HC Deb 05 August 1842 vol 65 cc1076-82
Sir J. Graham

moved the third reading of the Ecclesiastical Corporations Leasing Bill.

Sir R. H. Inglis

objected to some parts of the bill in its original shape, but still more to the new clauses. One of those clauses, the 12th, introduced a new principle into the legislation of England on the subject, by establishing a maximum in respect to the income derivable by a clergyman from a given living. With regard to the other new clauses, they had not been made known to the chapters and other bodies, with whose property they dealt; but as they only carried out the principle of the Ecclesiastical Commission Acts, he would not, under all the circumstances of the Session, dwell upon them; but he wished an expression of the opinion of the House on the 12th clause.

Sir J Graham

regretted that his hon. Friend had reserved his objections to the bill to so late a period. The bill had been nearly six months before the House. As to the principle in the 12th clause, it was, one which, considering the great importance of providing for the spiritual instruction of the people, he could not consent to abandon. It enacted that, out of incomes increased by the operation of this bill, means should be provided to establish cures of souls in destitute districts. His hon. Friend objected to any interference with ecclesiastical property, and would be content to leave to all life-holders of it the excessive incomes which might be the result of operations rendered legal by the present bill. He could not, therefore, hope to satisfy his hon. Friend; but he thought that he should satisfy the House.

Mr. V. Smith

supported the clauses proposed to be inserted by the right hon. Baronet. There was no doubt that the revenues of the Church would be considerably increased if these clauses were agreed to; he hoped, in that event, that the agreement which originally existed between the lessees and lessees, and which was a favourable agreement for the Church, would still be maintained.

Viscount Palmerston

said, it appeared to him that there could be but two sound opinions upon the present question; either the opinion of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, who contended that Parliament had no right to deal with Church property under any circumstances; or the opinion of 11011. Gentlemen on his (Lord Palmerston's) side, who maintained that Parliament had a right to dispose, according to its discretion, of any fresh accession to the property of the Church. It seemed to him that the intermediate position taken up by the Government, that Parliament had a right to deal with Church property in one way and not in another, was altogether untenable. The present Ministers said, the property, indeed, is sacred, but we may deal with it, not as the Church might desire, but as we think best for the Church. This was the principle of appropriation without its merit. Those who agreed with him were of opinion that the improved value in Church property would be best appropriated to abolish Church-rates.

Sir R. Peel

said, that the distinction was perfectly clear. The late Ministers proposed to take away the property left for religious purposes, and to apply it to secular purposes. The present bill, and the Ecclesiastical commission, which, in his short administration in 1835, was one of his first objects, provided carefully not only that no alienation should be made of the property of the Church, but that increased accommodation should be secured out of it, for those members of the Church to whom it would otherwise be denied. In the present bill there was a distinct provision that the increased value now to be given to ecclesiastical property, should go to the benefit of the places where that property was situated. He felt that, considering the destitution of spiritual instruction which prevailed, it was not for the interests of the Church itself, or for the good of religion, that vast incomes should be in the hands of individuals, whether private clergymen or bishops. It had been stated that, under such a bill as the present, the Bishop of London, if it had not been for the Ecclesiastical commission acts, might he in possession of an income of 150,0001. Could this be defended Could it be contended that it was for the good of the Church?

Mr. Hardy

said, that the real interests of the Church were often neglected, or at least little regarded, in proportion to their importance, HI these debates. What he wished to see was an adequate provision for the spiritual instruction of the people. He thought, therefore, that the fund accumulated from any increased value that might be given to Church property, ought to lie devoted exclusively to spiritual purposes, and for that reason he supported the Government measure. Of the plan of the noble ford, which was to devote the surplus to the extinction of Church-rates, he certainly could not approve.

Mr. Acland

said, that lie could not but look with great distrust at the new clauses in the bill. The object was, indeed, the same as that of the Ecclesiastical commission acts; but it continued still further the subjugation of diocesan authority to the central board in London. On the subject of Church property he could not go so far as his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, and he did not believe that the great majority of those whose interests he represented, would concur with him. He knew that when the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill was in progress, many of those whose interests were affected, though not pecuniarily, offered to reduce their money interests, he believed 20 per cent., in order to preserve the chapter system inviolate.

Mr. Henley

said, that what had fallen from her Majesty's Ministers had increased his objection to the bill. It was avowed that the object of the bill was to carry out the recommendation of the Ecclesiastical commission. Now that commission had originated from a slight pressure from without in Ireland, not amounting to what the right hon. and learned Member for Cork would call a heavy blow against Church-rates. The Government of the day yielded to the pressure, and nine or ten bishops were swallowed up to get rid of Church-rates. At least, the revenues were swallowed up. He knew not what had become of the bishops themselves. The commission bad then been appointed, and had dealt with what it had chosen to denominate the excess of Church property. Now, if the principle of that commission were carried out, they might next year have an act interfering with livings of 1,2001. or 2,0001. What security had they that the holders of these livings would not meet with the same fate as the bishops? In the present state of the House, it would, he knew, be useless to divide the House upon the clause. He thought it involved most dangerous principles. The bill, as introduced by the late Government, was bad enough, and these gentlemen (pointing to Ministers) had made it worse

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, every provision was introduced into the bill that was necessary to protect the property of the Church, and to promote those interests for which it was originally given.

