to be the incumbent at the time, they were about to be transferred, by the forcible interposition of Parliament, to becoming the lessees of others, the risk of whose 824 lives, and whose interest in the renewal of the leases was of a very different description: for a permanent corporation had one interest and one only—namely, that of making the most of time. He was not prepared to say, that under such circumstances, the lessee was not entitled to some consideration. He did not hesitate to say, that when they interfered forcibly by Act of Parliament to require persons who held leases from individuals, the risk of whose lives gave them an interest in renewing upon easy terms, to a permanent body who had no such interest, but whose interests were rather to make the most of their money, the House must take one of two courses — they must either protect men against the change, or they must compensate them for injury. In cases where they were dealing with a body at large, it was very difficult to estimate the amount of compensation; and hence, in the Irish Church Temporalities Act, he preferred not compensation, but protection. He provided that the lessees should have two alternatives, either that of paying an amount of rent equivalent to the rent and fine, or the right of claiming from the lessor to grant to him a renewal of the lease; not making it optional with the lessor whether he would run his life or not. He thought, however, when they came to deal with individual cases, the principle of compensation was fairer, because in the case of individuals they might know all the circumstances of the case. In the case before the House, the compensation, he believed, would be exceedingly trifling, because the life of the party in possession was a better life than either of those in the lease. If he was rightly informed, the lessor was a young man, thirty-five years of age, whilst the two lives in the lease were sixty and fifty, considerably older lives than the life of the lessor. It might be very well worth while for the lessor to say, "These are elderly men, I will run my life against theirs; I will sacrifice present for great future advantages." If he succeeded, no injustice would be done to the lessees; their lives would be forfeited, and the lessor, for his own individual advantage, would be perfectly right in making the most of his land. In the present case, therefore, he supposed the amount of compensation would be very small; but be it greater, or be it less, he felt compelled to vote in its favour.
§ Mr. Goulburnsaid, that he did not concur with his noble Friend in the arrangement that was made with respect to the Irish Church; but even if he had, he did not think the arguments used by his noble Friend upon the present question would have induced him to act otherwise than vote for the rejection of this clause. He did not consider the lessees under the Archdeacon of Surrey were in any degree in a similar position to the lessees under the bishops of Ireland. In the first place, the leases under the bishops of Ireland were held not for lives, but for twenty-one years; and the common practice was, to renew the lease every year on the payment of a certain sum, and the whole income of the bishop depended upon his receiving annually the sums given for the addition of one year to the existing leases. It was, therefore, next to impossible that any bishop so depending for his income could contest the point with the lessees holding under him. Parliament had, therefore, to make some arrangement which, while it enabled the bishop to receive his income, should be just to the lessees; for they had in the case of the Irish Church a much greater interest than could by possibility be possessed by the lessees in the present case; therefore, if he had been inclined to give compensation in the former case, he should not consider the argument applied to this case. Here was a great public benefit to be obtained, the extent of which no one could know, by which religious and spiritual instruction was to be provided for the people. The case of these lessees was simply this—here was a young man appointed to the archdeaconry of Surrey who had the right of a renewal of the leases held under him by persons who were much older than himself, and who, by withholding the renewal during their lives, and running his life against the lives in the existing leases, would forego a present advantage for the sake of a greater benefit that would ultimately arise to him by outliving them. He could not see that the present lessees had any claim whatever for compensation. He should vote against the clause.
Mr. Denisontrusted the House would allow him to state what sums of money were at issue in this case. In the case of Mr. Halstead, it appeared that his father gave 16,000l. for the lease; that he had himself given 4,200l. for the renewal of that lease; and that he had ex- 826 pended 4,000l. in buildings and 7,000l. in establishing the right to the tithes; by which he raised the tithes from 800l. to 2,350l.; and it was now proposed to take this away from him, without making him any compensation, although the Church had been so much benefitted by his exertions. The next case was that of Mr. Bury. That gentleman gave 11,250l. for his lease; and had paid two fines—one of 800l., and the other of 1,100l., amounting together to 13,150l., the tithes being about 600l. a-year. The lessees were the only parties who would suffer by this measure. The Bishop of Winchester would gain the presentation of the rectory of Farnham, with three chapelries annexed; the bill converting a vicarage into a rectory. The Archdeacon of Surrey, who certainly was not over paid, still would gain a permanency, by having annexed to the archdeaconry a prebend in the cathedral of Winchester. The committee called before them three respectable valuers, who gave an unanimous opinion, that by the course meant to be adopted by this bill, it would cause a loss to the lessees equal to three years' purchase; in other words, that if the right of renewal were taken from them, their interests would be depreciated to the amount of three years' purchase. This, he contended, was very unfair towards those gentlemen, and compensation should be made to them for the injury they were about to sustain.
