BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING. (Hansard, 8 February 1887)

§ VISCOUNT CROSS
, in rising to present the Bill, said he wished to draw attention to two objects which they all had in view in dealing with glebe lands. One was to facilitate the sale of glebe lands in England, and the other was to take advantage of such sale of glebe lands, for the purpose of securing that which would undoubtedly be very beneficial to a certain class—namely, a large number of small allotments. As to the first object, he might say that the Bill was not compulsory; it was permissive; and, in the second place, it did not compel anyone to sell glebe, unless he liked, and it did not supplant any of the existing legislation, but simply supplemented that legislation, and provided easier, readier, and safer methods of sale. He would point out that in former times it was said that there was no such good investment for anyone, and especially for the clergy, as green fields; and, in olden times, no doubt that was true, because green fields could not be done away with, and were really considered a safe investment, yielding a safe and ready return. But this Bill proceeded on the assumption that it was expedient the country clergy should be relieved from being owners of land, if they wished. It was also expedient that so much land should not be held in mortmain, as at the present moment. He would remind their Lordships that great changes undoubtedly had come over the question since the idea as to green fields prevailed. In the first place, they were not so good an investment as formerly; and, secondly, there were now a large number of more profitable and safer investments than green fields opened to the general public, and the public preferred these investments to those which in- 871 volved more trouble and yielded less return. Other changes had taken place which had forced people who had to do with agriculture to cultivate land in a more scientific way than was the case in former times. This, combined with foreign competition, involved a larger expenditure, and more capital, than previously, and the clergy were unable to provide that increased expenditure. The changed value of agricultural products also made a great difference, and good tenants were now much more difficult to obtain than formerly. In many cases not at all; and where they were, only when the land was in good condition. Neighbouring landlords had it in their power to reduce rents from 20 to 50 per cent, but it would be simply ruinous for the clergy to do that. Then there was a worse point behind, and that was the case of the tenant who, not able to pay his rent, threw up his farm. It was then thrown on the hands of the poor clergyman, and what was he to do with it, if he had no money to buy stock for it? Besides, clergymen had little time to devote to farming. They had little experience as landlords, and less as tenants. Incumbents were looked upon as tenants for life, and, in recent years, tenants for life could, under the late Earl Cairns's Act, no matter what restrictions bad been imposed, sell their life interests, and have the proceeds invested in, if not safer, more profitable securities than land. It seemed rather anomalous that, whereas ordinary tenants for life could sell land without asking anybody's consent, clergymen, who were really tenants for life, were not allowed to employ the same easy and cheap process, especially now, when in many cases their incomes were so small. He submitted that clergymen were not the best men to farm and cultivate lands, and declared that this measure would be a relief to them, for, whilst simplifying the method of dealing with glebe lauds, the Bill would save expenditure. It might be asked why the Queen Anne's Bounty Board or the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should not carry out the provisions of the Bill; but, as to the first, they have not a sufficient staff, and were a very numerous Body; and, as to the latter, they had already too much to do, and had large sums of money to deal with. The Bill provided that the 872 Land Commissioners should have the duty of carrying it out. They were men of great experience as to the value of land, and had had much to do with enclosures, and, besides, they were not overburdened with work. If, therefore, a clergyman wished to sell glebe, the Bill provided that he was to apply to the Land Commissioners, who would consider his application. It would never do to let a clergyman, who had only a life interest, sell the glebe, simply to put money in his pocket; and, therefore, certain conditions were placed on the sale. He must, in the first place, give notice of his intention to the patron, and also to the Bishop and the Land Commissioners, and the Land Commissioners were not to sanction the sale in any way, unless they were of opinion that it would be for the benefit, not only of the incumbent, but of the benefice itself. The Bill, moreover, would prevent the Commissioners, and any clergyman selling glebe, from including in the sale the parsonage house, or any outbuildings, gardens, or appurtenances, and, in fact, any part of the glebe land which they considered to be necessary for the convenience and enjoyment of the parsonage house. The object of the measure, indeed, was simply to enable a clergyman encumbered with a glebe estate to get rid of it, and it was not intended that the State should be put to any cost in the matter. The Land Commissioners were merely made use of as the persons most convenient to conduct the transaction, and all the costs would be borne by