HL Deb 15 February 1887 vol 310 cc1494-503

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Viscount Cross.)

THE EARL OF POWIS

objected to the individual trustees, as involving expense and trouble of renewal. He did not see why property now held by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or Queen Anne's Bounty should not continue vested in them when re-invested, though the sale might be conducted by the Land Commissioners.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he did not rise for the purpose of offering any opposition to the second reading. On the contrary, he sympathized with the object of the Bill; and he earnestly hoped that the Bill would become law, as nothing could be worse than the present position of the law respecting glebe lands. He, however, took the opportunity of reminding his noble Friend opposite (Viscount Cross) that, under the Act constituting sanitary authorities in rural districts, they were authorized to appoint a Committee which might exercise all the powers of the Board; and he doubted whether it would be satisfactory or safe that a Committee so appointed should be entrusted with the carrying out of the provisions of the Bill relating to allotments for labourers. As for the proposed County Authorities to whom the powers given by the Bill to Sanitary Authorities were to be transferred, he was not sanguine that an Act creating new County Authorities would be passed in this Session of Parliament. Even if such an Act were passed, he also doubted whether a new Central Authority would be a convenient body for exorcising the powers to be given by the Bill. He did not think it would have the local knowledge of the persons to be benefited, which would enable it to judge what it was expedient and desirable to do in the matter of allotments; but perhaps this difficulty might be overcome by its delegating the duty to local Committees.

EARL STANHOPE

thought the House would gladly accept this measure as a means of facilitating the sale of glebes. At the present moment of extreme agricultural depression, it was impossible for incumbents in many cases either to let, or sell their glebes, and all this time tithes were much depreciated. His noble friend the Secretary of State for India had stated, when introducing this Bill, that the two chief objects to be attained were cheapening of sale, and rendering the operation of sale more expeditious. As regards the first point, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners under the Ecclesiastical Leasing Act had sold many glebes since the powers had been conferred upon them, and at a low rate so far as their own solicitors' charges were concerned; but he (Earl Stanhope) despaired of seeing cheap transfer of land so long as the present cumbrous and complicated system of conveyancing continued. He thought the only remedy, which he hoped to see law some day, was compulsory registration of land. As regards speedy and expeditious sales, this would depend upon the rules laid down (under Clause 13) by the Land Commissioners. He was glad that the noble Viscount had introduced a clause that sales only should be sanctioned which would be for the future benefit of the living; otherwise we should have all impecunious parsons selling their glebes when we were, he hoped, at the bottom of the hill of agricultural depression. Believing that this Bill would be a relief to the clergy, he earnestly trusted the House would accord it a second reading.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

said, that the Bill was another step in the reform of the Land Laws, which had been mainly promoted by the Conservatives, having been initiated by the Settled Land Act which the late Earl Cairns succeeded in passing when he was in Opposition, an Act which enabled the owners of entailed estates to deal with them, precisely as if they were the owners of the fee simple. The Bill would remove another disability which interfered with the transfer of land, be- cause it would enable the owners of glebes to sell as freely as laymen could sell. If the edifice of Land Law Reform should be crowned by the passing of the measure to be introduced by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack (Lord Halsbury), to enable all lands to be transferred cheaply, readily, and quickly, not only would the difficulty pointed out by the noble Earl near him (the Earl of Stanhope) disappear, but these reforms would remove the popular prejudice which existed in the minds of many persons that landlords were interested in maintaining an antiquated system of land tenure, in order to prevent the mass of their countrymen from having a share in that particular form of property from which most of their Lordships derived their income—the possession of land. He (The Earl of Onslow) did not think that the Conservative Party ever intended that this measure should be the only one to remove the alleged want of allotments. When the Conservative Party was last in Office, the statement was distinctly made that it was intended to embody in a County Government Bill, clauses dealing with the provision of allotments for labourers; and from the Speech from the Throne, it would be seen that it was the intention of the Government in the present Session to introduce a separate Bill dealing with allotments. He congratulated the noble Viscount (Viscount Cross) upon the improvement in this Bill, as compared with its Predecessor introduced in the other House last Session. It was proposed in the Bill of last Session, that the local authority to acquire land and sublet it in allotments should be the Board of Guardians; but he did not think that it would have been wise to entrust to such bodies the delicate and difficult duties of landlord to working men. The sanitary authority, moreover, proposed in the present Bill was in rural districts, only the Board of Guardians with another name; but he was glad to observe that the noble Viscount had gone a step further, and that the powers proposed to be acquired, and which were to be exercised by the rural or urban sanitary authority, should be handed over to the new County Authorities when elected. At present, he was satisfied that there was nobody exercising authority in the counties which commanded the confidence of the labourers Although it was possible that the County Authorities of the future would not be able collectively to deal with local allotments, they would be able to depute to local committees the duty of inquiring into local circumstances and making due provision for allotments. Their Lordships would remember that there was great anxiety as to the manner in which the agricultural labourers would exercise the vote, in the event of a momentous crisis arising. Well, such a crisis did arise in connection with the separation of the Empire, and the new electors had proved that they were not less to be trusted than the old. If they had trusted the agricultural labourers with the vote for the Imperial Parliament, why should they not be allowed a voice in the management of their own local affairs? There were, at present, a great variety of allotment authorities, and be hoped that, either in the Committee stage of this Bill, or in the proposed Allotments Bill, the noble Viscount would see his way to insert some provision which would consolidate all these bodies, and by which the rules of management in each might be assimilated. He must say, that although the Bill would be a very useful one, it would have been of much more use if it had been introduced a few years ago. Indeed, he was convinced that, if a forced sale of the glebe lands was to be made at the present time, they would realize very little more than the auctioneer's charges. He trusted, however, that if trade increased, agricultural prosperity and the value of land would increase also, and that the Clergy would avail themselves of the opportunities offered by the Bill, and that working men would invest their savings in allotments.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said, his feeling was one of deep regret that a Bill similar to this was not introduced many years ago, with the general consent of the clergy; because, if that had been done, the clergy would have been spared much of the serious loss and diminution of income which, he was sorry to say, had lately fallen upon them. According to the measure, the endowment trustees were to consist of the incumbent, the Bishop, and the patron; but he could not help thinking that among the trustees there ought to be one layman or more representing the parish. It would be in the true interests of the Church that its property should be identified with the parish as much as possible; and he would suggest that the additional trustee should be the churchwarden or some individual not elected by the incumbent. It was further provided that the securities relating to the property dealt with under the Bill should be kept by the trustees, and he would like to ascertain where the securities were to be kept. Their Lordships knew how parish records were often kept, and it seemed to him that if these securities were to be kept in the same manner, it was quite possible that some of them might be lost.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

