The Marquess of Clanricardepresented a petition from certain Leaseholders of Church property in the county of Nottingham, complaining of the course which had been adopted by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of England and Wales with respect to the description of property which they held. The noble Marquess stated that very great misery had occurred, and was still threatened, from the course which the Commissioners had thought proper to adopt. He would put a case to their Lordships, which was not altogether an imaginary one. What would their Lordships think of a man devoted to agriculture, and who having 500l. by him, wished to invest it? Thinking that there could be no safer investment, he wished to buy one of these leases, and having raised 1,000l. in addition to his 500l. (and he would find no difficulty in raising the sum, for these leases were so beneficial that they were sometimes preferred even to freehold property), he purchased the interest in one for 1,500l. Shortly after that purchase the determination of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners with respect to these leases became publicly known; the value thus became altogether altered, and the person who lent him the 1,000l. on mortgage foreclosed the mortgage. The interest for which he gave 1,500l. was not worth 1,000l., so that the unfortunate man who invested his capital lost all his money, and had no prospect before him but the workhouse. That he could assure their Lordships was not purely an imaginary case. He (the Marquess of Clanricarde) thought they were no friends to the Church of England who advised the Commissioners to increase their funds, without regard to other considerations to which every individual ought to pay attention. He hoped that it would not be necessary for him to take any step with respect to this subject next Session, but he should wish to have an account of the sittings of the Ecclesiastical Commission, with the number who attended each sitting, and how many sittings the same members attended. He could state cases of great hardship in other parts of England as well as Nottingham- 1718 shire, from the course which had been adopted by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—from the exercise of an arbitrary power which had been given them by Parliament. There was another objection to that power, which was, that in addition to being arbitrary, it was not uniform in its operation. The effect of the course which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners adopted was peculiarly injurious in its operation in Nottinghamshire, for wherever a farm was greatly improved, at considerable expense, the tenant was more likely to be turned out, than from a farm upon which comparatively no money was expended or improvements made.
The Bishop of Londondenied the assertion that the Commissioners had used their power unequally, and he thought it would have been better if the noble Marquess had waited until an investigation had taken place before he made those charges. That was not the first occasion on which they had been told that they were not the true friends of the Church who maintained the right of the Church to her ancient possessions—it was not the first time that such a charge had been made against those who attempted to secure to the Church the patrimony which had been left her. He was of opinion that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would have been guilty of dereliction of duty if they had not used the power which the Parliament had given them to make the most, in an honest and proper sense, of the property with the management of which they had been entrusted. He had never noticed anything on the part of the noble Marquess which was not characterised by candour and honour, and he was confident it was only from misinformation, or want of sufficient information, that he had brought forward these charges with regard to the vested rights, as they had been called, of those lessees; they only continued as long as the leases continued; they were purchased with that understanding, and he could not see any principle of justice or equity which obliged the Church to give more than the proper value. It would be inexpedient to interfere with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners managing Church property for Church purposes, when they did not interfere with the management of private trust property.
§ The Duke of Richmondwould remind the right rev. Prelate that a secret tribunal, 1719 such as the Commission in question, which was not called upon to report its proceedings to Parliament, must expect to have attacks made upon them. At all events, whether or not they were made in the House, they were made out of doors. He quite objected to the dictum of his right rev. Friend, that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were bound to make the most of the property entrusted to their care. He knew that if leases were put up to auction to be disposed of to the highest bidder, that although they might get the man who would promise most, they would not get the man who would pay most, and keep the property in the best order. He objected to putting an enormous mass of property under the management of a body who gave no account of their proceedings. He did not say that the Commissioners had done wrong; he did not know what they had done; but he did know that a certain number of persons had complained of the manner in which they had been treated by them. He hoped that the noble Marquess would move for a Select Committee upon the subject next Session, and that the result of such a Committee would be to alter the law, and to enact that the House should have a right to know what these Commissioners did, what were the rules on which they acted, and, generally, what were all their proceedings.
§ After a few words from Lord Carberry, the Marquess of Clanricarde, and Lord Wharncliffe,
The Bishop of Exeterobserved, that he understood the noble Marquess to have called upon the Commissioners to cease to act as trustees, and to use a discretion of their own in dealing with the property over which they were placed. Now, as an Ecclesiastical Commissioner, he must say that he conceived it to be his duty to act as a trustee, and only as such, and his duty as a trustee was, he conceived, to make the most of the property placed under his management.
The Earl of Radnorwas astonished to have heard his noble Friend near him (the Marquess of Clanricarde), and his noble Friend on the cross benches (the Duke of Richmond), contend that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were not acting rightly in making the most of the property subjected to their charge. As trustees, he conceived that they were bound to do so.
The Earl of Besboroughhoped, that the 1720 Ecclesiastical Commissioners would have no objection to make an annual report of their proceedings to Parliament.
§ Petition read and ordered to lie on the Table.