The Duke of Norfolkstrongly objected to it, chiefly in point of principle, as alienating, in the way proposed, a portion of ecclesiastical property; and as tending to set a precedent of the most dangerous nature in that respect.
The Bishop of St. Asaphdefended the bill, chiefly on the ground of its particular merits, and the circumstances under which it proceeded. In this view, the reverend prelate was led into a detailed consideration of the measure. He as little wished to see numerous bills of the kind, as the noble duke possibly could; but it did not follow, that cases might not arise in which such a legislative measure might be proper. He strongly recommended the bill going to a committee, in which the adequacy of its provisions might be fairly considered; and where it would be seen, that a full and honest equivalent for the transfer of the Property, was proposed, and that the lessee had dealt even liberally on the occasion.
§ Lord Eldon ,as being decidedly hostile to the principle of the bill, was rather averse from considering the propriety of such a measure under the particular circumstances of the case. The precedents which had been adduced, instead of favouring, went, he thought, in condemnation of the measure. The noble and learned lord then went into a detailed view Of some of the provisions of the bill; the effect of several of which he seemed to disapprove.
The Bishop Lincolnconcurred with the noble duke and the learned lord, that the principle on which the bill was founded, as a general one, was strongly to be reprobated. However, when he considered the peculiar circumstances which gave rise to the present bill, he had no appehension of many applications being made to parliament, for measures of the kind; the rev. prelate then entered into rather a detailed statement of the attendant circumstances. His lordship defended the bill under the peculiar circumstances, and urged the propriety of its going to a committee, where it might be modified so as to do away many objections. He thought the measure itself would be productive of much 959 benefit, and he had no fears as to its operation in the way of a precedent.
§ Lord Ellenboroughfelt his objections to the principle of the bill so strongly, that nothing which a committee could do, could reconcile him to it. In a more enlarged view of the possible effects of such a principle, he was led to consider the sacredness of the ecclesiastical property of the country, and alluded to a project Which was entertained even by a member of that house, for laying hands on the same, for state purposes, towards the close of the American war. He adverted to the deplorable consequences which had resulted in France, from acting on such principle: and deprecated the steps which were now taking upon it, in a part of the Spanish dominions. After animadverting on these important considerations, he reverted to the bill in question, and censured its principle, among other very objectionable points of view, as tending to the extinction of the prebendal character. Deeming the bill incurable in a committee, he felt it his duty to oppose its further progress.
Lord Hollandthought it but fair the bill should go to a committee; and, after some observations upon part of what had fallen from the noble and learned lords, said, the third reading of the bill would afford a more regular opportunity for discussing the principle of it.
§ Earl Spencerwas of opinion the bill should be suffered, at least, to go to a committee, were it only in justice to the parties; in this view, he made some observations on what had been alledged in favour of the bill, of which he thought several of the kind had met with the sanction of parliament.
The Lord Chancellormade a few remarks on what had transpired in the course of discussion; under the circumstances of such a bill as that under consideration, he thought the present not the stage to resist the principle of the bill, which, he was of opinion, ought to go to a committee.—Lord Eldon and the duke of Norfolk spoke shortly in explanation.—The question was then put, and their lordships divided; when there appeared, For the second reading of the bill, 9; against it, 5.—The bill was then ordered to be referred to the consideration of a committee.