COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 23 July 1857)

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
said, that he thought that the Secretary of State for the Home Department should have explained the provisions of this Bill which had come out of the Select Committee to which it had been referred quite a new Bill. It contained some very novel proposals. As he understood, it was intended to transfer to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners all the property of the archhishops and bishops, and then to hand back to them sufficient land to produce a certain income. This must be attended with the greatest difficulty, and would lead to endless jobbery.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, the Bill was founded almost exclusively upon the recommendation of a Select Committee which sat upon this subject in 1856. It was referred with a similar Bill, prepared by the late noble Member for Woodstock (Marquess of Blandford), to another Committee. The difference between the two Bills was, that whereas the Bill now before the House was founded exclusively on the Report of that Committee, and related only to episcopal incomes, the Bill of the noble Marquess extended the same provisions to the incomes of deans and chapters. The object of the present Bill was to provide a better means than now existed for carrying out the intentions of Parliament in giving a fixed income to bishops and archbishops. It would vest a sufficient estate in them to secure them that income as nearly as possible. He thought that this was the best arrangement that could be made, particularly looking to the security of the episcopal incomes. It also contained provisions with respect to the accounts to be rendered by deans and chapters to the Ecclesiastical Commission- 330 ers, and laid down certain terms on which lands held on Church leases might be enfranchised. He believed it would be a great disappointment to the lessees if the measure did not pass this Session.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, he should propose to insert words for the purpose of giving the bishops and archbishops a voice in the re-transfer of the estates which it was proposed to vest in them.

§ MR. HENLEY
wished to know on what principle the estates to be vested in the right rev. Prelates were to be assigned to them?

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, that the Committee desired to secure the bishops' estates equal in value to the income intended to be secured by Act of Parliament. The best answer he could give to his right hon. Friend was by referring to a case which had just occurred. An estate belonging to the Chapter of York was about to be re-transferred to them. The Commissioners and their agents had considered the valuation of the estates, had made the proper deductions on account of collection and payment with the concurrence of the Chapter of York, and had ascertained the kind of estate that should be transferred, yielding the statutory income intended by Parliament. A similar principle would be pursued in future with respect to episcopal incomes.

§ MR. HENLEY
remarked, that he did not think his right hon. Friend had given any answer to his question. He had received no explanation how a fixed net income was to be secured to the bishops. It was quite possible that while a longheaded bishop might in the course of these arrangements get land worth £7,000 a year, another of a different kind would only get such as would yield £3000. Then would come fresh applications to Parliament, and the question would once more be unsettled.

§ MR. AYRTON
objected to the whole plan embodied in the Bill, because it would permanently fix the revenues of the bishops—or rather it would fix a minimum; for while it was certain that the value of the land to be assigned to them would not diminish, there was every prospect that it would greatly increase in the course of twenty or thirty years. The clause amounted to nothing more or less than a reversion 331 to the old system, to upset which the Ecclesiastical Commission had been established. Bishops would continue to hold their estates in perpetuity, and to receive incomes out of all proportion to their position; though he would admit that the arrangement would have been less objectionable if the estates were granted to the bishops for life only, so that on the death of each incumbent the whole question of the income attached to the see would have been thrown open for revision. He had, however, so strong an objection to the clause, that he intended to take the sense of the House against it.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
observed, that it was impossible to say what the estates would produce twenty or thirty years hence. At the same time, he had no doubt the Commissioners would avail themselves of all the sources of information within their reach, and would take care that the estates would exactly produce the statutory incomes, He did not think that those incomes would be liable to much variation, because express provision was made by a subsequent clause for building, mining, and improving leases. Another appeal to Parliament might be necessary in the event of any considerable change in the value of the property; but in the meantime he thought that the arrangement now proposed was upon the whole satisfactory and as well guarded as it could well be.

§ SIR EDWARD BUXTON
said, it was desirable that the incomes of the bishops should be in estates rather than in money; but in the event of an increase in the value of the land some provision ought to be made for a periodical revision.

§ MR. GREER
observed, that he thought that the arrangement should not go beyond the life of the incumbent of the bishopric for the time being. It was now too late to propose an Amendment to that effect, therefore he should be compelled to divide against the clause, unless ho received the assurance that it might be amended upon the bringing up of the Report.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
stated, that by agreeing to the clause now the hon. Gentleman would not be precluded from moving an Amendment at a subsequent stage.

§ MR. PEASE
said, he did not question the propriety of putting the incomes of the bishops on a right and solid basis, but as an humble individual, he must express his deep regret that a large quantity of the land of the country would still continue to be held in a manner eminently opposed to 332 its proper cultivation and improvement. Such at all events would be the result in the county of Durham, which he had the honour to represent—for their experience there was quite opposed to such an arrangement.

MR. LYGON
said, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) the exact meaning of the third clause. He also thought some arrangement ought to be made for providing retiring allowances to bishops.

§ MR. MOWBRAY
said, he would merely observe that at present the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were in possession of very large landed estates within the see of Durham. Now he quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pease) that a very strong feeling existed in that county against such a tenure. The very object of the present Bill was to render the possession of the Commissioners only transitory, their object being, in the first instance, to ascertain what proportion of the property should be assigned for the income of the bishops, and then, as he hoped, they would have the good sense to sell the remainder of the land and resign their functions.

§ MR. KINNAIRD
said, he would also urge the necessity of a periodical revision.

LORD JOHN MANNERS
remarked, that he could not understand that an estate of £5000 a year could be better managed by a Commission than by a bishop with an agent.

MR. RIDLEY
said, he was also in favour of a revision, so that a bishop might not have more than his statutable income.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, the question of a revision could be considered upon a subsequent clause to be brought up.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, he wished to know if land belonging to a particular bishop did not produce £5000 a year, were the Commissioners to appropriate land to make up the amount?

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, the Commissioners would have power to sell lands, and with the produce to purchase other lands. It would be impossible to fix any definite time for the sales.

§ MR. COX
moved that the Chairman do report progress. It was now twenty minutes past one o'clock, and yet they were only on the second order of the day. There were twenty-four other orders to get through at this time of night; and it was only fair that the progress of this Bill should give place to other measures, about which there might be less difference of opinion.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, the next two or three clauses were more or less connected with the machinery or working of the clauses already passed. Clauses 7 and 8 might provoke discussion, but he appealed to the hon. Member for Finsbury to allow the Committee to get so far before they reported progress.