RESOLUTION. (Hansard, 7 March 1871)

§ MR. STEVENSON
rose to call attention to the present position of holders of Leases under the Dean and Chapter of Durham, and to move a Resolution. In order that the House might clearly understand the case of the leaseholders under the Dean and Chapter of Durham, it was necessary to trouble it with a short statement of the past history of the system. At the Reformation the extensive estates of the Priory of Durham were conferred upon the Dean and Chapter, which was then constituted by Henry 1506 VIII. Part of the lands were then let at rack-rent, but nearly all the rest were of a tenure similar to copyhold, being renewable every 21 years on the payment of three years' rent. Disputes arose between the Chapter and their tenants, the Chapter seeking to convert all the leases into ordinary tenancies; and in 1626 the Dean and Chapter passed an Act, in which they plainly laid down the principles of the management of their leasehold estates. The leases were to be for 21 years; but at the end of seven years they were to be renewed, on payment of one year's improved annual value. On the back of each lease there was an endorsement in a peculiar form—under the year of the date of the lease the figure 7 was written and a line for addition drawn, and the date reckoned on which the seven years would expire. That arrangement had been carried out with such perfect good faith that the utmost confidence existed between the Dean and Chapter and their lessees, and for the last 250 years no tenant had ever been deterred from expending his capital on his holding from any distrust of renewal. No doubt it might be said that the tenant paid the fine on renewal on the basis of his own improvements. But the Dean and Chapter met this by allowing two renewals to elapse before calculating the improved value. On the other hand, the renewal fine had been raised from one year's improved value to one and a half. That, however, was no substantial increase, for the annual reserved rents had not been increased; so that the respective interests of the Dean and Chapter and the lessee had not been substantially altered. He would illustrate the working of this system by the case of South Shields. Two hundred and fifty years ago it was a mere fishing hamlet; afterwards, owing to the cheapness of fuel, extensive salt works came into existence, and to these had succeeded quays, graving docks, shipbuilding yards, forges, and all the manufactures connected with an important seaport town—extensive glassworks, bottle works, and chemical manufactories; so that in 1849 there was property of an annual value of £40,000 a-year, wholly created by the capital and enterprise of the lessees, on ground of which the lessee had nominally only a tenure of between 14 and 21 years. But while the revenues of the Church were 1507 thus largely increased by the outlay of the lessees' capital, the Dean and Chapter never pretended to expend a single shilling of their own or do any single duty that fell on a landlord, except the collecting of their revenues. Now, he could not conceive a stronger case of tenant-right, or any defence whatever for now turning round on these lessees and telling them when the first seven years of the leases had expired that no more renewals were to be granted. Yet that was what had now been done by the Dean and Chapter of Durham, and that was the present position of 600 leaseholders in the town of South Shields. The Church lessees were spoken of as a body of men fattening on the property of the Church, which was thus defrauded of a large share of her rightful revenues, and it seemed for a time as if no regard was to be paid to the claims of the lessees, who had themselves created the property of which they were accused of despoiling the Church; and much alarm prevailed among the lessees in consequence. A Committee of that House inquired into the matter and took evidence on the subject, and recommended that consideration should be given to the customary confidence of renewal. No legislative action followed, and the confidence of the lessees was restored, and they went on without fear to expend their capital on their leaseholds. In 1849 a Royal Commission was appointed. They were directed to pay due regard to the rights of the lessees, while inquiring how the property might be improved for the benefit of the Church and the public. The evidence they took proved the restoration of confidence. Mr. Ingham stated that he had sold, for 20 years' purchase, a farm of which the lease had 18 years to run. It was shown that since 1840 new streets, manufactories, and some hundred houses had been built in South Shields, and the Royal Commission reported that in the case of Durham it had been proved that leases with 17½ years to run, had been sold for two-thirds of the value of the fee. They recommended a settlement on the basis of continual renewal, subject to a revaluation every 21 years. Those Commissioners reported in 1850, and in 1851 a Bill was introduced into the other House to carry out their recommendation. The Lords referred it to a Committee. In their Report they said that 1508 the lessees had an "expectation of renewal sufficiently definite to be treated as a certainty;" also, "that any injury should be considered and compensated," and they desired that a system of voluntary enfranchisement should be established, which might be made the basis of future compulsory enfranchisement. The Act of 1851 established that system of voluntary dealings under the direction of the Church Estates Commissioners. That Act had been most successful in its operation. The annual Reports of the Church Estates Commissioners showed a large amount of transactions which, being voluntary, were necessarily satisfactory to both the lessee and the Church; and to refer again to the case of South Shields, the rateable value of the borough had increased 70 per cent in 10 years, mainly under the operation of the Act. Lessees had been ready to enfranchise, and the proof of the successful operation of the Act had been shown by numbers of cases in which persons who wished to erect buildings bought the lessee's interest at prices far beyond the value of the mere 14 or 21 years' possession, relying on the continued operation of the Act. For several years the Church Estates Commissioners, in their annual Report, congratulated themselves on the success of the Act. In 1868 the Ecclesiastical Commissioners pushed through a Bill at the very end of the Session, taking power to make arrangements with those Chapters which had not previously transferred their estates. Few of the lessees were aware of the Bill; but they attempted to obtain in it the insertion of clauses requiring consideration to be given to the claims of the lessees. All that they could succeed in obtaining was a recognition of the right of calling for an arbitration of the fee simple and annual value, in cases in which a negotiation for sale or surrender had been actually entered into, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had refused to confirm it. By the Bill the lessees were handed over to the full powers of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and they had already had an indication of what they feared was in store for them by the Dean and Chapter having, under an arrangement with the Commissioners, refused to renew any leases that fell for renewal after the 29th of last September; so that many of the lessees were now reduced to a bare enjoyment of 14 years of the property 1509 which they had created. He scarcely thought that "confiscation" would be too strong a word to apply to this proceeding. He might be met with this objection — the lessees knew that this was coming — they should have anticipated it, and provided for it; and he had been referred to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners Act of 1860, which defined the consideration to be given to the tenants' claims of renewal to be an extension of the leases up to 1884. But that Act referred to estates then transferred to the Commissioners, and did not meet the present case. They already had leases running on to 1891; or seven years beyond 1884, and as he had said already, leasehold interests had been freely bought since 1860, in expectation of enfranchisement on the basis of the terms of the Acts of 1851 and 1854—a process which would have wound up the system without any hardship. The Church Estates Commissioners were charged with the duty of doing justice between the Church and its lessees in cases of enfranchisement; but it appeared to him that after the estates should have been transferred, the functions of that body would cease, and their dealings would be with Ecclesiastical Commissioners, with leases running out, and no remedy against any hardships, except what that body might be pleased to allow. He was addressing a House that was elected to do justice to the te-nantry of Ireland, and a Government which, with so bold a hand last Session, remedied its land grievances. The Irish Land Bill of last Session created a presumption of law in favour of all improvements being considered as having been done by the tenants. He had shown that in these Church lands the whole value had been created by the tenants. There were Church leaseholds in Ireland; and in the Irish Land Bill the lessees were declared to have the right of perpetual renewal. He was not asking that right for the lessees in the North, for he preferred an equitable system of enfranchisement; but he quoted the Irish case as a reason for doing like justice to English lessees, and they believed that justice might be done without injury to the interests of the Church. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolution.

