HC Deb 06 August 1851 vol 118 cc1905-12

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third Time."

MR. HENLEY

said, that all the further consideration which he had been able to given to this Bill, had only confirmed the opinion which he had expressed in the first instance, that (however paradoxical it might appear) this was a measure which would work injuriously both to the Church and the great body of the lessees. He believed that, under it, good bargains would be made by certain rich parties in the Church; but then, as a drawback to the advantage which the Church might derive from such transactions as these, must be considered the risk that she would run from having to reinvest the money thus realised in land; and, in fact, independent of the great expense that must attend it, it was hardly possible for such a transaction to take place without the Church selling at a low rate and buying at a dear one. But the great body of lessees of Church property were persons who could not afford to buy out the land they held; and as the tendency of this Bill would be to prevent the renewal of leases, the poorer classes of lessees would inevitably lose all the benefit of their holdings. It was quite clear that if, under the operation of the Bill, worked by the richer classes, a sum of money was placed in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, they would be armed with a power that they must, and would, use in refusing to renew to the poorer lessees; and when these parties hereafter pressed for some legislation respecting renewals, the answer would be, "You have the opportunity of enfranchising, why don't you?" There was one point to which he wished to call the attention of the Solicitor General. When a renewal took place, there must be a surrender of the old lease; and this being a surrender of the property, he doubted whether, whatever terms might be made, it would not be brought under the operation of this Bill. He objected to this Bill on account of the little time which had been given for its consideration. He did not believe that the parties who took charge of the interests of the Church could be exactly aware of what the Bill would do; and he was sure that the great body of the lessees had no idea of the position in which they stood, or of the effect which the great amendments which had been introduced into this Bill in that House would have upon their interests. Considering, then, the vast amount of property concerned in this matter, and that it was not fair, wise, or decent that, after not a fortnight's consideration of this measure in both Houses, Parliament should proceed to legislate upon so important a matter, he should move that the Bill be read a Third Time that day Three Months.

COLONEL SIBTHORP

seconded the Motion, expressing his opinion that the Bill had been pressed through the House with so much haste, because it contained some underhand proceedings which the Government were afraid to submit to the fair consideration of the parties interested in it.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day Three Months."

MR. J. A. SMITH

hoped the House would agree to the third reading. He was not insensible to the truth of the remarks that had been made with regard to the haste with which the measure had been got up, and the lateness of the period at which it bad been presented to the House; but he believed that the lessees, as a body, were greatly interested in the Bill becoming law. They had been suffering most unjustly for years from the consequences of legislation. As long as they had only to deal with the Church, they were satisfied that the interests of lessors would lead them to continue the practice of renewal; but when the Legislature vested a large portion of church property in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the lessees were placed in a position of the greatest difficulty and embarrassment. In fact, the lessees of that property had been unable to deal with it in any way; they could neither sell it nor mortgage it, and existing mortgages had been called in. This Bill might not entirely remove the difficulty, but it gave the parties a chance of dealing with the property in some way or other. It fell very far short of meeting the full necessities of the case, and he hoped it was only a prelude to legislation whi.ch would make a settlement in regard to the leasehold interests of the Church compulsory; but the present state of uncertainty so seriously embarrassed the lessees, and they had been so unfairly dealt with by recent legislation, that it was desirable that the Session should not close without giving them a chance of making some use of their property. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Goulburn) had declined to answer the question he put to him the other day, and which he should have repeated if the right hon. Gentleman had been present now, in reference to the property now in the hands and under the management of the Ecclesiastical Commission—whether it would be dealt with in the manner in which they would have to deal with property under this Bill? There was a general impression that the Commis- sioners had refused to renew all leases; and it was notorious that they had proposed terms of enfranchisement with which it was impossible to comply. Surely it was no more than justice that the holders of this property should know the principles upon which the Church Estates Commission intended to proceed. However, believing that, upon the whole, the Government were doing great good to the lessees by this Bill, and indeed had done their best, and were not responsible for the errors and omissions in the measure, he should support the third reading.

