Lords Sitting of 9 July 1858

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Government of India; Navigation Advances (Ireland); Titles to Land (Scotland); Lunatics (Scotland) Act Amendment.
2a Ecclesiastical Corporations Leasing; Confirmation of Executors, &c.; Funded Debt; Nisi Prius Court, &c. (Ireland); Incumbered Estates (West Indies) Amendment.
3a Ecclesiastical Commission; Railways Act (Ireland) Continuance; Portendic and Albreda Convention.

THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

  FIRST READING.
  Bill brought up from the Commons, and read a first time.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, if it would be convenient to noble Lords opposite he would fix Thursday next for the second reading of this Bill, and would then propose to proceed at once to consider it in Committee. He had no wish to hurry on business, but at this period of the Session probably it would be thought that Thursday next would afford sufficient time for consideration.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that so far as he was aware Thursday next would be perfectly convenient to noble Lords on that side of the House. As he understood the noble Earl, the second reading would be on Thursday, and the Committee on Friday?
  THE EARL OF DERBY: Just so.

THE SLAVE TRADE.—QUESTION.
LORD TRUROsaid, he wished to put a question to the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs with respect to the efforts which were at present being made by this country for the suppression of the Slave Trade. He entertained the highest admiration for the great men who had originated the anti-slavery movement in past years, and he hoped that he was saying nothing incompatible with that feeling when he expressed his belief that the days of sentimental legislation had passed away. It could never be forgotten that this country had made great sacrifices for the suppression of the Slave Trade. She had compensated the slave owners in her own Colonies and had paid other countries: it might, indeed, be said that she had bought treaties and alliances for this object. But many of those treaties had ceased to exist and others had failed to be observed, while our alliances had disappeared, and we now stood alone in our advocacy of that cause.

1147
He would ask their Lordships whether recent occurrences in the Cuban waters had not led them to think that that question had entered upon a new phase? Under these circumstances, he would ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it was true, as it was reported, that her Majesty's Government had determined to recall the squadron from the Cuban waters with the intention of reinforcing that now blockading the coast of Africa; and if so, whether they had thought right to institute an inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining how far it was desirable to continue that blockade?
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: Although I agree with the noble Lord who has asked this question, that sentiment may be looked upon as an ephemeral feeling, yet there are some principles in morality which are immortal, and which cannot, under any circumstances, be changed. I think that, although the circumstances attending the Slave Trade may be altered, there can be no difference in the feeling throughout this country with respect to the great importance of our continuing our efforts for its suppression. With this conviction Her Majesty's Government have, under the present circumstances—to which I do not desire now, more particularly, to refer—thought it more prudent to remove from the Cuban waters the squadron that was there stationed, but they have no intention of removing the squadron from the African coast; and I think I may add that, after all the sacrifices this country has made for the suppression of the Slave Trade it would be a most deplorable act on the part of the British Government to give up the principle on which we have hitherto acted, and to discontinue our efforts on the coast of Africa. I do not by any means think that those efforts have been ineffectual. On the contrary, I believe that they have been crowned with great success. They certainly were to no inconsiderable extent interrupted by the outbreak of the Russian war, and the consequent withdrawal of our cruisers, and the captures of slave ships were greatly diminished in number immediately after that event, compared with what they had been in the years immediately preceding. In conclusion, I have only to state that Her Majesty's Government have no intention to withdraw the squadron from the African coast, although they have given orders to diminish the squadron in the Cuban waters.

