HC Deb 24 March 1891 vol 351 cc1766-96

Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments, and Lords Amendment in lieu of the Amendment disagreed to by the Commons, considered.

Lords Amendment, in lieu of the Amendment disagreed to by the Commons, page 2, line 23, after the word "powers," to insert the words— And if there is no sufficient distress the person entitled to the sum ordered to be recovered may proceed to obtain possession of the lands under section eighty-two of 'The Tithe Act, 1836,' the first Amendment, read a second time.

*(2.30.) MR. C. W. GRAY (Essex, Maldon)

I propose that the House should not agree with this Amendment, and I will explain briefly the position which I take.

*MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member for Mid Glamorgan (Mr. S. T. Evans) has an Amendment on the Paper which will come first.

MR. S. T. EVANS (Glamorgan, Mid)

I propose to insert in the Lords Amendment before the word "and," the words "but in any case where such lands have become derelict lands." The object of this Amendment is to limit the operation of the writ of habere facias possessionem to cases where the land is derelict, and to restore the Bill to the position in which it stood before any Amendment was inserted in it. As the clause now stands, it would entail great hardship upon small yeoman farmers who occupy their own land, and my proposal will have the effect of confining this proposal to derelict lands.

Amendment proposed to the said Amendment, before the first word "and," to insert the words "but in any case where such lands have become derelict lands."—(Mr. S. T. Evans.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

*(2.32.) THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,) Bristol, W.

I do not think that the House ought to agree to the Amendment. The writ does not now apply to derelict farms only, and there is no reason why it should. I may instance a case which is within my own knowledge. A gentleman had a large house in the country with a park of considerable extent around it. One part of the park, including the building, was in one parish and the rest in another parish, and it would be possible so to arrange as to prevent the tithe owner in the second parish from levying any distres upon the land in that parish. The object of the Lords Amendment is merely to retain in the cases dealt with by the clause, the powers conferred by the existing law.

*(2.34.) MR. F. S. STEVENSON (Suffolk, Eye)

The Lords' Amendment as it is now sent down to us differs only from their first Amendment in phraseology, and I object to it as bearing hardly on the yeoman farmer. It provides that if there is no sufficient distress the person entitled to the sum ordered to be recovered may proceed to obtain possession of the lands under Section 82 of the Tithe Act, 1836. That practically amounts to the same thing; the difference being simply between "tweedledum and tweedledee."

(2.36.) SIR H. DAVEY (Stockton)

As I interpret the Lords' Amendment, it brings into operation the whole machinery of the 82nd section of the Act of 1836. Therefore a person desiring to obtain possession under the 82nd section must adopt the procedure indicated in that section.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,) Isle of Wight

Hear, hear!

*(2.37.) SIR M. HICKS BEACH

May I be allowed a word in explanation? The change in phraseology adopted by the Lords makes it clear that the existing law is to be maintained. The Amendment, as sent down by the Lords before, might have been interpreted as making a considerable alteration in the existing law, and it did, in fact, make one alteration—the substitution of a decision of the County Court for the interposition of a jury.

*(2.38.) MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

The right hon. Gentleman says that no alteration is made in the existing law. I am of a different opinion, and I shall support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend in this sense, that there is a valid distinction between derelict farms and holdings upon which there have been reasonable concessions between the landlord and tenant in regard to the value of agricultural produce. If Her Majesty's Government are prepared consistently to follow out the object with which the Bill was introduced last year, they ought to find some way out of the difficulty.

The House divided:—Ayes 41; Noes 100.—(Div. List, No. 102.)

(2.45.) MR. S. T. EVANS

My next Amendment is consequent upon the one which has just been rejected, and, therefore, I do not move it.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords Amendment," put, and agreed to.

The next Amendment was—The Lords agree to the Amendment made by the Commons to the Lords Amendment in page 2, line 28, of the Bill as first printed by the Lords, with the following Amendments:—In the words added by the Commons leave out "officer" and insert "receiver," and leave out "him" and insert "the occupier."

*(2.46.) MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Gray) has given notice of Amendments to this Amendment, but his object will be gained by simply negativing the proposal formally made by the Government "that the House agree with the Lords Amendment." If the Lords Amendment is rejected the hon. Member can then move an alternative proposition.

*(2.47.) SIR M. HICKS BEACH

I beg to move that the House do agree with the Lords Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir M. Hicks Beach.)

*MR. C. W. GRAY

I sincerely trust that the House will not agree with these Amendments. In the Bill, when first presented, there was no reference to occupation by the tithe owner.

*(2.48.) SIR M. HICKS BEACH

My hon. Friend is quite mistaken. The words in the Bill provided that the officer of the Court should have the same right of recovery as now, which included the right of entry. In Committee the word "recovery" was altered to "distraint" at the request of the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt).

