THIRD READING. (Hansard, 10 August 1857)

§ MR. CAIRD
seconded the Amendment. As he understood the Bill, it would reverse the principle laid down by the Secretary for the Home Department in 1850, that the bishops should have fixed instead of fluctuating incomes. Any man practically acquainted with landed property knew that that species of property was one of the most fluctuating in value, and therefore the framers of this Bill, in proposing that, with the view of giving fixed incomes to the bishops, certain land should be assigned to them, could not be aware of the difficulty that they were creating with regard to those incomes. Who was to manage this church property, part of which was to be assigned to the bishops, the other part being retained in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners? It was manifest that as many of the estates attached to the sees would be larger than were required for the purpose, outlying portions would be left which must be managed at a great expense by a separate agency. Then, prelates of advanced age were not likely to manage property to the best advantage, especially seeing they would have a natural disposition not to develope its value in such a way as might lead to the extent of the landed property of the Church being diminished in the hands of their successors. Then it was proposed that the episcopal estates were still to remain under the supervision of the Ecclesiastical Commission. That being so, there would be a double system of land agency established at a double expense; and he thought, therefore, that it would be much better to leave the entire management of the estates in the hands of the Commissioners. He thought, moreover, that the Bill would lead to a deterioration of the property to be assigned to the bishops. When he saw how much good had been achieved under the present system he should regret a reversion to the old system. He found that, besides paying fixed incomes to the bishops, the Ecclesiastical 1366 Commission had augmented 876 benefices, endowed 249 new district churches, affording an annual income to those churches of £81,000, and given £18,000 a year to Queen Anne's Bounty for the building of parsonage houses; so that a surplus of nearly £100,000 a year had been gained over and above the fixed incomes of the bishops, for the purpose of extending the spiritual provision over a great extent of this country to a population of about 3,250,000.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words, "upon this day three months."

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
observed, that he thought the mover and seconder of the Amendment misunderstood the object of the Bill. It would not reverse the policy by which the bishops' incomes had been fixed. Its object was to give greater effect to the intention of Parliament that those incomes should be fixed. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last seemed to assume that the whole of the bishops' incomes were in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but that was not the case. They were at present in the hands of the bishops who paid over the surplus to the Commissioners after deducting a certain income; but the Bill would transfer to the Commissioners all those portions of land in the hands of the archbishops and bishops, except such as were required to produce the fixed incomes sanctioned by Parliament. There could be no doubt that great variations might take place in the value of the landed property in the hands of the bishops, and that was the reason of the insertion of the clause as to inspection of the land by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He might remind the House that the Bill was founded upon the Report of a Committee of last Session, of which his noble Friend the Member for the City of London was chairman, and it was referred to a Select Committee after the Second Reading, in order that it might be ascertained how far it would effectuate the recommendations of the Committee of last Session. Under these circumstances he hoped the House would consent to the Third Reading.

§ MR. BRISCOE
said, he would urge the postponement of the Bill till next Session, on the ground that hon. Members had not had sufficient time to consider it.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
said, the Bill had been before Parliament a long time and 1367 had been referred to a Select Committee, and therefore hon. Gentlemen had had ample opportunities of becoming acquainted with the provisions of it.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he regretted that the Bill had not received more attention, and also that he had on a previous occasion missed an opportunity of moving an Amendment, which he was afraid it was now too late to press.

§ MR. HADFIELD
said, he thought the debate ought to be adjourned.