I do not rise to oppose the second reading of this measure in any way; but I cannot but be sorry that it should be necessary, to enable the Church now to part with any of its real property—that property which, in the past, has always been held to be its substantial property—and still more grieved I am at the cause which seems to render this step necessary. It is impossible, however, to close one's eyes to the conviction which has been growing that the clergy, the holders of these glebe lands, are suffering more and more, and that a pitch has been reached when it is necessary to take legislative action. There is, however, this consolation in thinking about it, that if the sale is really made for the benefit of the benefice, as the Bill tries to provide, it will, in the long run, lead to the benefit of the whole Church. I will only ask of the Government that time enough may be given before the Bill goes into Committee for its various points to be fully discussed, and that communications may take place with those who are most deeply interested in it. That is most desirable. I may point out that there is not, in the Bill, any arrangement for ecclesiastical review. It may be said that in dealing with this question no ecclesiastical consent is required; that there is none in sales effected by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; but then the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are themselves so familiar with Church affairs and Church property that no one would wish to introduce any further ecclesiastical consent. Now, however, in the Land Commissioners, a civil body is proposed, which has no connection whatever with the Church, so that we shall have a needy incumbent face to face with a civil body, unconnected with the Church, and able at once to conclude the transaction. I entertain some little doubt, whether it is possible to combine so entirely the interests of the buyer and the seller. The Land Commissioners are charged to sell, if possible, for the good of very email buyers; they are equally charged to consider the best interests, not of the seller himself only, but of his property in the future. I doubt whether two such interests can be guarded in one hand. This is a matter which deserves ample consideration. I entertain also some doubt as to endowments of so large an amount being in the hands of trustees liable to perpetual change. It is a mere A B C trust, and the Bank of England does not recognize such a trust. It would regard the endowment trustees simply as individuals. I think there should be a permanent body similar to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, or those presiding over Queen Anne's Bounty Fund, associated in the trust, for there will be frequent applications for the appointment of a new trustee, and constant trouble and expense would be incurred. There are some other technical points to which I might refer; but they would be better dealt with in Committee. This, I hope, will not be pressed on in a hurry, but postponed until those moat deeply concerned have had an opportunity of considering the provisions of the Bill.

THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELD

said, it was laid down that the sale of the glebe was to be for the benefit of the living. He contended that land, which had been the property of the Church for a longer period than any property belonging to their Lordships, ought not to be so readily disposed of without a power of veto on the part of some ecclesiastical authority. He ventured to think that the Commissioners would not be the best judges as to what would be for the benefit of the living, and would therefore suggest that the Bishop of the diocese should have the power not only of expressing his opinion, and of exercising a vetoing power in regard to these sales of glebes. He also said that, under the Bill, the Commissioners were obliged to re-invest the money in the public funds and certain debentures. Now, he knew that a great deal was thought of the "sweet simplicity" of the Three per Cents; but he should be sorry to see any much larger portion of the endowments of the Church invested either in the funds or in railway stock. He thought it might be desirable to re-invest the money in land. No doubt, land was at present at a very low value, but things in that respect might hereafter undergo a change, and he trusted that they did not all take the pessimist view of that matter. It might, therefore, be desirable to give the Commissioners power to re-invest in land. The noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) had suggested that there should be some lay representative of the Church on the trust. He (the Bishop of Lichfield) quite agreed with him; and he thought that it was undesirable that the Bishop should be mixed up with this purely business matter. Therefore he ought to be out of the trust altogether; but only if he had the right of veto. He hoped that the noble Viscount who had charge of the Bill (Viscount Cross) would kindly give his attention to those points before the House went into Committee on the Bill. The provision of allotments for the labouring poor was, no doubt, an excellent object; but, unless the Sanitary Authority had power to purchase land from some of the other neighbouring landlords, it might appear as if that was a measure to provide allotments for the labouring poor at the expense of the Church, and that glebe lands were the corpus vile on which the experiment was to be made. He hoped that that would not really be the case.