*(2.49.) MR. C. W. GRAY

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the explanation. During the passage of the Bill through the House it was considered in the interests of the tithe owner that this particular point required alteration, and there was subsequently a proposal of habere facias possessionem, which proposal, however, did not appear until after the Second Reading of the Bill. We discussed that provision, which empowered the tithe owner to cultivate the land under certain circumstances, and it was pointed out that as so much was done for the tithe owner, there might be some little concession in the interests of the occupier. This question affects only the occupying owner. We are dealing with cases where there is nothing to distrain upon, and I take it that the only cases in which this power of taking possession would be enforced are those in which the yeoman farmer is practically a ruined man, for that would be his position generally speaking before he allowed a tithe owner to come in and mismanage his occupation. Step by step the position of the tithe owner in reference to these cases of taking possession has been strengthened by the action of this and the other House, and it appears to me that there has been a gradual turning of the screw on the yeoman farmer to his disadvantage and the advantage of the tithe owner. The process has, no doubt, been slow and insidious, but the effect may be clearly seen by comparing the present position of the farmer with his position before 1836. The position prior to 1836 was this: the farmer could so farm his land that the tithe owner could not claim one single article produced from it, or one single halfpenny in lieu of tithe. To day, however, the farmer may be made to pay his very last drop of blood. I am not saying this in an offensive way or in a bitter spirit. His last halfpenny can, in fact", be taken from him, and this change has been effected by occasional innocent turns of the screw. I hope the House will not now give this extra turn. May I point out that at one stage of the proceedings the Government did not attach much importance to this point, for though the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has since candidly said he does not feel entirely tied by the words he used on the occasion I am going to refer to, he did, when we were discussing this very principle, declare he had never regarded the right of entry of the tithe owner as a right of serious value or importance; and if it were to be complicated by the question of compensation he did not think any injury would be done to the owner of tithe rent charge by omitting it from the Bill. After having discussed this subject over and over again we had a proposal from the other House and various proposals from the Front Bench in this House, which eventually resulted in the adoption of the habere facias possessionem principle, in accordance with Section 82 of the Tithe Act of 1836, it being further provided that such person obtaining possession should, while in possession, be under an obligation not to permit or commit any waste. Next we had an offer from the Front Bench to insert words securing that the land shall be cultivated in a husband like manner according to the custom of the country, and that the person taking possession if he lets the land should bind his tenant so to cultivate it. But now we are told that these matters must simply be dealt with under the old Commutation Act of 1836. Probably my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport will tell us that, if we so greatly preferred the first offer of the Government to the one now sent down from the House of Lords, we ought to have accepted the former when we had the chance. But when that offer was under discussion, I pointed out that I did not think it sufficiently safeguarded the interests of the yeoman farmer. If we are to be told that because we did not accept that offer we shall have nothing given us now, it is treating us as if we were schoolboys, and as this is a question of great importance to the yeoman farmer it ought not to be approached in that spirit. It is all very well for hon. Members to say this is a Bill for the simple purpose of enforcing the payment of tithe in Wales. The measure affects the whole of England, and especially a class of men who have suffered extremely from the agricultural depression—I mean the yeoman farmers of East Anglia. Surely they deserve some consideration at the hands of the Government. If the first offer of the Government did not go quite far enough that is no reason why something very much worse should be insisted on. Probably I shall be told that the provisions of the Act of 1836, which will be put into operation, will cover most of the points we have raised, especially with regard to the waste of land. But if that be so, why did the Government take the trouble to draft the habere facias possessionem clause at all. I can only say I hope that the House will not accept this Amendment in the form it has come from the Lords. I hope that the Party which has so ably championed the interests of the Church of England will show a little more conciliation than they have yet done—I hope they will see it will be to the interest of their Church not to be too hard-hearted; I do not blame them for trying to get every penny legally due to them, but in dealing with so complicated and intricate a question as this I say it behoves a religious body—be it Church or Dissent—to study the principles of fairness and justice even to the extent of generosity.

*(3.5.) SIR M. HICKS BEACH

I must demur to the interests of the yeoman farmer being put forward invidiously as compared with the interests of other landholders. It is neither right nor reasonable. What is fair to the large landholder must be fair to the small landholder. I deny emphatically that there has been any effort to put the screw on the yeoman farmer.

*MR. C. W. GRAY

I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he will remember that when I referred to the turning of the screw I was comparing the present position of the yeoman farmer with that which he occupied prior to the Act of 1836, and I said the screw had been turned gradually at one period and another.

*SIR M. HICKS BEACH

Very well; I will modify the expression. I say there is no turn of the screw here. The right which the Lords' Amendment gives to the tithe owner he already possesses under the Act of 1836. Again, the words which the Lords have struck out were mere surplusage, because by the law, as it at present stands, the tithe owner upon taking possession will be compelled to cultivate the land in a proper manner, because he is bound not to permit or commit waste. Moreover the provisions of this Bill are not, as the hon. Member seems to think, generally to the disadvantage of the occupying owner, who is now just as liable to be distrained upon, and in the absence of distraint to have his land entered upon, as he will be if the Lords' Amendment becomes law. The only difference is that the distraint will be carried out by the officer of the Court instead of by the tithe owner. And as to the Bill drawing from the yeoman farmer his last drop of blood, it will, on the contrary, give him this great advantage—that whereas he may now be distrained upon for the whole amount of the tithe, whatever the annual value of his land, in future he will only be distrained upon to the amount of two-thirds of the assessment of the land to Schedule B of the Income Tax. The fact is, that the position of the tithe-payer will be considerably improved under the Bill, and I hope the hon. Member will not persist in his opposition. Although the Government at one time were willing to insert words putting an obligation on the tithe owner taking possession not to permit or commit waste, I have since discovered, from the highest authority, that such a proviso was absolutely unnecessary, as the tithe owner is already under a distinct obligation of this nature, and is liable to be mulcted in damages for disregarding it. My hon. Friend must recollect that "waste" is a very wide term; it not only covers the breaking up of grass lands for arable purposes, but also the improper cultivation of arable lands. Therefore, these words were pure surplusage. Although my hon. Friend was willing to accept my offer to insert words compelling the tithe owner to cultivate the lands according to the custom of the country, it did not prevent his opposition to the clause, and I am bound to say that his action on that and on other occasions has not led me to believe that any attempt to propitiate him has resulted in any advantage, so far as the progress of the Bill was concerned. I do not for that reason, however, withdraw my offer; but because, on the merits of the words themselves, I am very glad they were not inserted in the Bill, because the effect might have been to confine the obligations on the tithe owner to properly cultivate arable land, while he would have had a free hand in breaking up pasturage.

*MR. C. W. GRAY

They were not my words.

*SIR M. HICKS BEACH

I do not charge the hon. Member with the responsibility of the words; I am only pointing out what would have been their effect. I hope the House will be content to accept this Amendment without any lengthened Debate. It does not alter the existing law, nor does it place the tithe owner in any better position than he now occupies.

*(3.15.) MR. F. S. STEVENSON

We are labouring under considerable disadvantage in having to discuss this without having before us the Amendments made by the Commons in the Lords' Amendments. In the first place, hon. Members do not realise that Sub-section 3 has disappeared altogether. The question is whether, if the Lords Amendment in its new form is accepted, there will be sufficient security for the proper cultivation of the land. I decline to admit that the words which the Lords have struck out are mere surplusage, and I appeal to the Attorney General to say under what provision a tithe owner on taking possession can be prevented from committing or permitting waste. The only provision I am aware of is in Section 83 of the Commutation Act of 1836, and there there is no mention of waste. Unless some provision such as was in the Bill before it went to the Lords is provided, the value of the land may be considerably depreciated, because the tithe owner may not, in some cases, take the trouble, or provide the necessary skill and energy to cultivate the land to the utmost advantage.

