HC Deb 18 July 1845 vol 82 cc703-9

On the Motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair,

Mr. Evelyn Denison

rose to call the attention of the House to the management and disposal of that part of the property of the Irish Church vested in the hands of the Irish Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The hon. Gentleman commenced by stating that the Irish Ecclesiastical Commission had received upwards of 450,000l., as the produce of lands sold under their direction in Ireland. He had taken some pains to ascertain the average value of land in that country. In England it was worth about thirty years' purchase; but in Ireland, taking one year with another, he thought that he was within the mark in stating that the land there was worth at an average above twenty-three years' purchase. Notwithstanding this, however, the land under the charge of the Commission had none of it been sold at a higher rate than twenty years' purchase. Now, if land worth twenty-three years' purchase had been sold for twenty, it would appear that a much larger sum than 450,000l. ought to have been realized by the Commission, had they properly exercised their functions. It was impossible to look into the subject without seeing that property, to a very large amount, had been sacrificed by this system of management. It would perhaps, be asked, how if such terms had been offered to the lessees, had not all the Church property held in Ireland been converted into freehold property, and so enfranchised? The reason was this: at the end of the Temporalities Bill was a clause permitting all persons whose property fell into the hands of the Commissioners, to renew their leases on the same terms as those on which they had been in the habit of renewing them under the bishops. The consequence was, that when a lessee thought that he had made a good bargain in enfranchising his land, his neighbour would probably tell him that he might have obtained the same advantages without the three years' purchase, as by the Bill a power was guaranteed of obtaining the renewal of leases, and without those chances and contingencies under which they were held under the former tenure. Now, he wished to know what had become of the money sacrificed to this system of management pursued by the Commission? Every farthing was gone in the annual outgoings. When he saw such an amount gone in such a way, he thought he should not discharge his duty, if he did not call on the House to check this great and growing evil.

Sir T. Fremantle

was not prepared to dispute in the main the statement made by the hon. Gentleman; but he must state at the outset that the attention of the Government had, for some time, been directed to this subject, and that, at the suggestion of his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department, an official communication had been made by the Lord Lieutenant to the Ecclesiastical Board, calling their attention to the circumstance of the money realized under the Commission not being devoted to the annual expenditure. It must be borne in mind that these Commissioners were an independent corporation, over which the Government had no direct control; and they must judge for themselves as to the manner of exercising those powers entrusted to them by Act of Parliament. The two points to which the hon. Gentleman had called attention were the terms on which the leases had been converted into perpetuities, and the mode in which the money realized had been expended. Now, a large number of the tenants holding Church leases had not converted them into perpetuities. Only one-third, and no more, had availed themselves of the terms offered. He believed that in the suppressed sees the fines were fixed on the renewal of the leases. That power did not exist as to the sees not suppressed. As to the manner in which the money had been expended, he was not prepared to say that if greater economy was used, a considerable sum might not have been saved. But, at the same time, he must point out the heavy charges which the Commission had to meet. There was, in the first place, the repair and rebuilding of all the churches in Ireland; and no doubt when the trust was first undertaken the churches were in a dilapidated state. A heavy expenditure was therefore incurred in repairing old churches and building new ones; and the Commissioners had often to determine, when local contributions in favour of such an object were large, whether it would not be better to advance a somewhat larger sum for the erection of new churches, than to expend a smaller amount in inadequate repairs of old churches. Under this head the sums expended were 69,000l. and 54,000l. some years, and even 26,000l. last year. For the requisites of divine service the sum laid out was 32,000l. The expenses of the Board itself were 6,000l., and the whole expenditure was about 79,000l, per annum. The Archbishop of Dublin told him that there were applications for churches to the amount of 100,000l., which the Board was unable to answer. He did not undertake to say that this statement was perfectly satisfactory; and he did not at all deprecate the attention of the Government being called to the subject. He hoped when a larger revenue accrued that the expenditure would be kept within the income, and that the amount realized by the sale of perpetuities would be devoted to the annual expenditure, and not wholly disbursed.