LORD GRIMTHORPE

said, that if any additional trustees were to be appointed, they should neither be the churchwarden of the parish nor any person to be chosen by popular election. The moment there is any power to be wielded it will be fought for, and churchwardens are elected by Dissenters as well as Churchmen. It would be far better to have a fixed body than a fluctuating one; one, for instance, such as the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, or Queen Anne's Bounty, would be far better because, at every change in a fluctuating body, there was some cost incurred, and one of the objects of the Bill was to diminish the cost of selling glebes. For that reason he should be sorry to see the introduction into the trust of any one possessing the churchwarden character—an arrangement which would also involve all the inconveniences attending a parochial election.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS)

said, he was glad to find that the principle of the Bill had mot with universal assent from every quarter of the House; and that, with very few exceptions, all the objections that had been raised only referred to points of detail. As to the endowment trustees, the great object was to have a body of trustees who should, at all events, be local; and that, if there was a sale, the purchase-money should not be placed either in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or of Queen Anne's Bounty, but that it should, to a certain extent, be localized in the diocese as far as possible. Then how were they to get a simple body of trustees? It had been thought wise to put in the Bishop, the patron, and the incumbent; but, after the observations which had been made, he would endeavour to see if the arrangement could be simplified in any way. He quite agreed with the noble Lord who had last spoken (Lord Grimthorpe) in the idea that the suggestion that a churchwarden should be included was open to the objection that they must have an election for the purpose. It was quite true that the incumbent and the churchwardens might be incorporated for that particular purpose; but against the incorporation of the trustees in a case of that kind there was the objection that, if they became incorporated, they would not be individually liable, and it was deemed desirable to maintain the individual liability of those who had to deal with that particular money. He would say, however, that the point urged by the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) might well be brought forward in Committee. Turning to another point, it was intended by the Bill that anything that could really he held to be necessary for the convenience of the person who had the parsonage house should be retained, whether it was an outbuilding, a garden, or other appurtenance. Next, he agreed that the proposed power of the Sanitary Authority, so long as it remained, should belong to the Sanitary Authority as a whole, and not be confined to a committee. With regard to the cost of the conveyance under the Bill, when the Commissioners were satisfied about the sale, had received the money, and had given the purchaser a certificate, that gave him an absolute title the moment he took it to the Land Registry and registered it, without the least expense. That was a great simplification of the conveyance of the land, and it tended to cheapness. It was not quite fair to say, as the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) had done, that they provided no ecclesiastical check on the sale; because the application could not be made, in the first instance, to the Land Commissioners without notice being given, not only to the patron, but also to the Bishop. Therefore, the Bishop had the power of laying the whole case before the Land Commissioners, who would not sanction the sale unless they were satisfied that the objections of the Bishop, or the patron, were not such as ought to prevent it. The right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Lichfield) had suggested that the purchase-money should be reinvested in land; but as the object of the Bill was to facilitate the sale of those glebe lands, he did not think it would be well that the purchase-money should be re-invested in other land. What had happened in the case of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners? They had sold Church lands to the amount of £2,000,000. By Act of Parliament, they were absolutely bound to re-invest in land; but they had never made up their minds to buy the land. That he wanted to avoid; and, therefore, he objected to giving any power by that Bill to re-invest in land. By the Bill they allowed the money to be invested only in Government securities, or in railway stocks, under certain specified conditions, which afforded ample guarantees for its safety. With regard to the safety of the documents which were to represent the money invested in these new securities, that money could only be invested, and if the certificate were lost twenty times over it would not affect the securities, as it would only be necessary to go to the Bank of England, or to the Railway Company, as the case might be, to get the certificate renewed. He had been asked not to take the Committee on the Bill for some time, in order that it might be read and considered in the country by all who were interested in the matter. That he thought was a very reasonable request, and if it would meet the convenience of their Lordships he would fix the Committee stage for that day fortnight.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

said, that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were not bound to re-invest in land. They had a discretion to retain a considerable sum of money in stock, and though a large portion of the £2,000,000 which had been referred to so remained, yet a third at least had been invested in ground rents, tithe rent-charge, and the like.

VISCOUNT CROSS

said it might be as the most rev. Primate had said; but, at the same time, as regarded the Commissioners' obligation, he felt bound to adhere to his previous statements on the point.

Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday the 1st of March next.