Bill read a third time.

Sir J. Graham

then brought up the following clause to follow clause 5:— And be it enacted, that it shall be lawful for any Ecclesiastical corporation, aggregate or sole, except as aforesaid, from time to time, with the consent or consents hereby required in the case of leases of land, to grant or demise, by lease, for any term not exceeding sixty years, to take effect in possession and not in reversion, or by way of future interest, any mines, minerals, quarries, or beds, belonging to such corporation, together with the right of working, or of opening and working the same, and together also with such portion of land belonging to such corporation, as shall be deemed expedient; and every such lease shall contain such reservations by way of rent, royalty, or share of the produce in kind, all or any thereof, or otherwise, and such powers, provisoes, restrictions, and covenants, as shall be approved by the Ecclesiastical commissioners for England, due regard being had to the custom of the country or district within which such mines, minerals, quarries, or beds ate situate; and no fine, premium, or foregift, nor any thing in the nature thereof, shall be taken for or in respect of any such lease.

The clause read a first, second, and third time, and added to the bill.

Sir J. Graham

moved the following clause, to follow clause 12:— Provided always, and be it enacted, that in case of any lease of mines, minerals, quarries, or beds, granted under this Act, such portion of the improved value accruing there under as by the like authority shall be determined on, not being more than three fourth parts, nor less than one moiety, of such improved value, shall forthwith and from time to time, as the same shall accrue, be paid to the said Ecclesiastical commissioners for England, and shall be subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, relating to monies payable to them in respect of any lease of land; and the remainder of such improved value shall be deemed to be an improvement within the meaning of the provisions relating to the incomes of archbishops, bishops; deans and canons, and archdeacons, respectively.

Sir R. H. Inglis

said, that he had been misapprehended both by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, and by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and his hon. Friend the Member for West Somerset-shire. He had never denied the right of Parliament—that is, the supreme power of the State—to deal with Church property. He could not, therefore, accept the compliment of the noble Lord, and he feared that when the noble Lord said that he (Sir R. Inglis) was intelligible, he had not been intelligible to him. What he had said on the present occasion he had said in substance whenever these questions were discussed, namely, that Parliament had the same right, but no more, to deal with Church property as with lay property, that is, with the property of the chapter of Durham as with that of the corporation of Durham. The illustration which he had repeatedly given in former Sessions he would give again. Anthony de Beek, the great Bishop of Durham, six centuries ago, left his estates to the see. He had a full right to do so; he left them for the spiritual good of the see. If the wild moors on the surface were now cultivated, if the rich mines below the surface were now worked, if a vast population had grown up, and if, in consequence, there was want of increased spiritual instruction and means of public worship, the estates left to the see ought to provide for it out of the wealth on the spot; but where this use of it did not occur, he thought that it ought not to be diverted to any other purpose, however good. He had been taught by Mr. Burke to think that an Archbishop of Canterbury and a Bishop of Durham might raise their mitred fronts in Courts and Parliaments with great advantage to the country, and he felt sure that the incomes of such prelates, whatever might be their amount, would be spent as well and as wisely as those of any lay peer, whatever might be his title. He deprecated as not merely invidious, but as dangerous to the security of all property, the doctrine that one man's income was excessive, and, as such, ought to be reduced. Looking to the appearance of the House, and them absence of support to his views, he would not press a division.

Mr. Hawes

thought the bill had been greatly improved by the clauses which the: right hon. Baronet had introduced; but the bill was important as recognising the principle of appropriation. The principle recognised by this bill was, that Parliament had a right to appropriate the surplus revenues of the dignitaries of the Church to other purposes, and to take those revenues out of the control of those dignitaries. Parliament was now dealing with Church property as it ought to deal with it. There were two principles, either of which the right hon. Gentleman might have adopted. He might either have asserted the right of Parliament to appropriate this Church property, or have left it to the Church to appropriate its own property. The Government had adopted the wiser course, and had asserted the right of Parliament to deal with the property. That principle had been before adopted with regard to Ireland. It had been propounded by the late Government; it had been wisely adopted by the present Government. Yes, the Government had adopted the principle of appropriation by the present bill. They appropriated the surplus of ecclesiastical property to a different purpose from that to white it had been proposed to appropriate it by the late Government; but nevertheless they did appropriate it to a different purpose from that for which it had been originally intended, and this was a distinct acknowledgement of the principle of appropriation. If they were to take from the Duke of Northumberland a portion of his income, and give it to a poor Peer, would that not be appropriation? Would it do to say " Oh! we do not go out of the Peerage, we only take from one Peer to give to another?" He apprehended that, nevertheless, the Duke of Northumberland would consider that an appropriation. He was rejoiced to see the Government recognising the principle of appropriation by this bill, and he regretted that they had not the courage to carry out the principle to its full extent.

Clause agreed to, and ordered to be added to the Bill.

Other amendments were made, and the bill, with additional clauses, was passed.