§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that although he believed the Bill was one whose object was principally to continue the existing law, yet the occasion presented by the Motion for going into Committee upon it seemed to him to afford a good opportunity to call the attention of the Government to a question connected with the subject with which the measure proposed to deal. It would be in the recollection of their Lordships that upon the appointment of the Ecclesiastical Commission the subject of the rights of lessees of Church property had been one upon which there had been a great deal of discussion in both Houses of Parliament. While it had been argued, upon the one hand, that the lessee had no actual claim to the renewal of his lease, it had, upon the other hand, been admitted that the lessees having enjoyed their property for centuries by renewals, had by time acquired a sort of right. The management of the funds of the Church was now about to be transferred from the bishops to Commissioners—that was to say, from individuals whose tenure of life was uncertain to a body which, for all practical purposes, might be regarded as immortal. It was difficult to ascertain the precise amount of interest, in consequence of the change of circumstances, which 782 remained vested in the lessees, but that they did possess a claim, to a certain extent, in right of their leases, had been admitted upon all hands. Now, both in the preamble and in the enacting clause of the Bill before the house the claim of the lessee to some consideration was distinctly recognised. There were two principal classes of lessees, each of whom complained of grievances arising under the present system. He had no personal knowledge on the subject; but from communications which had been made to him within the last twelve hours, by certain gentlemen who took great interest in the question, and who had given to it the greatest attention, he was led to believe that the right of the lessee had always been practically recognised in the case of leases granted for a term of years. The Commissioners, he thought he was correct in stating, usually refused a permanent renewal of a lease, but admitted a renewal for an additional term of seven years beyond the existing holding—that was to say, that in the case of persons who had a lease for a term of twenty-one years originally, and had now eighteen years still remaining, the Commissioners agreed, in consideration of that time, to grant one more renewal of seven years, making, in addition to the eighteen years, a period altogether of twenty-five years. Now, the only complaint, so far as he could learn, with respect to the mode in which lessees for a term of years were dealt with, was, that, according to the Act, there was no restriction whatever placed upon the Commissioners in estimating the value of the property, or the sum to be paid in the shape of fine on renewal. It was considered highly desirable that there should be some check placed upon their power in that respect, and that recourse should be had to some mode of controlling that power by referring the question of the value of property to arbitration. In regard to lessees for lives, he might observe that a lease for life was altogether different from a lease for a term of years; it was, in fact, a more permanent and a higher interest. He had been informed that in the case of leases for lives the Commissioners in general refused to enfranchise, and that if they enfranchised, they took the value of the lives precisely at the same amount at which an actuary would place them. The complaint, therefore, which was made upon that head was, that in estimating the value of the lives the Commissioners had 783 no consideration for the claims of the lessee. He would suggest that provisions might be introduced into the measure which would meet the objections in both cases, and remove all reasonable ground of complaint.
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the Government were not prepared to give any opinion on the points in question; but he was inclined to think they would be better considered by a Select Committee of their Lordships than they could be in Committee of the whole House.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDwas decidedly of opinion that the Bill should go before a Select Committee. Besides the points mentioned by his noble Friend, there was the seventh clause, which would give the Estates Commissioners the absolute power of prohibiting any ecclesiastical corporation from granting a site for a school, or indeed for any building. The Act which the present Bill proposed to amend strictly limited the application of the principal fund to improving the property of the corporation. It permitted the sale and exchange of property, but it limited the application of the money obtained by such sales and exchanges to the improvement of the property of the corporations. Now, the measure under their consideration would give the power of carrying over that money to the General Fund, instead of laying it out upon improvements. That was so manifest a variation from the original measure, that it was in his opinion a proposition which ought not to be passed into law in a Bill which professed to be simply an amending Act. Under these circumstances, he should move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
§ THE EARL OF CHICHESTERwas understood to say that the Commissioners intended to give the lessees for lives the benefit of seven years, as well as the tenants for fixed terms of years. He saw no great difference between the principle of the Acts, which was that the surplus should be made available for the purposes of the General Fund.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYthought such an arrangement would be fair and in accordance with the intentions of the Act.
After a few words from the Marquess of SALISBURY,
§ EARL FITZWILLIAMsaid, it was of importance in carrying out the Act of Parliament that both lessor and lessee should be dealt with on the same principle. By the Act the option was given to the lessee 784 to enfranchise, or, if he did not, he might call on the lessor to buy up his interest. He trusted that, if the Bill was referred to a Select Committee, it would be considered how far it would be equitable, supposing the interest of money should continue to rise, to continue to calculate the interest as between the lessee and the lessor upon the basis of the 3 per cent tables.
§ EARL GRANVILLEassented to the proposition for referring the Bill to a Select Committee.
Order of the Day discharged; and Bill referred to a Select Committee.