Dr. Lushingtondiffered from the opinion which had been expressed by his hon. Friend who had just spoken. Undoubtedly the division on this occasion would be one of rather a singular kind; yet he thought it would redound very much to the honour of the House, because it would be a division upon a private bill, in which individuals of all parties would be found to vote according to their own opinions and judgments, and not according to the opinions of any political party. Now, he conceived, that the estimate mentioned by his hon. Friend, had been made upon grounds the most fallacious. He would not enter into a discussion of the general principle, but in his judgment, in point of fact, there was a most material difference between the case of leases held under a chapter, and the case of leases held under a corporation sole. Where a life fell in, in the case of a lease held under an aggregate corporation, it might be difficult to get all the 827 parties forming that corporation, to agree to run out the lease, though it might be a course that would be to their own advantage; but in the case of property of this description, held on lease under a sole corporation, such as a bishop, a dean, or an archdeacon, the only interest the lessor had to look to was his own interest; and he had the absolute right, which no man had ever yet attempted to control, of dealing with that interest for his own benefit and advantage, without regard to the interest of the lessee beyond what was secured to him by the lease. Suppose the Archdeacon of Surrey, or any other person possessed of such a right as this, should say, "I am only thirty-five years of age; in my opinion it will be to my advantage not to renew these leases;" in such a case would any person, he would ask, say that, either in justice or equity, there would be the slightest claim on the part of the lessee to compensation? He maintained, that in the instance of the present lessees, there was no loss to compensate, and upon that ground he opposed the clause.
§ The House divided on the question that the words granting compensation stand part of the clause:—Ayes 81; Noes 19:—Majority 2.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Aglionby, H. A. | Hodges, T. L. |
| Alston, R. | Hoskins, K. |
| Archbold, R. | Howard, hn. E. G. G. |
| Baines, E. | Hume, J. |
| Barnard, E. G. | Humphery, J. |
| Barrington, Viscount | Hutchins, E. J. |
| Basset, J. | Hutt, W. |
| Bowes, J. | Jervis, J. |
| Bridgeman, H, | Jervis, S. |
| Brotherton, J. | Johnson, General |
| Bryan, G. | Lambton, H. |
| Chichester, Sir B. | Langdale, hon. C. |
| Childers, J. W. | Lennox, Lord A. |
| Clive, E. B. | Lushington, C. |
| Gorbally, M. E. | Martin, J. |
| Divett, E. | Maule, hon. F. |
| Douglas, Sir C. E. | Noel, hon. C. G. |
| Evans, Sir De L. | Oswald, J. |
| Evans, G. | Palmer, R. |
| Ewatt, W. | Palmer, G. |
| Fielden, J. | Pattison, J. |
| Ferguson, Sir R. | Pechell, Captain |
| Finch, F. | Philips, M. |
| French, F. | Phillpotts, J. |
| Gordon, hon. Capt. | Ponsonby, hon. J. |
| Greenaway, C. | Pryme, G. |
| Grosvenor, Lord R. | Pusey, P. |
| Harcourt, G. G. | Rawdon, Col. J. D. |
| Hastie, A. | Rice, E. R. |
| Hill, Lord A. M. C. | Roche, W. |
| Salwey, Colonel | Vigors, N. A. |
| Sheil, rt. hn. R. L. | Wakley, T. |
| Smith, J. A. | Ward, H. G; |
| Smith, G. R. | White, H. |
| Somers, J. P. | Williams, W. |
| Somerville, Sir W. M. | Wood, G. W. |
| Stanley, Lord | Yates, J. A. |
| Steuart, R. | Yorke, hon. E. T. |
| Stewart, J. | Wood, B. |
| Tancred, H. W. | TELLERS. |
| Thornely, T. | Denison, W. J. |
| Troubridge, Sir E. T. | Easthope, J. |
| List of the NOES. | |
| Ainsworth, P. | Hawkins, J. H. |
| Arbuthnott, hon. H. | Hodgson, F, |
| Ashley, Lord | Hodgson, R. |
| Attwood, W. | Hogg, J. W. |
| Balllie, H. J. | Hope, H. T. |
| Baker, E. | Hutton, R. |
| Baldwin, C. B. | Ingestrie, Viscount |
| Baring, H. B. | Irton, S. |
| Baring, hon. W. B. | Jenkins, Sir R. |
| Barneby, J. | Kemble, H. |
| Blair, J. | Knight, H. G. |
| Botfield, B. | Lascelles, hon. W. S. |
| Bradshaw, J. | Lemon, Sir C. |
| Brooke, Sir A. B. | Lincoln, Earl of |
| Brownrigg, S. | Lockhart, A. M. |
| Bruce, Lord E. | Lowther, hon. Col. |
| Buck, L. W. | Lushington, rt. hn. S. |
| Buller, Sir J. Y. | Mackinnon, W. A. |
| Cantilupe, Viscount | Mahon, Viscount |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Milnes, R. M. |
| Clerk, Sir G- | Norreys, Lord |
| Compton, H. C. | Pakington, J. S. |
| Courtenay, P. | Perceval, Colonel |
| Currie, R. | Praed, W. T. |
| Darby, G. | Reid, Sir John Rae |
| Darlington, Earl of | Richards, R. |
| Dottin, A. R. | Sheppard, T. |
| Dunbar, G, | Sibthorp, Colonel |
| East, J. B. | Somerset, Lord G. |
| Forester, hon. G. | Stock, Dr. |
| Fremantle, Sir T. | Sturt, H. C. |
| Freshfield, J. W. | Style, Sir C. |
| Gaskell, J. M. | Tollemache, F. J. |
| Gladstone, W. E. | Trench, Sir F. |
| Gore, O. W. | Vernon, G. H. |
| Goulburn, rt. hn. H. | Wilmot, Sir J. E. |
| Grant, Sir A. C. | Wyndham, W. |
| Grimsditch, T. | Young, J. |
| Grimston, Viscount | TELLERS. |
| Hawes, B. | Acland, T. D. |
| Hawkes, T. | Inglis, Sir R. H. |
§ Other clauses agreed to. Bill to be read a third time.