*(3.17.) MR. SYDNEY GEDGE (Stockport)

The tithe owner has two remedies against the occupying owner: distraint and taking possession, and he can only use the second in case the first fails. One could almost count on the fingers of one hand the cases in which, during the last five-and-fifty years, the tithe owner has actually put in force the remedy of taking possession. The threat was almost always sufficient. I know a case in which I acted professionally, in which a clergyman recovered his tithe from one of the richest men in the country simply by threatening a writ of possession. But if the power is taken away, the tithe owner in the case of pasture lands may lose his income, and be left without any remedy at all; because the occupier, having driven off his cattle and left nothing to distrain upon, might snap his fingers at the tithe owner. I have a letter here from a country rector in Suffolk, pointing out that in his case £300 of his tithe comes from pasture land, 50 occupying owners paying an average of £6, and if they found he would be left without remedy, if there were nothing on the land to distrain upon, they might take care the cattle were removed. I think the Legislature ought not to deprive the tithe owner of this remedy. Then the hon. Member says there is no provision against waste. But there is no necessity for such a provision. I speak under correction, but I have good authority for saying that there is nobody but an absolute owner in fee simple who is not liable for damage or waste. Everyone who holds land, whether he be mortgagee, trustee, or tenant, unless there is absolute provision for the contrary, is liable for damage or waste, and the tithe owner will be in exactly the same position when he enters on possession. To attempt to take away this remedy for recovery because there is no provision against waste would be foolish, inasmuch as such a provision is in no way necessary.

*(3.21.) MR. CHANNING

The hon. Member seemed to prefer an imputation against hon. Members on this side—and I am not sure whether he included the hon. Member for Maldon also—that we wish to withdraw from the tithe owner altogether the remedy of entering on possession, but no one wishes to make any such suggestion. What we do say, and what we intend to affirm as far as we can, is that this right of taking possession as a means of recovering tithe rent-charge when payment is withheld should be accompanied by equitable conditions. With all respect to what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, will he allow me by simple analogy to point out how the argument of the hon. Member who has just spoken in reference to waste falls to the ground? Those who are familiar with proceedings under the Agricultural Holdings Act will know that it is a just illustration. The landlord, where a claim under the Act is not set up, does not in general require payment for waste and dilapidation; but whenever the tenant does set up a claim under the Agricultural Holdings Act, then the landlord sets up his counter claim from the farmer. The practical effect of this is to show that the remedy at Common Law for waste is one which fails to be exercised oven in the hands of the most powerful members of the community, and it is therefore wholly inadequate to hold out this general principle as a remedy to which the poor farmer may appeal. I hold that the words suggested on a previous occasion by the President of the Board of Trade clearly defining the duty of the tithe owner that he shall cultivate according to good husbandry, and in a suitable way according to the custom of the district, and avoid the commission or permission of waste, are words that are required for the protection of the tenant. It should be elearly and definitely laid down in this Act, not left as a remedy in the background that may be appealed to on general principles, and by application to the High Court. Let it be here as a remedy before the farmer, and to which he can refer in his communication with the tithe owner or agent. One other point I would call attention to. It seems to me that this Amendment now sent down from the Lords very much aggravates the incidence of this procedure against the tenant occupier. So far as I can follow the procedure under the 82nd section of the Tithe Act of 1830, it will be much more costly than the procedure provided in the previous Amendment sent down from the Lords, and which this House, at the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, very wisely dissented from. Heavier costs will be inflicted on the yeoman farmer, while, at the same time, the security against injury to his land will be diminished.

(3.25.) MR. JEFFREYS (Hants, Basingstoke)

Although this same power of entering into possession has existed for the last 55 years, it has been very rarely exercised. My hon. Friend, who has taken much interest in tithe questions, only knows of one instance where the tithe owner availed himself of the power in default of payment of tithe. The fact is, that although it is a power that might be exercised or, as the hon. Member for Stockport says, threatened to be used, it has really been very little used. I venture to suggest to my hon. Friend (Mr. Gray) that he has rather exaggerated the importance of this subject. Let us take the case of a yeoman farmer, say with 100 acres, paying a high tithe of say 5s. an acre, and amounting to the comparatively small sum of £25, which on the ordinary tithe average would be reduced to £20. I think in such a case as that the yeoman farmer would never be likely to incur the penalty of the loss of his land for the sake of such a sum as that. I cannot help thinking that my hon. Friend exaggerates the importance of the subject. The remedy has existed for 55 years as a reserve, which sometimes has been threatened, to secure payment of tithe; and if it remains now, it is not likely to affect landowner or occupier more in the future than in the past, and, for my part, I do not think it is worth fighting about.

*(3.27.) MR. MORTON (Peterborough)

I recognise in this Amendment another attempt on the part of the Church Party to get as much as they can out of the owners and occupiers of land. I gather that from the speech of the hon. Member for Maldon, who understands this question thoroughly, and has done his best throughout these discussions on behalf of the occupiers of land. But that the ties of Party discipline are too strong, I am sure there are many hon. Members on the other side who would support him with their votes. The hon. Member has described this Amendment as another turn of the screw, and I have no doubt it is so. It should be observed that in the other House not only is the Church directly interested in this matter, but there is a strong representation of owners of Church livings. I do not know how many Church livings are owned by Members of the House of Lords, but certainly a great many, and hence there there is a strong interest in keeping up Church incomes for the benefit of relatives and friends. I am sorry to see that some Churchmen regard this matter solely from that point of view—I mean the getting as much as possible out of a Church living. They do not care how they get the money or from whom they get it so long as they do get it, and this is an opinion I have formed not only from observation, but from personal experience. Some two or three years ago a clergyman for his own benefit put the law in motion for the redemption of tithe on some property of mine. I did not want the tithe redeemed, but the parson did, and he had his way, and I unwillingly had to pay all the expenses. I found, on calculating the cost, that I had been charged more than I ought to have paid, and that I, the leaseholder, was mulcted for the freeholder's share. So I went to the agent and the Land Commissioners, and they said, "Yes, it is quite correct; you are paying everybody's share. We get it from you because it is easier to do so, and you must get it from the freeholder as best you can." That is an illustration of what the Church has done within my own knowledge, and similar is the effect of this Amendment. But I should like to see the Church turn its attention in other directions than this attempt to get money by turnings of the screw for its wealthier members who leave the actual Church work to others. In my own parish the rector takes all the tithe and leaves more than three-fourths of the work to be done by clergymen who get no share of either tithe or religions of the parish. I regret to see this action of the Church, and we ought to resist this Amendment introduced by the House of Lords in the interest of the Church Party and to the injury of those who till the ground.