the vendor or purchaser; and the Commissioners could, if they thought fit, order some security for costs to be given. The clergyman himself might conduct the sale, if he chose; but he could only do it subject entirely to the same rules as if the Land Commissioners had the management of the transaction. After the glebe was sold, the purchase money was to be paid to the Land Commissioners themselves; and they were then to give a certificate to the purchaser, which should be taken, when it was registered in the Land Registry, as an absolute and indefeasible title. Therefore, the costs of legal proceedings would be much lessened, if not entirely obviated, as compared with the existing practice. When the purchase money came into the hands of the Land Commissioners, they would be empowered to 873 invest it in Government securities, or in debenture stocks of any railway company in Great Britain or Ireland, under certain conditions, such as that it must be the stock of any company which had for 10 years previously paid a dividend on its ordinary stock. The clergyman also would not be allowed to sell the reversion of minerals. The investments fixed by the Bill, as their Lordships would see, were not of a character involving any possibility of doubt, and would not be subject to that fluctuation of income from which the clergy had so seriously suffered. It was proposed that the money should be invested in the names of the bishop, the patron, and the incumbent himself; and provisions would be inserted for the purpose of preventing the possibility of such investment being lost, through the carelessness of trustees. It had been said that the clergy were very anxious to get rid of their glebes when their houses were dilapidated, so as to avoid the necessity of repairing them; but, in order to meet any such cases, the Land Commissioners would have power to apply a portion of the purchase money to provide for the repair of dilapidations. As to the second part of the Bill—namely, the purchase of allotments—it was proposed by the Government that, until some county authority was set up, the Sanitary Authority should have power to buy the land, and that it should rest with the Land Commissioners when they sold it for that purpose, if they could do so without loss to the Church, to offer portions of the property to the Sanitary Authority, in order that poor persons might obtain allotments. Power was given to Sanitary Authorities to borrow money for the purchase of the land, with that view. With regard to the notices to be given, as the circumstances of different cases were so various, it was proposed that the Land Commissioners should have power to make the necessary rules, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, in order to carry out the provisions of the Bill. In conclusion, he hoped that the measure would meet with the assent of their Lordships.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, we all had great pleasure in welcoming the appear- 874 ance of the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Cross), in that Assembly, as we generally did one who had distinguished himself in "another place;" but, at the same time, he must say he thought that the noble Viscount, probably through his inexperience, had rather strained a privilege which he found here, but which, if I remember right, he had not in that "other place," in moving without Notice the first reading of a Bill. In that way, the noble Viscount had introduced an innovation, which he (Lord Granville) hoped would not be allowed in the future. The usual practice in their Lordships' House was, that any statement in regard to the objects of a Bill should be made when it came on for a second reading. There were some exceptions to that rule, particularly when Law Lords presented Bills. They frequently gave an explanation of the objects of the measure on the first reading, but never, as far as he knew, without giving previous Notice of their intention to do so; and he thought it was better it should be so. It was quite by chance that he had come down to the House, because there was merely formal Business on the Paper; and no doubt other Peers were in the same position. It was, therefore, as it were, only through excessive zeal on his part that he was enabled to hear the statement of the noble Viscount; and he thought it would be more convenient if the ordinary practice in regard to giving notice of such statements were adhered to.

§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)
said, he did not quite agree with the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) as to the practice of the House. He believed that not only Law Lords, but other Peers, frequently stated the objects of their Bills on the first reading, in a similar manner to that used by his noble Friend.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
Not without giving notice.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, he must confess that the noble Earl might be right as regarded the necessity of a Notice; indeed, he was afraid that he was himself responsible for having misled his noble Friend in regard to that infant prodigy, the Bill under notice. However, the subject had been before the world for some time, and no 875 doubt the noble Earl's knowledge and capacity were quite equal to taking in the subject of his noble Friend's statement, even without Notice.

§ THE EARL OF SELBORNE
said, the practice was that Notice should be given that such and such subjects would be brought forward, and, that appearing on the Notice Paper, every Peer knew what was to be done.