(NO. 280.) THIRD READING. (Hansard, 8 August 1870)

§ LORD REDESDALE
said, he did not see that any security was taken in the Bill to prevent the alienation of the property upon which money was to be advanced. He thought the Bill required much consideration, and he suggested that it would be better to postpone the Bill for another year, rather than hurrying it through Parliament without due consideration. If the matter were of importance, the Bill ought to have been brought forward at an earlier period of the Session.

LORD DUFFERIN
said, there had been no undue haste in passing the Bill, for it had been opposed at almost every stage in the other House. It would occasion great disappointment in Ireland if the passing of the Bill were delayed, for it had been received with favour by all denominations in that country. It secured an object which was originally contemplated at the time of the passing of the Act to disestablish the Irish Church; and, practically, there was not the slightest danger of that alienation which the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees thought it necessary to provide against; for it was not likely that persons would, from religious motives, 1681 become responsible for the repayment of the sums to be advanced if there was any probability that the property would be alienated to other uses.

§ LORD CAIRNS
said, it was to be regretted that so important a measure should have been introduced at so late a period of the Session; but, at the same time, to refuse to pass it would occasion great disappointment to some religious parties in Ireland who were anxious to avail themselves of the powers of the Bill. He should approve of airy properly framed Bill to effect this object; but he saw in this Bill very great peculiarities, indicative of the great haste with which it had been prepared, and which he feared would lead to great inconvenience in the working of it. There was no provision to prevent the alienation of glebe houses or glebe lands from the purpose to which the advance implied that it was to be devoted; but in the Irish Land Bill the Government thought it necessary to take security for 35 years in respect of land purchased by a tenant. A strange phrase had been used in the Bill, utterly at variance with the present state of things in Ireland, for it spoke of a clergyman "having the spiritual charge of a parish or district"—a charge which, in the disestablished condition of the Church, no clergyman could have.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
thought there was something in the last objection taken by the noble and learned Lord, and proposed to meet it by substituting the phrase used in the Charitable Bequests Act—namely, "officiating in any parish, &c." In relation to the main object of the Bill, it was desirable that it should come into operation while the friends of the disestablished Church were full of zeal to establish ministers in their work and vocation. It was not necessary to make any provision in respect of the particular contingency which noble Lords apprehended, for it was most unlikely to occur. There was no analogy between the Land Act and the Church Act. If those who had established a minister wished to sell the globe, that must arise from the body being broken up in the district; and, in such a case, there could be no reasonable objection to their being allowed to dispose of the property.

§ LORD CAIRNS
thought the Amendment suggested by the noble and learned Lord would make the matter worse.

§ LORD REDESDALE
moved to insert the following clause:— Every house built, enlarged, or improved, and every glebe or house purchased under this Act, shall be thenceforth held and occupied for that purpose only for which the same was originally provided, and shall not be alienated from that purpose without proof having been given to the satisfaction of the said Commissioners that the same is no longer required for that purpose.

LORD DUFFERIN
feared it was impossible to accept the clause, for reasons which he had already stated.

§ LORD REDESDALE
said, the noble Lord had not advanced any valid reason for objecting to the clause; and, as to the reason given by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, if it was not likely that alienations would occur, there could be the less difficulty in accepting a provision which prohibited them. Therefore he moved the insertion of the clause.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
reminded the noble Lord that the Bill had been several days before the House, and no Notice had been given of this Amendment.

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
said, the Bill had been introduced on the 4th of August, and had therefore gone through all its stages here in four days, including Sunday. He could see no objection to the Amendment. If money was only wanted for the purchase of glebe houses, why not say so?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, that if the clause were inserted it must go down to be discussed in the other House, where it had been discussed at considerable length already. There was great inconvenience in discussing Amendments that were proposed without Notice, because it was impossible to discover all the objections that might arise to a clause when they had to consider it in a hurry. It might be thought necessary to remove a residence from one part of a parish to another, and to do so it might be necessary to dispose of that already occupied; but if the clause were agreed to it could not be done.

§ LORD REDESDALE
said, the Bill was brought into the other House on the 18th of July, it was read a second time on the 26th, was considered on the 1st August, and read a third time on the 1683 3rd. Every stage of the Bill, except the second reading, had been taken after midnight. Such treatment at this period of the Session was really monstrous.