(3.30.) MR. STAVELEY HILL (Staffordshire, Kingswinford)

I simply wish to explain why I shall vote with my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon. It seems to me that if this is a remedy which is to be very seldom applied then it is scarcely worth while retaining it; but if this drastic remedy is to be continued, then, in fairness, let it be alle viated in every possible reasonable way.

*MR. T. H. BOLTON (St. Pancras, N.)

I look upon legislation in respect to tithe rent-charge from a national point of view. Over and over again it has been admitted on this side, though just now it seems to be forgotten, that tithe is national property, used at the present time for Church purposes; but by-and-by, as many of us hope, to be devoted to public purposes, after fairly considering the claims of vested interests. Having in mind that this is a vast national fund, it behoves us to preserve it for the benefit of the people. This fund arises from a charge upon the land, and unless you provide full security for its recovery it will disappear, or almost certainly its redemption value—and a Commission is now considering this question of redemption—will be materially reduced. There are only two ways of recovering the tithe—first, by distress; and, secondly, if there is not sufficient distress by taking possession of the land. The public have the greatest interest in preserving this right to possession; it is part of the hold which the public have on the titheable land of the country, and if you abandon that and leave only recovery by distress you reduce the value of this national property. Necessarily you do this if you make recovery more difficult and expensive, not to say, in some cases, making recovery impossible. Therefore, I would suggest to my Radical friends that they should not weaken the public hold upon this property which the right of possession gives. Let this power to take possession remain as a reserve in the background. I am sure it would be a fatal mistake to give it up and rely simply upon the power of distraint. It is very easy indeed for owner and tenant to collude together and shift the stock liable to distraint from one part of the land to another, when a distraint is apprehended, and it will be easier to do that if the owner is in occupation. Therefore, as the only remedy distress is insufficient, and the right of possession is necessary to keep the value of this public property unimpaired. I join in the expression of opinion of the hon. Member for Maldon that the procedure provided by the Tithe Acts is somewhat cumbrous under which three writs from the Superior Court are required—first, a writ of inquiry, then a writ of possession, then a writ of supersedeas. A simpler process is desirable. I would follow on the lines of the transfer of the power of distress to the County Court, and give the County Court Judge jurisdiction to order possession of the land, to superintend possession of the land, and to discharge the tithe receiver from possession when his claim is satisfied. I think it is a great pity that a simpler and less expensive procedure has not been adopted, but I suppose it has been found difficult to shape a fresh clause in the limited time at the disposal of the Government, and it has been thought better to preserve the ultimate remedy exactly as it is. I daresay the right hon. Gentleman will quite sympathise with this opinion, and he will admit that this process for the time is preserved for want of a better. But I have no doubt that at an early period the Act will require to be amended in this respect, and a less expensive process will be substituted. I echo the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman as to the advantages secured by the Bill. Advantages have been secured both by landowner and tithe receiver. In the first place, there is the process of distress conducted by a public officer.

*MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member must confine himself to the Amendment before the House.

*MR. T. H. BOLTON

I will not go beyond that. I only wish to urge my hon. Friends on this side of the House to preserve this public property while making reasonable changes connected with it; and not to allow their natural disposition to oppose Government propositions to lead them to sacrifice their principles.

(3.40.) MR. S. T. EVANS

I had not intended to intervene in this particular discussion, but the speech we have just heard calls for a few words of reply. Let me inform the hon. Member for St. Pancras, who has the impression that we may not maintain the principle for which he contends, that that is exactly what we have been doing, but we have not always found the hon. Member in the Lobby with us. A more extraordinary speech in favour of the clause than that just delivered I have never heard. First the hon. Member says he sympathises with the Government in their difficulty in dealing with the matter; then he says the procedure is cumbrous and likely to be attended with a great deal of trouble and expense. He sympathises with the Government in their difficulty, and I am sure the Government sympathise with him in his anxiety to assist the tithe owner to recover the tithe, however inequitably it may press upon the tithepayer. In dealing with this clause and the writ of possession, our anxiety is not to take away any right the tithe owner has at present, but to make it fair and equitable towards the tithepayer also. The hon. Member says the Government have had but a short space of time to deal with the matter, but, supporter of the Government as he is, he is satisfied with the clause, though he admits it is cumbrous and expensive. But what have we to do with that? We have to consider whether the clause is a proper one to pass. The Government have occupied nearly all the time since we met after the Christmas holidays with this Bill; and even with the assistance of the hon. Gentleman and his knowledge of tithe questions, the clause is cumbrous and expensive, and we say unjust to the tithepayer. But the hon. Member gets up and makes a speech in the interest of the tithe owner, taking a large expansive view of this as a national question, which only he has happened to comprehend. I say let the Government and their supporters on this side take more time if they have not had sufficient time to deal with this matter. We are dealing with an Amendment brought in from another place—an Amendment which is, on the face of it, inequitable. You have admitted it is insufficient by hanging to it provisions which are not in the present clause——

*SIR M. HICKS BEACH

Because they are the law now.

MR. S. T. EVANS

The Bill does not contain the provisions you thought necessary before. If it is the law now, it was equally the law when the Amendment was proposed. It was not contended when the Bill was going through Committee that waste and improper cultivation were provided for.

SIR R. WEBSTER

It was distinctly stated by myself that the law provided for it now.