Mr. Hawes

must say the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was anything but satisfactory. Here was a sum of 450,000l. realized by the conversion of leases into perpetuities, and they were told the whole capital was expended already. The people of England had a direct interest in this question; for he did not see why, if this property were properly managed, it might not have been devoted to such a purpose as that of increasing the College of Maynooth. The right hon. Gentleman said the expenses of the Commission were 6,000l. He found by a return on the Table they were double that amount. When Lord Stanley's Act had led to consequences so pernicious, he did not see why the Government did not immediately take steps to amend it. The Government acknowledged the mode of applying the money to be unwise, and yet they permitted half a million of money to be wasted. It was said, however, that this body was a corporation, and the Government could not interfere with it. But Parliament, which created the body, could surely remedy the evils which it caused. If there was a loss of 500,000l. on a third of these conversions, it was easy to calculate that a million and a half would be lost on the remainder. He called on the friends of the Church to see this subject sifted, and he put it to the Secretary for the Home Department, whether he could have any objection to appoint a Committee to inquire into this subject?

Sir James Graham

acknowledged this was a very grave subject, and by no means improperly brought under the consideration of the House. It was a question which attracted his anxious attention, and nearly a year ago he thought it necessary to call the attention of the Lord Lieutenant to the facts disclosed. He differed from the hon. Gentleman as to his estimate of the inadequacy of the sales arising from the conversion of church leases. It being the object (for purposes of general policy) to render those conversions general within a limited time, it was of course desirable to hold out inducements to the tenants to come into the terms of the Commissioners. He believed, after careful and anxious inquiry, that the terms were only liberal and fair. Having stated that he concurred in the other view of the hon. Gentleman, that the expenditure of the capital, instead of considering the sum realized as an usufruct, was, though in conformity with the Act of Parliament, an unfortunate view taken by the Commissioners of their duties as trustees. He considered that this money was, in the broadest sense, trust money, and he demurred altogether to its being devoted to Maynooth, or perverted in any way from the original use. [Mr. Hawes: But the Church has not got the money.] It must be recollected that when the Church Temporalities Act passed, a heavy burden was raised by a vestry cess on persons of every persuasion, for the maintenance of the fabric of the Church and the usages of worship. That was felt to be a great grievance; and, with the view of promoting peace and concord, a sum of 50,000l. a year was cast on the property of the Church of Ireland. In consequence of the opposition to such a charge, the fabrics of the Church had, in many instances, fallen into decay. And the average expenditure of the Commissioners for the first years of its operation was much higher than it would be in future. In many cases, too, the claims put forward by private subscribers for aid, were felt to be irresistible, and such advances were, of course, made out of the funds of the Church. Out of a loan also of 100,000l. 40,000l. had been repaid. But, on the whole, he considered it an unsound and unwise discretion—that for the interest of the Church, well understood and carefully guarded, the capital realized by the sale of these leases should be expended. There were on the Board two paid Commissioners. The Executive had, therefore, a direct control over it. And he was bound to state that the official communication of the Lord Lieutenant was received by the Commissioners in a most frank and candid spirit. They stated that the amount of capital expended in the last year was less than that in the antecedent; and he had reason to believe that in future years the expenditure of income, without any entrenchment on the capital, would be strictly adhered to. He was bound to say that if he saw the safety of the Church property in Ireland required it, he should not hesitate, for a moment, in introducing a Bill next Session on the subject of these leases; but he did not anticipate that any such necessity would arise. Whatever past errors were committed, he believed they were in the progress of correction.

