[BILL 23.] SECOND READING. (Hansard, 24 February 1875)

§ MR. MULHOLLAND
, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was unnecessary for him to occupy the attention of the House by any elaborate statement. For many years past it had been the policy of Parliament to extend the term for which leases for ecclesiastical purposes might be granted, when it was shown that such extension would be for the public good. Powers had been given to the Court of Chancery in Ireland, and subsequently to the Landed Estates Court, to grant long leases in cases where they were required; and in 1855 an Act was passed for Ireland to enable limited owners to grant leases for religious purposes. The Preamble of that Act stated that great difficulties had arisen in providing sites for places for public worship, and it was therefore desirable that the facilities contained in the Act should be given. In the Act, the Established Church was excluded; but it was never contemplated by the Act that the Established Church should be put in any worse position than the other Churches in Ireland. But the fact was, that at that time the Established Church enjoyed exceptional advantages under Acts of its own; but in order to maintain those advantages, it was necessary for it to have a corporate existence, and having lost that under the Irish Church Act of 1869, the Disestablished Church was now, in this respect, in an exceptional position. The principle of the Act of 1869 was to put all Churches in Ireland on a perfect equality; but the Church of Ireland was now in a worse position than the other Churches. The Bill he now moved should be read a second time 794 consisted really of but one essential clause—namely, to admit the Disestablished Church in Ireland to the principles contained in the Act of 1855. Under the re-construction of the Irish Church it had been found necessary in some instances to amalgamate the parishes, and it was sometimes found that the glebe which was most convenient for the old parish was most inconvenient for the new. In other cases it was found that the old glebe-houses were too large to be kept up on the reduced incomes, and that they could be sold at high prices if for new ones sites could be found. He could not see on what grounds there could be any opposition to the Bill, and he did not think that there could exist any objection to admit the Disestablished Church to the benefits of the Act of 1855. In 1853 a similar Act was passed for England in which the Established Church was not excluded. The hon. Member concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.

§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN
said, he did not object to the Bill, but only regretted that it did not go further than the Act of 1855, which did not allow limited owners to give leases for more than five acres for the purposes of glebes. He should like to see the limit extended to at least 15 acres, and he should also be glad if small quantities of land—say, to the extent of half-an-acre—could be granted at a peppercorn rent, instead of at the best market value, when such land was required for Church purposes. He hoped that the Act passed in 1870 enabling the Board of Works in Ireland to make loans to religious bodies, which would expire in February next, would be renewed for another five years.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, his attention had already been directed to the Act of 1870, referred to by the last speaker, and it would probably be his duty to bring that subject before the House this Session. As to the Bill now before them, he understood its principle to be merely the extension to the Disestablished Church in Ireland of a power now given by law to other religious bodies in that country. When the Act of 1855 passed, it was not made 795 applicable to the then Established Church, because that Church had an Act of its own; but when it was disestablished, its leasing powers were withdrawn, consequently it was only fair and just to place the Disestablished Church on the same footing as other religious bodies. He had, therefore, no objection to the second reading of the Bill; but, as it had been circulated only two days, he would suggest that the Committee should not be taken for a short time, in order that he might have an opportunity of consulting the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers of the Crown as to the legal bearings of the measure.