MR. S. T. EVANS

Then it was a peculiar thing to add words which were meaningless, and which, according to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, would be less efficacious now. The hon. Member for St. Pancras seems to think that the Bill will in a short time require amendment. Is not the present the time to amend it, when we point out that it is unjust, unfair, and unworkable? If more time is required to consider a more reasonable method of procedure, let the Bill stand over until after the Easter Recess, and see if you cannot adopt a more reasonable method of preserving the tithe owners' property without harsh and inequitable treatment of the tithepayer.

(3.46.) SIR J. SWINBURNE (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

I confess to finding great difficulty in following the legal view in this matter. I believe the clause has three distinct legal processes to be gone through prior to the entering upon possession of the land, and for all these proceedings and applications the expenses are to fall upon the tithepayer. Then these Lords Amendments are rushed upon us before we have really had time to consider their bearing properly. I only received them a few hours ago amid the enormous mass of papers one gets daily, and I have not been able—and I am sure other hon. Members have not been able—to follow the references to lines in the Bill and previous Amendments backwards and forwards. Even those learned in the law on either side have taken different views of the meaning and intention of many of the Amendments. To the astuteness of the Attorney General these things present no difficulty; but I can only envy the possession of powers which are denied to the common mind. I can speak as a tithe owner, and I say I have found it impossible, in the time allowed, to follow the effect of these Amendments, and I think it a very reasonable suggestion that we should make these matters an object of study during the Easter Recess.

(3.50.) The House divided:—Ayes 125; Noes 52.—(Div. List, No. 103.)

Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments as far as Clause D, agreed to.

Lords Amendment to the Commons Amendment to Lords Amendment, Clause D, in the words inserted after "proceedings," leave out nor in any case where no notice of opposition has been given, the next Amendment, read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir M. Hicks Beach.)

(3.59.) MR. S. T. EVANS

I hope the House will give its most careful attention to this Amendment of the Lords. If it be agreed to, the effect will be that the Government will have broken the pledge they gave and receded from the promises they made both in Committee and on Report. It was agreed by the Government that in undefended cases there should be no solicitor's or witnesses' costs. The first proposal was to insert a Schedule in the Bill, and the Attorney General read out to us the Schedule he suggested. There were various Amendments on the Paper at the time, and we refrained from moving them on an undertaking being expressly given by the Attorney General not only that there should be rules, but that there should be a clause in the Act of Parliament containing the provision to which I refer. The undertaking was to insert a clause in another place. When the Bill got into another place the Prime Minister proposed a clause with which I venture to agree. But afterwards the Standing Committee of the Lords altered the clause, I believe, on the legal authority of the Lord Chancellor. When the Bill came down again to this House the Government, of course, saw that the clause did not carry out their own pledges, and I had the honour of proposing the insertion of the words "nor in any case where no notice of opposition has been given." The Bill was sent again to another place with those words in the clause, and it comes back here with those words eliminated. We are forbidden to discuss the use of the Second Chamber on an Amendment of this kind; but, if this action of the Lords is to be acquiesced in, I presume that one of the uses of the Lords will be to enable the Government to get out of its pledges. I had better perhaps satisfy the House by reading the very words of the Attorney General when dealing with this matter. On the 10th of February in this House the Attorney General said; as reported in Hansard (1890–91, vol. ii, page 367):— There is no doubt as to the way in which costs in undefended cases ought to be dealt with, and the Government will take care that they shall be dealt with by rules of the Rule Committee. Under these rules the costs of employing a solicitor will not be allowed where no notice of defence has been given. If the tithe-payer admits that he owes the money, a rule that no costs shall be allowed beyond the fees will meet the objections that have been made. I say this with the authority of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. Later on in the same speech, the hon. and learned Gentleman said:— I hope that I have satisfied hon. Members that they are under a misapprehension, and that in undefended cases, the costs will be strictly limited by the rules which the Government will have framed. Then I put a question to him; I said— It is not contended that in undefended cases,' solicitors' and barristers' costs are not now incurred; but will the hon. and learned Gentleman undertake that in such cases there shall be no legal professional costs under this Act? The Attorney General replied as follows:— I am perfectly willing to undertake that the rules shall, in cases in which there is an admission of liability, prevent such costs being charged against the tithe payer. The same night, or, rather, early the next morning, the Attorney General made a further statement. The Hansard report is starred, and, I presume, is acknowledged as correct by the Attorney General. [Sir R. WEBSTER was understood to dissent.] I always understood that the starring of a name in a report in Hansard meant that the speaker had read through the report and revised it.

SIR R. WEBSTER

Will the hon. Member pardon me? I have not in the whole of this Session corrected a single thing except a printer's error.

MR. S. T. EVANS

Then it is well the House should know in the future that the Attorney General is not to be held responsible for the reports of his speeches, although they are starred. At all events, he is reported to have said (Vol. 11., page 391)— The words of the rules which I have read are clear, that the costs of employing a solicitor will not be allowed in any case in which no notice of defence is entered, and in cases in which there is such notice they will only be allowed for work done subsequent to such notice. Again, witnesses' costs will not be allowed in any case where the tithe payer has not given notice of defence. Then I said— I shall be glad if the Attorney General will agree to the incorporation of the rules in the Bill. Sir M. Hicks Beach, in reply to that, said "It shall be done." My hon. Friend (Mr. Lloyd-George) said— Under these circumstances I do not propose to move the remaining Amendments on the Paper. Now, here we have a distinct pledge, given by the Government for a quid pro quo, that in another place they would bring in a clause providing that in undefended cases there should be no costs.

SIR R. WEBSTER

indicated assent.

MR. S. T. EVANS

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman say now that there are to be no costs in undefended cases?

SIR R. WEBSTER

In undefended cases, yes.

MR. S. T. EVANS

Then may I ask whether if the tithe payer files a notice admitting the claim there will be no costs?

SIR R. WEBSTER

There will be none in that case. I will explain when my hon. and learned Friend has finished his speech.