Sir R. Ferguson

was very glad to hear the speech of the right hon. Gentleman; for he considered the Government clearly responsible for every proceeding of that Board. He thought not a full but a sufficient price had been obtained for the lands under lease. His hon. Friend (Mr. Denison) contended they were worth twenty-three years' purchase; but his hon. Friend spoke of lands where a rent was reserved of one-fourth of the value, and this always fetched a higher price than that held in fee-simple. There were returns in the value of these lands, one by Mr. Finley, and the other by the Commissioners themselves, on the Table of the House. The first estimated them at 1,500,000l., and the latter at 1,250,000l. Now, according to the Commissioners themselves, they should have fetched 200,000l. more than the 450,000l. which the right hon. Gentleman gave as the return. The right hon. Gentleman said, only a third of the tenants had accepted the perpetuities. Now, he knew one-half the property was sold, and he should give his authority. The landed Commissioners summoned the treasurer of the Ecclesiastical Commission, and he deposed that fully one-half were sold. The right hon. Gentleman said, too, that the expenses of the Commission were but 6,000l. He could prove, however, that the sum for clerks, architects, solicitors, &c., amounted up to 13,587l. The expenditure was very great, not to say anything worse of the Board. They at first paid their architects by a per centage on the outlay for their works, and this sometimes amounted to 9 per cent. They were now placed on salaries. But this only showed how necessary it was to look into the proceedings of this body. He did not want to throw blame on the Government, for previous Governments were more to blame than the present; but it really seemed as if the office of Lord Lieu- tenant only existed as a cover for a horrible system of jobbing.

Mr. Henley

must say, the disclosures made startled him not a little. It appeared while parties in this country were quarrelling as to the application of the surplus revenue of the Church in Ireland, some gentlemen in that country took very good care that no surplus should exist. The matter was one with which that (the Ministerial) side of the House had nothing to do, for it originated with the Government of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. He did hope, that there would be some strong steps taken to put the question on an honest footing.

Viscount Bernard

fully concurred in what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Without entering into the question whether the different contractors might not have done their work cheaper, he would beg leave to say that there was full employment in Ireland, in the repairs of churches, for the 400,000l. that it appeared had been expended by these Commissioners. His principal object in rising was to remark that there was still a considerable number of parochial churches in Ireland in a most disgraceful state. In one diocese alone divine service was celebrated in no less than fifty school-houses, in localities where churches did not exist. In a case which had come under his own knowledge, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were called upon to build a church in a place where divine service had not been before performed, and where no Protestant congregation existed. They declined doing so, and a church was now in course of being built there by voluntary contributions. The consequence was, that a Protestant congregation was now formed in the parish, and divine service would, in future, be celebrated without any aid from the Commissioners. He wished also to remind the House that 100,000l. given by the late Government as apart of the 1,000,000l. advanced to the clergy of the Irish Church, had been since taken away from them.

Mr. M. J. O'Connell

said, he thought the discussion which had taken place on the question a very important one. They had very strong contradictions between two right hon. Secretaries—one, the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland, having stated that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were independent of the Government — and the other, the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary having alleged that they were completely under the control of the Government. However, it appeared that the right hon. Chief Secretary of Ireland was right; for the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) had admitted that he had called attention to the matter nine months ago without effect. There appeared to be great discrepancies as to the value of the property sold; but one thing, he thought, was clear, and that was, that the subject could not be left as it stood at present. He would beg to suggest to the hon. Member for Malton (Mr. J. E. Denison), the propriety of his moving for the appointment of a Committee next Session to investigate the matter. In his opinion, there was no use in going into the question of the establishment of this Board. But finding it established, and that it worked badly, they had a right—no matter what opinions they might entertain as to church property in Ireland — to call for inquiry, and, if necessary, for further legislative provisions.

Sir Thomas Fremantle

begged to explain. It was a mistake to suppose that he was at all indifferent on the subject. He had already taken occasion to express his satisfaction that the question had been brought under the notice of the House, and he was fully sensible of the great importance which was to be attached to it.

Mr. Grogan

said, he was glad that an investigation was likely to take place on the question; as he believed the Board had not given entire satisfaction either to the clergy or the public. He would mention one instance, which had come under his own notice. It was the case of a parish church in Dublin, which had been taken down as being unsafe. The parishioners had, it was true, consented to the removal of the church; but it was on the supposition that it would be rebuilt. Repeated applications had been made to the Commissioners to rebuild it, but without success, as they persisted in declaring they had no funds for the purpose.