MR. ALCOCK

begged to say, in reference to the interests of the sub-lessees, for whose protection the Solicitor General had prepared a clause, that he was perfectly satisfied with the clause.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

would vote for the third reading, though he did not quite like the Bill, and must say, he thought the House ought to know what was the principle upon which the property that was falling into the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commission was now being dealt with. The urgency of the Bill very much depended upon that. Was it the fact, or not, that they were refusing to renew? Were the lessees checkmated? Were they to be compelled to enfranchise at all hazards? Surely some broad principles, some more strict and definite rule or rules, might be laid down as to the right of renewal; it was a very awkward and unsatisfactory position for the lessee to have to rely upon the vague words introduced into the Bill, and which appeared rather directed to the good feeling of the Church Estates Commissioners.

MR. AGLIONBY

was gratified to find that all those who had now addressed the House seemed agreed with regard to what was honest and fair dealing, and were not disposed to sacrifice long-established interests. They admitted the fair, and reasonable, and equitable claims of those who had had this property so long, and would not support the monstrous proposition (it would be supported by very few in that House, however it might be entertained by some in another place), that the lessees had nothing but a bare common right, the same as an ordinary tenant from year to year. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) seemed, upon the whole, to be holding the scales pretty even, and doing justice to both parties. If anything, the preponderance was rather against the lessees; but the advantage preponderated over the danger. A compulsory system might be ultimately necessary, but some good would arise out of this permissive one. It had been suggested that an ecclesiastical body, under a permissive measure, might say to a lessee applying as to terms, "No, we will neither sell nor buy; we will run out your lease;" but he (Mr. Aglionby) did not believe that any ecclesiastical body would dare to do that, which would be such a palpable evasion of the intentions of the Legislature. Higher terms than the lessee would give might be required; but still there would be some good gained, for it would be ascertained what arrangements had been attempted, and what terms asked; and if it should be found that the ecclesiastical body were not dealing fairly, Parliament would interfere and see that justice was done. He (Mr. Aglionby) had great doubt once whether the lessees would not he sacrificed by this Bill; but he thought it impossible for any one to get out of the words now introduced by the Government. The recognition was plain and decided, that the long-continued course of renewal had given a right; and he believed the Commission would carry out the words honestly and fairly. The lessees could not be justly deprived of a right—he would not call it a legal right, but one based upon the practice of centuries; indeed, he could point to statutes that might be thought to favour a claim in point of law, but he would not go upon that, but upon the moral right. They bad been induced to lay out their money and build; whole streets and towns had been built upon the moral certainty of renewal. Would any one say that was to be disturbed and swept away? The country would not stand it, and he did not believe the Church would attempt it. The words introduced into the Bill placed the matter upon a fair footing, and he was for passing the Bill.