MR. S. T. EVANS

I am very sorry to contradict the hon. and learned Attorney General, but I contend that there will be costs in such cases. All the initial costs of an action must be incurred before the notice of action can be filed. I should like to see the Attorney General produce an Amendment carrying out the view that where no notice of opposition is filed there shall be no costs. I want to know what has happened in another place to make the Government depart from the pledge they gave us here, and I want to see inserted in the clause some words providing that where a case is undefended, and the tithepayer is entitled to his order to recover, there shall be no costs either of solicitor or witnesses. I think that unless this is done we shall be justified, even at this period of the Session, in carrying on the fight to the bitter end. The interference of the Lords has been entirely uncalled for, and appears to have been contrary to the wishes of the Government themselves. Are the Government to throw over their pledges in this way, and to tie themselves hand and foot to any ecclesiastical or sacerdotal supporter they may have in the Upper House? It was supposed that there was to be no more contentious business in connection with this matter this Session, and many hon. Members have in consequence gone away to their homes; but I can tell the Government that if they want to facilitate the working of this Act in the Principality, they had better throw over their ecclesiastical supporters and adhere to their pledges. Unless they do so it is clear that they are simply championing the cause of the clerical tithe owner; and, speaking with a full sense of my responsibility as a Member of this House, I say I think we shall be justified in resisting the smooth working of the Act in the Principality.

(4.15.) SIR R. WEBSTER

I do not intend to adopt the tone which my hon. and learned Friend has assumed in the attack he has just made upon the Government. No doubt it is a very convenient thing to be able to launch a Debate of this kind by alleging that there has been a breach of faith or a breach of arrangement. Having regard to what has passed between the Government and those who, in conjunction with my hon. and learned Friend, have been conducting the opposition to this Bill most fairly, I think the allegation my hon. and learned Friend has made was singularly uncalled for. I will leave the House to form their own judgment when they have heard the very brief statement I am going to make. I go back in no shape or form from the substance of what I have said. In undefended cases there will be no costs. The subsequent alterations made by the Lords make it impossible to adhere to the words as they originally stood. As the clause now stands there are three cases in which no costs can be claimed. The House will see how unjust it is to allege a breach of faith. Now the point is whether we have provided there should be no costs in undefended cases. In the first place, no costs, either for solicitor or witness, shall be claimed in any case where the amount claimed is paid without further proceeding. Secondly, no costs will be paid, in any case where notice of intention to apply for time to pay the tithe owner's claim has been given. Thirdly, in any case where notice of opposition has been given within the prescribed time the costs of solicitor will only be allowed for work done subsequent to that notice. I say most distinctly no costs will be allowed in really undefended cases. In addition to the three enactments which were inserted, these are the words that are now insisted on: "Nor in any case where no notice of opposition has been given." I appeal to any Member of this. House to consider this matter fairly and impartially. Take this case: A receiver is appointed; objection is taken to the receiver receiving the rent, and it is necessary in consequence of the obstructive actions of the tithe payer for the tithe owner, through the receiver, to apply to the Court. Costs are thereby incurred. Can it be said that the tithe-payer ought not to pay those costs? If the tithe payer could jump up in the County Court and say, "No notice of opposition has been given and therefore there is no jurisdiction to give costs," he would escape payment of the costs. Any real case of an undefended action is met by the clauses of the Bill. The only case which is not met is a case which ought not to be met. I am perfectly willing to take any amount of blame for not having seen the possible working of these words at the time they were accepted by the Government. It seems to me more frank to admit that I did not perceive the actual working of the clause as worded, than to take up any other line of argument. The omission of these words is in no way insisted on in consequence of any change of front or because of any breach of faith on the part of the Government; but because every single fair case is met by the words which have been expressly put into the Bill for that purpose. When hon. Members opposite come to deal with the question, I would ask them to point to any case in which the tithe owner can get costs when no opposition is made by the tithe-payer. If the tithe payer pays the money, the tithe owner will not be allowed costs. If the tithe payer says, "I owe the money, but want you to let me pay it by instalments," the tithe owner will get no costs. Even in a case in which the tithe payer goes to the Court, and says, "I wish to appear in this matter on the question of amount," the tithe owner will get no costs. Under these circumstances, I appeal to any fair-minded man to say whether there is the slightest foundation for the suggestion that we have not carried out our pledge.

MR. S. T. EVANS

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman read the Rules he read on the Report stage?

SIR. R. WEBSTER

I am very sorry I have not got them here; but, as far as I know, they are in accordance with what I have stated to the House.

(4.27) MR. RANDELL (Glamorgan, Gower)

It is difficult to see why the Government agreed to the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend, and now assent to what has been done by the House of Lords. I must say that the fact of the Government assenting to the course followed by the Lords will be received with much disfavour by the constituencies we represent. If any part of the Bill has been contested more strenuously than another, it has been that portion which relates to the question of costs. This House has been most anxious to keep down the costs. I venture to think that in cases in which there is a bonâ fide defence, the costs under this Bill will be much greater than they would be under the present law. The Amendment of my hon. Friend appeared to be so reasonable, the other evening, to the Government themselves that they accepted it, and I see no reason why they should depart from the position they then took up. We Welsh Members have, I think, fought this Bill very fairly and have succeeded in getting various Amendments inserted, but many of those Amendments have been struck out in the House of Lords. I do hope that in this case the Government will stick to their guns, and will refuse to assent to the Lords' Amendment.

