COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 15 May 1888)

§ LORD ADDINGTON
said, he rose to propose an Amendment, the effect of which was to make it necessary for an incumbent to obtain the consent of the patron of his living before applying to the Land Commissioners for a sale of the glebe land of the parish. He urged that to give the incumbent the power of absolutely disposing of the glebe of the parish without the consent of the patron was a very dangerous proceeding.

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS)
said, he must oppose the Amendment, which would result in very few sales being carried out. Ample provision was made by the Bill for the just rights of the patron by making it necessary that notice should be given him so that he could object, if he saw fit, before the Land Commissioners who had to decide the matter.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, he thought that there was a great deal to be said in favour of the Amendment of the noble Lord, and that it could not be quite so easily disposed of as the noble Viscount appeared to think. The law now gave the patron considerable rights in restraint of alienation on the part of the incumbent. He could conceive many cases in which it would not be for the permanent good of the living that the glebe should be sold. Frequently a clergyman had private means, and wished to make alterations in the parsonage-house which would be entirely unsuit- 286 able for a poorer successor. He thought it salutary that the patron, as a representative of the lay element, should have something to say in these matters.

§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)
said, he would urge their Lordships to adopt the clause in its present shape, not as a privilege to the clergy, but as a distinct measure of public policy, the object being, wherever it could be done, that clergymen should no longer trust to so uncertain, so embarrassing, and so cruel a source of income as globe land. The sufferings of many of the clergy had been extreme in consequence of this having been their one source of income. The teachings of the time had pressed upon the mind of Parliament the necessity for taking measures to discourage the continued existence of this source of income. If it were intended to produce any results, the machinery of the Act must be made to work as smoothly as possible. If, after the machinery were set going by the clergyman, the necessity of the patron's consent was interposed, it would be found that friction would result, and the machinery would never be got to move. What would happen would be that the clergyman would go to the patron; the patron might be a minor, or he might be abroad, or he might be a very old man who did not like to be disturbed, or, perhaps, a man who quarrelled with the Church and never spoke to the clergyman, or perhaps a man who did not like the land to be let on building leases, because it would interfere with his privacy, and so it would be impossible to sell the globe at all. When all these difficulties had been overcome, the family solicitor might consider whether it was not a breach of trust, and whether the patron was doing the best thing possible for some possible future presentee. He thought their Lordships would be very hard-hearted indeed to introduce these additional difficulties.

THE BISHOP OF LONDON
said, he thought the Amendment was of great importance, as he had known not a few cases in which great difficulties had been caused by very imprudent borrowing on the part of the clergymen.

§ VISCOUNT CROSS
was now unwilling to accept the actual words of the Amendment, but he hoped to be able, before the next stage of the Bill, to meet the view of the right rev. Prelate and of his noble Friend.