DILAPIDATIONS IN GLEBE HOUSES.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNON, who had a Notice on the Paper—
"To call Attention to the inconvenient and frequently harsh and unjust Nature of the present Law with regard to the Dilapidations on Glebe Houses; and to ask whether the Archbishop of Canterbury contemplates in a future Session, introducing any Measure calculated to meet the existing evil,"
said, he would not occupy their Lordships' time at any length. He had no immediate object in view, but only wished to direct attention to the subject, that it might be considered in a future Session. Their Lordships were of course aware, that when a vacancy occurred in any benefice, either by death or promotion, an inspection took place to value the dilapidations. The result was seldom or ever satisfactory, and lie believed a greater amount of bitterness and heartburning arose from this than from any other matter connected with the Church Establishment. The hardships and evils of the present system were manifold. If a clergyman, with a small income and a large family, found himself unable, after paying his expenses, and keeping up an insurance upon his life, to spend any money on his glebe-house, the result was, that after his death a demand for dilapidation was sent in, which stripped the widow and orphans of a great portion of their provision. If the successor was unwilling, from motives of charity, to press the claim, he had to make it good himself if he was removed from the benefice. In case of a rectory, the rector was liable for the repairs of the chancel, and if there was any land attached to the glebe the repairs of the farm buildings formed a considerable item in the account. Another evil of the present system was, that clergymen of large private means having small livings in agreeable localities, erected glebe-houses very suitable to their position, but totally beyond the means of their successors. He thought the Archdeacon or Bishop ought to have some control in this respect. The only suggestion as to a remedy for the existing evils he would venture to make was, that a diocesan fund should be formed to meet dilapidations, that every living should contribute a small annual proportion, and when a vacancy occurred, the architect of the diocese should report as to the repairs necessary. He would only express his anxious desire that the subject would be considered in a future Session, and he trusted some Member of the right rev. Bench would favour them with his views.
LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, he believed it was desirable that some regular provision should be made for meeting those dilapidations, and thus preventing the injustice which was often committed under the existing system. He should himself be prepared to give his best assistance in providing a remedy for the evil.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he regretted that the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) was not then in the House. He was sure that if he were, lie would be ready to express his obligation to the noble Viscount for having brought that matter under their Lordships' consideration, as well as to the noble and learned Lord who had just addressed their Lordships, for his determination to take up the question. The subject had not escaped the attention of the members of the right rev. Bench. A short time ago a Bill had been prepared by his predecessor in the diocese of London, for the purpose of remedying that evil, and that measure had been for a short time under the consideration of the Bishops this year. The difficulties, however, which surrounded the question were very great, and such as he and his right rev. Brethren felt that they could hardly surmount without some such assistance as that which the noble and learned Lord had so kindly offered. The principle on which the Bill of Bishop Blomfield proceeded was, that there should be some machinery established by which there should be a periodical inspection of parsonage houses, and some power should be given of rendering it compulsory on the occupiers to keep them in proper repair. The subject was a very difficult one, and yet its difficulties were not insuperable, as was evident from the fact that a system had been in force for some years in Ireland, under which glebe-houses were kept in a satisfactory state. He believed that the evils of the existing system in this country had not been exaggerated by the noble Viscount.
LORD ST. LEONARDSbegged to correct the right rev. Prelate, although he should be prepared to aid in effecting an improvement in the present system, he could not engage to take the question altogether into his own hands.
LORD CAMPBELLbegged humbly to offer his advice and assistance in enforcing the existing law, which he believed would be found adequate for every purpose. He, of course, did not suppose that the noble Viscount proposed to relieve the incumbent
1150
altogether from the obligation of keeping his glebe-house in repair.
THE BISHOP OF CHICHESTERsaid, it was the duty of the rural deans to inspect the parsonage houses and to report upon their condition to the Archdeacons; but after they had so reported, he knew of no power in either the Archdeacons or Bishops to compel incumbents to put those houses in repair. It was true that the Bishops could issue monitions, and bring the unhappy incumbents into the Ecclesiastical Courts; but if a sentence were pronounced, he did not know how it could be enforced. This was a matter which deserved the earliest attention of the Legislature; and, for himself and his brethren on the bench, he might say that they hoped something would be proposed in the ensuing Session of Parliament to put the matter on a better footing, and if any measure were proposed he trusted it would be received and considered with attention.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid, he was glad that a measure was likely to be introduced, as it appeared the matter had already engaged the attention of the right rev. Bench.
VISCOUNT GAGEsaid, the real difficulty was a want of money. He would suggest that an insurance fund should be established, and that the parties to contribute to it should be those who held the great tithes of the parishes.