(4.29.) MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

It really is very sad to think that after we have passed a Bill here and sent it to the Lords, and have then considered their Amendments and sent the measure up again with an agreement on both sides of the House in favour of certain alterations, the Lords should step in and strike out those alterations. The Attorney General says he defies any fair person to get up in this House, and say after his speech that the pledge given by the Government has been violated. Well, I am prepared to say that, as far as I understand the matter, after listening to what has fallen from my hon. Friend, and from the Attorney General, the pledge has been absolutely violated. I am strengthened in my belief on this point by the indignation shown by the Attorney General. I have always observed that when a lawyer shows indignation there is something concealed behind it. The omission of these words was moved by Lord Selborne. It appears to me that the Liberal Unionists are as troublesome in the House of Lords as they are in this House. Either these words mean something or they do not. If they mean nothing why do not the Government consent to their re-insertion? The Attorney General explained that they do mean something, and said he had been deceived—poor, innocent man!—by my hon. Friend, but Lord Selborne, being more acute than he, saw the serious harm they would do, and, therefore, they were struck out by the Lords. The fact is, that the Government want to get the Royal Assent to the Bill as soon as possible, and that is why they will not agree to re-insert the words. I ask the noble Lord the Member for Darwen (Viscount Cranborne) to be good enough to give his assent to our proposal, and to absolve the Government from the mandate he has issued that the Bill shall be passed in its entirety before the Easter Recess. We perfectly well know that the noble Lord is our master in this matter, and the master of the Government, and if he does not agree to our suggestion we shall be voted down. We protest against the conduct of the Government. If anything ought to be kept sacred it is a pledge given by the Government to the House, and more especially when for that pledge they have obtained a clear and distinct quid pro quo. The Attorney General went out of his way to praise the fairness of my hon. Friend (Mr. S. T. Evans), and my hon. Friend distinctly says that, as far as he understands it, there was a specific pledge, and that pledge has been violated. I would put it to the Government, therefore, whether, under these circumstances, and in view of the fact that the greater number of the Welsh Members have gone away relying on the pledge, it would not be better to disagree with the Amendment or to defer the Debate until after Easter.

(4.34.) MR. J. E. ELLIS (Nottingham, Rushcliffe)

It strikes me that the issue now before the House raises a very important question as to the value we are to place on the assurances that proceed from the Treasury Bench as to the manner in which business is to be conducted. I listened with very great attention to the speech of the hon. and learned Attorney General and it entirely failed to convince me that the Government have maintained in the House of Lords the attitude we had a right to expect from them in view of the assurances given in this House. This is not the first time this question has arisen during the continuance of the present Parliament. I remember perfectly well that on the Coal Mines Regulation Bill we had Amendments accepted in this House, and struck out in the other House by the Colleagues of those who had accepted them here. I do put it to the President of the Board of Trade (Sir M. Hicks Beach) that the Government should, as a matter of good faith, stand to their guns and agree to the re-insertion of the words they accepted in this House.

(4.36.) SIR G. TREVELYAN (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

The hon. and learned Attorney General, in his very clear and interesting speech, showed that the Government have gone very far to meet the wishes of the Welsh Members, and I think he showed likewise that in his opinion they had gone as far as their pledges led them. I do not wonder, however, that the Welsh Members do not think that everthing promised them in previous Debates has been carried out, and I own I must join in that opinion. It appears to me to be a very small point. The Attorney General is reported to have said, in reply to the hon. and learned Member for Mid Glamorgan (Mr. S. Evans) on the 10th of February (Hansard, 1890–91, vol. II., page 367)— There is no doubt as to the way in which costs in undefended cases ought to be dealt with, and the Government will take care that they shall he dealt with by rules of the Rule Committee. Under these rules the costs of employing a solicitor will not be allowed where no notice of defence has been given. If the tithe payer admits that he owes the money, a rule that no costs shall be allowed beyond the fees will meet the objections that have been made. That has been done, undoubtedly. Later on, at page 391,' the Attorney General says— I think my undertaking ought to have been sufficient, for it is a most unusual practice to put, say, half a dozen rules on the face of an Act of Parliament. The words of "the rules which I have read are clear, that the costs of employing a solicitor will not be allowed in any case in which no notice of defence is entered, and in cases in which there is such notice they will only be allowed for work done subsequent to such notice. The only other words I will read to the House are the words of the clause moved in the House of Lords, presumably to carry out the intentions of the Government as expressed by the Attorney General— An application to a County Court for an order under this Act may be made on behalf of the tithe owner by his agent, although not a solicitor, and on such application the costs either of a solicitor or of a witness shall not be allowed in any case where notice of defence has not been given, and when such notice has been given the costs of a solicitor shall only be allowed for work done subsequent to the notice. The Government have introduced a clause, and the House of Lords has accepted it, excusing the defendant from costs on two conditions, of which the first is that the costs either of the solicitor or witness shall not be allowed in any case where the amount claimed is paid without further proceedings. I suppose it is contended that that covers the case where no notice of defence is entered, and I can quite understand that the Attorney General considers that an immense concession. It does not cover, says my hon. and learned Friend below the Gangway, the case where the defendant assumes a purely passive attitude. There is a real difference between the Amendment as it comes down from the House of Lords and the Amendment as it left this House. The Attorney General has shown that it may be a very vexatious action on the part of the defendant, but that only bears out more strongly the contention of my hon. and learned Friend that a very definite and strong case is not met by the Amendment as it comes down from the Lords, but was met by the Amendment as it went to the Lords. I do not want to use strong expressions, and to say anything about a breach of faith, but I do say it is a most unfortunate thing that the other House should have thought it necessary to whittle down those concessions which made this Bill, not palatable, but tolerable, to the Welsh Members; and I further say that I do not see any public reason why we should not disagree to this Amendment, the only bad result of which would be that the Royal Assent to the Bill would be put off for a fortnight. I do not, however, think that that would be a very great evil.

*(4.46.) MR. F. S. STEVENSON

The course the Government have taken on this Bill in accepting Amendments moved in the Lords by persons other than members of the Government is one which may be fraught with serious consequences.

*SIR M. HICKS BEACH

We had nothing to do with the fact that Lord Selborne moved this particular Amendment.

*MR. F. S. STEVENSON

That strengthens my argument. By accepting this Amendment the Government made themselves responsible for it; and the question is whether they have shifted in any degree from the position taken up in a previous Debate. It seems to me that the contention of the Attorney General rests on the difference between opposition and notice of opposition. He admits that the acceptance of the Amendment was an afterthought, and that at the time he spoke in the House he did not contemplate the contingency the Amendment is designed to meet. The hon. and learned Gentleman must remember that he gave a pledge to the House and that a pledge depends not so much on the manner in which it is understood by the man who makes it as on the manner in which it is understood by those to whom it is made. The Welsh Members distinctly have a different impression of the pledge from that of the Attorney General. I appeal to the Government to consent to the disagreement on the part of the House to the Amendment.

*(4.48.) MR. SYDNEY GEDGE

The pledge given by the Government was clear. It was that where there was no opposition there should be no costs, and that pledge is amply carried out without these words. Every one who understands the matter will see that without notice of opposition when the receiver is going to take possession, it is possible for the tithe payer to put difficulties in his way. The insertion of these words would enable him to do so without being liable to the costs which his wrongful action had caused.