§ MR. PEASE
seconded the Motion. If discontent existed in the north of Durham 1510 on this subject, it also excited very lively interest in the southern division. The case of the holders of agricultural leases there had repeatedly been before Parliament; because, while there was no active dissatisfaction with the management of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the uncertainty of the tenure of these lands gave rise to a good deal of feeling. He hardly thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Stevenson) went far enough. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners might say that they were only doing what the law required of them; so that a Resolution would have very little effect, and it should be supplemented by a Bill.

§ MR. ACLAND
, as one of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, said, it was his duty to reply to the hon. Mover of the Resolution who, he was confident, was not in the slightest degree influenced by personal considerations in introducing it, but was simply discharging a public duty. As to what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had seconded the Motion, naturally his (Mr. Acland's) own feelings would lead him not to treat lightly anything affecting the agricultural progress of the country; but that question would be discussed on another occasion. The words of the Resolution were the very words of the Act of Parliament, which 30 years ago resolved that the just and reasonable claims of lessees arising from the long-continued practice of renewal should be duly regarded. The real question was what are the just and reasonable claims of the lessees? On this the opinion of the lessees might be referred to. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners had dealt with 6,000 leases in all parts of England, being a considerable majority of the cases required to be arranged when Parliament took the matter up. They had enfranchised 400 cases in the diocese of Durham alone; and the Church Estate Commissioners had sanctioned 600 enfranchisements on the property of this very Dean and Chapter. With the ex- 1511 ception of the agricultural cases, the question narrowed itself to some important property in South Shields. The lessees were a small body, who had benefited by the postponement of the period for seven years longer than Parliament had intended. In 1851 the "just and reasonable claims of the lessees" were recognized by Parliament; and in 1860 the terms were finally fixed and defined. The House of Commons' Committee had advised that the system of renewal by fines should cease in 1880; but Parliament gave four years more; some of them, indeed, are now actually extended to 1891. If any cases of hardship were brought before the Commissioners, it was their constant habit to take them into serious consideration, and if they were unable to come to terms with the lessees who had an adverse interest, they had the remedy by Act of Parliament to go into arbitration. When the lessees had purchased a freehold right in the surface of the ground, they were restrained from going below the surface without consent. It was simply a question of terms. Some 6,000 lessees had willingly accepted the terms offered them, on the assumption that the year 1884 would be the extreme limit of the system. Sufficient ground had not been shown for placing them on a new footing, and he hoped the House would not agree to the Motion.

§ MR. MOWBRAY
trusted the hon. Member would not press his Motion to a division. Having for a great number of years been connected with Durham, he was pretty well acquainted with the subject. The object of the hon. Member appeared to be to reverse the policy of the Act of 1860; but the question had been carefully considered by Parliament, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had done no more than carry out their legislation. If the hon. Member's Resolution were adopted, it would not carry the matter one step further. From his experience as a Commissioner he could state that all questions of renewal were fully considered and dealt with, and he objected to any re-opening of the question.

§ MR. STEVENSON
, in reply, said, that the case of Durham was not met by the Act, which was intended to give an extension of terms to those whose leases expired at an early period. Accepting that principle, the final extension 1512 for Durham ought to begin from 1891, to which period they already ran. He would, however, withdraw his Resolution.