CHURCH RATES.
LORD ST. LEONARDS, according to notice, called attention to a petition as to Church Rates, presented on the 29th of June last, from Surbiton, and said, that in his opinion those persons who contributed to support district churches ought not to be called upon to pay church rates to the mother Church. A clause in the Bill introduced by the noble Duke on the cross benches (the Duke of Marlborough) would so far remedy the evil; but as there was some doubt on the point he thought some amendment of the clause necessary. It was a grievance that persons should be called upon to support another church in their own parish than that which they attended. It was a grievance which operated most injuriously, because it divided members of the Church into two parties. He believed that most of those who divided against the Church Rate Bill the other night desired to see some compromise on the matter, and he hoped it would receive the attention of the noble Earl at the head of the Government.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHagreed with the noble and learned Lord in the great importance of the subject, and he felt grateful to him for having brought the subject under the notice of the House. The noble and learned Lord was, however, mistaken in saying that the subject had not been alluded to in the recent debate on the subject of church rates; for he (the Duke of Marlborough) had then endeavoured to show the practical evil of the present system in obliging a man to contribute towards the repair both of the mother church and the district church. He would be rejoiced to see any ambiguity removed which there might be in the Act of Parliament, for it would be the means of removing a large amount of discontent on the subject of church rates which now existed among members of the Establishment.
LORD PORTMANsaid, the noble Lord appeared to have forgotten what had taken place in a recent debate, because he (Lord Portman) had then used very strong language with reference to this very hardship. Under a clause in the Act known as Lord Blandford's Act, it was possible for the Bishop and the patron of a living to give to a district the power of rating themselves for a church rate; and the consequence was, that wherever a district church was established the mother Church was deprived of all the support of a church rate so far as that district was concerned. This was not done directly, but indirectly; and, in his opinion, involved a great injustice. He concurred with his noble and learned Friend in hoping that the noble Earl would direct his attention to the subject. It was worthy of notice, that in a recently published letter on spiritual destitution, Dr. Hook said that the revolution under the Marquess of Blandford's Act was proceeding at such a rate that it was high time that something should be done. It was, indeed, high time that this church rate question should be settled; and he was himself inclined to follow the example of the noble and gallant Earl opposite (the Earl of Lucan). The noble and gallant Earl had come forward as an outsider, and proposed a settlement of one troublesome question relating to the Jews; and he (Lord Portman) thought that he too would come forward as an outsider, and endeavour to settle this other troublesome question. He would endeavour, before the end of the Session, to lay a Bill on the table for the consideration of the House and of the right rev. Bench; and if there was not time before the proro-
1152
gation for maturing this Bill, he hoped to be able, at least, to shadow forth to the noble Earl at the head of the Government a scheme which might be ultimately made satisfactory to all parties.

CONFIRMATION OF EXECUTORS, ETC. BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the second reading of this Bill, explained that one of the principal objects of it was to simplify the proceedings in Scotland in confirmation of executors; which was analogous to taking out probate in this country. The other part of the Bill related to the effect of a probate in this country on property in Scotland, or of letters of confirmation in Scotland on property in this country. At present a probate in this country was of no avail in respect to property in Scotland, and it was necessary to take out probate in both countries, if there were property, however small, in both. The Bill would make a probate in England good for property in Scotland, and a confirmation in Scotland good for property in this country. He should have been satisfied with making this statement, had it not been for a petition which had been presented to-day by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cranworth) from the Writers to the Signet in Edinburgh, praying that the Bill might be restored to the original form in which it had been introduced into the other House. As originally introduced, it had been the option of the parties to petition either the Commissary in the county where the deceased was domiciled, or go to the Commissary in Edinburgh. The Lord Advocate, in the progress of the Bill through the House of Commons, had thought it advisable to omit this part of the Bill, and to leave the matter as it stood before, which made it compulsory to take proceedings before the Commissary in the county. There had been a good deal of agitation on the part of the Writers to the Signet against this alteration, as they were naturally desirous to obtain as large an amount of practice as possible; but the Lord Advocate had declined to grant the option which was asked for. He agreed with his right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate in the view he had taken, and he should therefore oppose the introduction of any words in the Bill by which the option of going before either the county Commissary or the Commissary in Edinburgh would be given.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, that the