MR. ROUNDELL PALMER

should have felt it his duty to vote for the Amendment if he could believe that the House was agreeing to a Bill committing it to the views of the hon. Members for Cockermouth and Chichester; but he should abstain from voting for the rejection of the Bill, because he was sure that, according to its honest and its legal construction, it could not have the effect of pledging any ecclesiastical corporation to those views. The claim of the lessees was a claim by private individuals, for their private interests, against the public; a claim founded on no legal or equitable right— founded on nothing but this, that a course of mismanagement by those intrusted with the administration of the public interests in respect of church property had existed for a considerable period, from which the lessees, as a body, had derived large benefits, and they, to a certain extent, had the expectation of continuing to derive those benefits. A similar course of mismanagement might have existed with respect to Crown lands and lands in Ireland, where tenants expected renewals, because the landlords had been in the practice of renewing. But a man could not acquire a vested interest in the mismanagement of public property. He knew it to be public property; he knew that no contract could give him a right to the continuance of the advantages he thus derived; he knew that he was dealing with public bodies, with bodies responsible to the public, and who might be controlled and set right in the management of the property by Parliament at any time. No doubt there might be some degree of consideration which it would he fair and right, and consistent with a due regard to the public interests, for the Church Commissioners to give to the expectations lessees had been induced under particular circumstances to entertain; but to say that the expectations founded on such abuses had been encouraged by the law or the Legislature, and had grown up and existed in such a shape as to make an unalterable custom, with which Parliament could not interfere, was to state a proposition totally unfounded in fact. It must have been well known to the lessees that as long ago as the reign of Queen Elizabeth, when there were alienations of church property going on, which the Legislature thought it right to interfere to prevent, an Act was passed putting it out of the power of any ecclesiastical corporation to bind the property of the Church for more than twenty-one years, or three lives. The lessees must have been fully aware that their expectations were precarious. Whatever moral obligation the Church might have contracted in particular cases towards individuals, should be taken into account; but it was a thing too nice to admit of measurement by Act of Parliament. There had been no course of dealing which warranted the lessees as a body in reckoning on perpetual renewal. The terms had been altered from time to time. The Church had imposed varying terms as to fine and rent upon successive renewals. That was inconsistent with anything but dominion over the property. The Church, too, had been placed in a very different position with regard to its property in recent times; formerly it could come to Parliament and obtain grants for church extension, but now it had become a settled rule that church extension must be provided for out of church property. The spiritual wants of the people were admitted, and the inadequacy of church property to provide for them, and an address had been carried to the foot of the Throne, praying for the adoption of measures by which the church property would be made more available for those wants: the House had shown their deep sympathy for the spiritual wants of the people, and their desire that church property should, as far as possible, be made available for the supply of those wants. The public interest must predominate over the rights of any lessees, and the Legislature should not wantonly sacrifice the church property to the claims of any individuals, unless they found that these claims rested upon a solid basis of law or equity, or that some adjustment could take place which might at the same time be beneficial to the Church, and recognise as far as was reasonable any moral claims on the part of lessees. He would, vote in favour of the third reading of this Bill, because he thought it went no further than that, and involved no pledge whatever that there should be any future legislation on the subject that would recognise any greater rights on the part of lessees than he had referred to.

MR. HEADLAM

was of opinion that the Commissioners ought to pay due regard to the just and reasonable claims of parties arising from the practice of renewal. It had been argued that no one could acquire rights through the mismanagement of public property; but from that proposition he must express his dissent, reminding the House of the case of copyholders; he should refer also to what had occurred in regard to Crown lands, for the purpose of showing that the view which he impugned was utterly inconsistent with the public law. The fact was, that Parliament by its legislation, and ecclesiastical bodies by their practice, had promoted the growth of such rights; a particular mode of dealing with reversions grew up which conferred a right on lessees; and now that the House had taken from the lessees the right of renewal which they had undoubtedly had, care ought to be taken that, by the alteration of the law, the moral right which they had under the circumstances should suffer no prejudice.

MR. BARROW

thought that the episcopal body would be enabled to deal more effectually with spiritual destitution by the sale of reversions, than they could by waiting thirty or forty years till leases ran out. With reference to the claims of lessees, he challenged any one to show that one shilling had been invested in building, drainage, or enclosure by the Church; and the annual value of the property held by lessees was owing to the investment of capital by those lessees from time to time. When Parliament enabled the Church to grant such leases, it enabled the Church to hold out inducements to lessees to invest money in the improvement of the property.

SIR MONTAGUE CHOLMELY

expressed his intention of voting against the third reading of the Bill. It had been much improved; but having been proceeded with when the House was so thin, he thought it was not desirable to persist in a measure which, under such circumstances, would be said to have been smuggled.

MR. HENLEY

withdrew his Amendment.

Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to; Bill read 3°; Two Clauses added; Amendments made; Bill passed, with Amendments.