QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS. (Hansard, 11 April 1878)

THE EARL OF SANDWICH

asked the First Ecclesiastical Commissioner 1082 (the Earl of Chichester), Why Mr. Charles Armstrong has not been allowed to continue in the occupation of his farm at Godmanchester, in the county of Huntingdon, lately purchased by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners? As he was informed, Mr. Armstrong had occupied the farm for 20 years, and during that period had spent a great deal of money in improving it. When he heard it was about to be sold to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, he applied to their agent, who told him that he thought he might be allowed to continue in possession of the farm; but immediately afterwards—he believed on the same day—wrote to him, informing him that he would not be continued as tenant. Subsequently, it was handed over to another tenant, who, he believed, had six farms already. He considered that this was an extremely hard case, because it was admitted upon all hands that Mr. Armstrong was an excellent farmer, and had greatly improved the land. He also pointed out that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had acquired an enormous amount of land, yielding a revenue of £1,000,000 a-year, and that the cost of management was something about £60,000. He considered that they had acted in something like a tyrannical manner in this instance; and he was not alone in that opinion, Mr. Armstrong being much esteemed by all his neighbours.

§ THE EARL OF CHICHESTER

said, that he had nothing whatever to say against the character of Mr. Armstrong, the tenant, either as a gentleman or a farmer; and the fact that the noble Earl had taken an interest in the case, and that he had also received a letter from the Duke of Manchester on his behalf, was a sufficient testimony of the high position he held in the esteem of his neighbours. The Question of the noble Earl was—why Mr. Armstrong was not continued in his tenancy? and the answer he (the Earl of Chichester) had to give was, that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had been advised, and they had adopted the advice, to make a different arrangement in regard to this property and the property adjoining, which could not have been carried out had Mr. Armstrong's lease been renewed. But he must also mention the fact that Mr. Armstrong was under notice to quit when the property was 1083 offered for sale, and the Commissioners would not have been advised to make the purchase if it had not been known that the tenant was going to leave. It was on that ground that the Commissioners had entered upon the contract. The noble Earl might have led the House to suppose that Mr. Armstrong had been encouraged by the sub-agent, Mr. Smith, to entertain the idea that he would be continued in his occupation; but what happened was, that shortly before the sale, Mr. Armstrong asked the sub-agent the question whether he would be allowed to remain, and the sub-agent said that he thought it might be so. But, on seeing his principal, he found that that could not be allowed, and within 24 hours the sub-agent sent a special messenger to correct his mistake, and to say that he had no authority for saying what he had said the day before. The noble Earl alluded to the extent of the land owned by the Commissioners; but their Lordships were aware that this was a necessity of their office. He might, however, state that they had sold more land than they had bought, and that there was no complaint against them of being what was termed in the Colonies "land sharks," which appeared to be the character attached to them by the noble Earl in this particular neighbourhood. He would also remind their Lordships that the amount of land they had acquired was not yet sufficient for the purpose of complying with the Act of Parliament, which compelled them to provide permanent endowments for Ecclesiastical Corporations. The noble Earl concluded by handing in the Correspondence which had taken place upon the subject.