§ The Queen's Consent signified.
§ Bill read 3a
§ EARL FORTESCUE moved the Third Reading of the Ecclesiastical Unions and Division of Parishes (Ireland) Bill, and, in doing so, explained to their Lordships the nature of some alterations made in the measure, by one of which the rights of the Crown and of private individuals—the owners of ecclesiastical property—were to be placed on the same footing.
LORD STANLEYrose for the purpose of calling their Lordships' attention to the Amendment of which he had given notice. If he could feel satisfied with the statement of the noble Earl, and that in point of fact the rights of the Crown and of private individuals would, by the Amendment made by the noble Earl, be placed on the same footing, he should have little to say on the 151 subject. But so far from their being placed on the same footing, the complaint he made was, that by this Bill, for the first time, the rights of the owners of ecclesiastical property were to be set aside without their consent. Although ostensibly the rights of the Crown might be placed on the same footing as that of a private individual, yet really they were by no means placed on the same footing, inasmuch as what was to be done could only be done by the representative of the Crown, assisted by a certain number of the Privy Council, so that in every case the consent of the Crown must be given; but with regard to private individuals that was not the case. He felt he would not be doing his duty if he allowed a Bill of this kind to pass, for the first time, infringing on the rights of private property, without calling their Lordships' attention to the fact, and asking them if such an infringement on the rights of property would be sanctioned by them or not? It had been said that the rights of ecclesiastical property were different from the rights of other property, and he admitted that the rights of ecclesiastical property were subject to a responsibility which did not apply to the rights of other property; but that was the case only in a moral sense, and not in a legal sense. In a legal sense, the right of persons to advowsons was as great as to any other property, and as much the subject of bargain and sale; and they should no more compel a person to part with such property without his consent, than they would take from him a portion of his estate. Was a patron to be compelled to surrender and give up an advowson that he had purchased, and to be told that, as an equivalent for giving it up, he was to have a second, or third, or fourth turn in the presentation to the living? That, he considered, would be an infringement on the rights of property, and he, therefore, begged to move the following clause by way of Amendment:—
Provided always that nothing herein contained shall affect the rights of any patron in respect of any benefice to the patronage whereof he shall he entitled at the passing of this Act, or the patronage whereof he shall hereafter acquire by purchase, will, or inheritance.
§ The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, after having given the matter all the consideration which he could, he saw no reason for altering his opinion with respect to the opposition which his noble Friend near him gave to the Motion of the noble Lord op- 152 posite. The interference to which the noble Lord had alluded, with respect to private property, had already taken place by Parliament requiring residence; and persons who purchased advowsons did so under the conditions imposed by Act of Parliament.
The EARL of WICKLOWcould not concur with many of the arguments brought forward by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) in favour of his Amendment; but there was one that did strike him with much force. He could not agree with the noble Lord that this was the first instance in which Parliament had interfered with regard to lay patronage to ecclesiastical property; on the contrary, he thought that, in their legislation with regard to ecclesiastical subjects, particularly in Ireland, there had in every case been more or less some interference with respect to patronage, both lay and ecclesiastical. The noble Lord had stated it would be an injustice to the lay patron to be deprived of the right of presentation he now possessed. He (the Earl of Wicklow) confessed it would be a very hard thing, and an injustice, to the lay proprietor to be so deprived of it, and he did not think that an adequate equivalent was proposed to be given to him in return.
§ EARL FORTESCUEdefended the Bill.
LORD STANLEYobserved, that seeing that the feeling of the House was against his Amendment, he would not press it. He was quite satisfied to withdraw it, his principal object in bringing it forward having been to place upon record his opinion respecting what he considered a serious objection to the Bill.
§ Bill passed.