  1153
  main object of the Bill had his entire concurrence; but the matter referred to in the petition which he had presented was, he thought, a blot on the Bill. It was said by his noble and learned Friend that the object of the petitioners was to restore the Bill to the same state as it was when introduced into the House of Commons. That was true; but it was also true that their object was to restore it to the state in which it had passed through Committee and been reported, for the change which was made had been made only in the last stage of the Bill, and, he believed, at a late hour of the night. The question was not one of the interests of different practitioners, but of the interests of the public. The matter might be easily explained. In England, under the old law when a man died leaving a will there was great difficulty in ascertaining whether a diocesan or a prerogative probate should be taken out by his executors; but by a reeent Act all that nonsense was now at an end. This Bill, when introduced into the Commons, and as it passed through Committee there, contained a provision to the effect that when a person died domiciled in any particular county his will might be proved before the Commissory Court of that county, or before the Commissionary Court of Edinburgh. But the alteration which had been made in the Bill in its last stage in the Commons rendered it obligatory on the representatives of a testator dying in Scotland to prove his will in the county in which he was domiciled at the time of his death. He thought that a great blot, inasmuch as it might be very difficult to say where a man was domiciled, and everybody knew that questions of domicile gave rise to the nicest discussions. If domicile simply meant "residence," as had been suggested, it would be desirable to have its meaning so defined, in order to prevent the inconvenience that might arise from any ambiguity on that point.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order) and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order.)
  LORD ST. LEONARDS LORD ST. LEONARDS moved an Amendment on one of the clauses to the effect, not of taking away arbitration altogether, but of leaving the arbitrators at liberty to determine the rate of interest at which the reversionary rights belonging to the Church should be disposed of.
  THE EARL OF CHICHESTERopposed the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord. Its effect would be, not to take away the arbitration, but to leave the arbitrators at liberty to determine the rate of interest at which the reversionary right of the Church should be discounted.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid a few words in explanation. The value would not be determined by a single arbitrator, but by several. His object was to secure the future benefit both of the lessees and the Church.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, that if the proposition of his noble and learned Friend were adopted its effect would be to deprive the Church of a large portion of the property which belonged to it. Under the circumstances he hoped his noble and learned Friend would not press the Motion to a division.
  THE EARL OF DERBYhoped the noble and learned Lord would not divide the House. The Select Committee was unanimous in favour of the Bill in its present form. It was clear that if the sum paid for a reversionary interest ought to bring in the full value of that interest, it could not do so if the reversion was discounted at 6½ per cent, when the ordinary interest of money was only half that rate.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEbrought up some additional clauses.
  LORD CAMPBELLrecommended that the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench should no longer be ex officio a member of the Commission. He himself had been regularly summoned, but had always found it impossible to obey, and had never yet been present at a single meeting of the Commissioners.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONstated that he had been requested by his right rev. Friend the Bishop of Oxford to inform their Lordships, that it was not his intention to proceed further during the present Session with his proposal relative to paying the chancellors of dioceses out of the Common Fund of the Ecclesiastical Commission.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, there was no doubt that some improvement was needed in the mode of paying the Chancellors, but it was a subject which required very careful consideration, and he thought the right rev. Prelate had done wisely in postponing it until next Session.
  Other Amendments made.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Monday next at Eleven o'clock.