(4.49.) DR. CLARK (Caithness)

I do not know if the hon. Gentleman was present when the pledge was given by the Attorney General. The whole thing would be settled if the hon. and learned Gentleman would only bring before the House the Rules he was drafting, and which he asked my hon. Friend to accept instead of this clause in the Bill. I remember the Divisions which took place on the Motions moved with the object of preserving the tithe as national property when it may be used for another purpose. I remember that a Motion was moved at about 1 o'clock in the morning, and I remember that an hon. Friend who moved it proposed that no costs of solicitor or witness should be given where there had been no notice of defence. The Attorney General accepted that and read the proposed Rules, and the Government adopted the words they are now asking us to drop out altogether. Although the Attorney General pledged himself to draw up rules as the hour was nearly 1 o'clock in the morning he did not move them, but said they would be inserted in the Bill "in another place." Since then he has probably discovered that although no notice of opposition on defence may be lodged, yet that by certain processes costs may be incurred. I understand that he now agrees that this should be dropped out of the Bill, though the clause has been twice adopted by the House. This is a very serious question. Several Amendments were dropped by my hon. Friends for Wales, which probably, but for the statement of the Government, would have occupied two or three hours in discussion. But the Attorney General is now going to vote contrary to the understanding at which he arrived with hon. Members on this side of the House. I think the only course he ought to take is to vote with us. Since he drafted these Rules, however, he has, I suppose, discovered that there were things he did not know of at the time. ["He has said so."] I have been here all the time, and I have not heard it. Supposing the Attorney General adopted the understanding with this side of the House under a misconception, then we are in this position, that he came to terms from which he now seeks to withdraw on the ground of misconception. I regret the Attorney General has not got his own Rules here, because they would have settled the question.

(4.54.) MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN (Merthyr Tydvil)

Hon. Members from Wales who are not present could not have anticipated that the Government would take this action. I hold in my hand the Amendment to which the Commons agreed, "Nor in any case where no opposition has been given." The Attorney General now shields himself behind the allegations of innocence in this matter. There was an unmistakable pledge, so far as my memory goes, given by the Attorney General and by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. I am certain that every Representative of the Principality is under that impression. Now, at the very moment we are adjourning for a well-deserved holiday, we have this Bill sent back from the Lords with this slap in the face, as it were, to the House of Commons and to the Government. Having agreed with the House that certain words should be inserted, the Lords say "No, we will not agree to it, and we send it back to you again." This is a very serious matter indeed, and there may be a time come when the Government will have to answer to the constituencies for having broken their distinct and unmistakable pledge, while the Attorney General assumes the mien of the most innocent Member of the most innocent Government that has ever ruled in the country.

(4.58.) MR. JOICEY (Durham, Chester-le-Street)

Sir, I was present when this bargain was made between the Attorney General as a Member of Her Majesty's Government and my hon. and learned Friend. I confess my reading of his words is that the Attorney General confesses that my hon. and learned Friend got the better of him. But, Sir, we commercial men have always been of the impression that a bargain is a bargain and ought to be adhered to, and that when one party has got the worst of it he has no right to attempt to upset that bargain. It is perfectly clear that the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend was accepted without any qualification whatever. It went to the House of Lords, and the Prime Minister moved it. Then Lord Selborne moved an Amendment to it, and the Representatives of Her Majesty's Government in the other House accepted it, thus breaking the pledge given by the Government in this House. I think that is most unfair treatment. When the bargain was made every Welsh Member had a full opportunity of discussing it. Now their mouths are practically closed. I repeat that such treatment is unfair, and I shall certainly vote with my hon. and learned Friend.

(5.0.) MR. DILLWYN (Swansea, Town)

I heard the whole of the Debate on the clause now under discussion. I was rather surprised when my hon. Friend laughed at the remark of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr, to the effect that he ought to vote for the Amendment. He ought to vote for it. I have no doubt on my mind that the understanding was clear and distinct that costs were not to be incurred in undefended cases, and I take an undefended case to mean where judgment is given without any defence having been offered. I also know that the whole of the Welsh Members believed the matter settled, and I am quite sure that the Attorney General would not wilfully commit any act of bad faith, though I am equally sure that it will be looked upon by Members on this side of the House as an act of bad faith. The Attorney General has altered the wording of our Amendment; but I think, before the point is decided, that we ought to have the Rule which the Attorney General was challenged to produce. I think the question ought not now to be settled, and I move that this Debate be now adjourned.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)

(5.2.) MR. S. T. EVANS

I think we ought to have some reply from the Government before the Debate is adjourned. It seems to be admitted by the Attorney General that a pledge was given. To that the Attorney General assents. All he says is that in his mind there should be some very accurate distinction as to what is a defended and what an undefended case. I would reiterate the case cited by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of a man being passive.

*MR. SPEAKER

Order order! The Question is, the Adjournment of the Debate.

MR. S. T. EVANS

I think we ought to have the adjournment in order to get the Rules from the Attorney General, who has placed his recollection against ours in this matter. Why does he not produce the Rules, which, no doubt, are in some pigeon-hole of some office. Surely the Government ought themselves to assent to the Motion, seeing that the majority of Welsh Members who are interested in the matter have gone back to their constituents. They would never have left had they had the slightest thought that the pledge given was to be violated within 24 hours of its having been given. One hon. Member says he has only had the Amendments of the Lords for an hour or two. We ourselves only received them this morning. The Government ought really to carry out their pledge, and I hope the House will enable them to seize this opportunity now given them to carry it out at the last moment.

(5.4.) DR. CLARK

I wish to ask some Member of the Government, on the Question of the Adjournment, what they intend to do with respect to Orders on the Paper?

*MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The Question is, the Adjournment of the Debate.

*(5.4.) SIR J. SWINBURNE

We have had a good deal of hair-splitting on this matter, but really Her Majesty's Government come down here and say, "Here is an Order from the House of Lords." I repudiate that altogether.

*MR. SPEAKER

Order, order!

Sir M. HICKS BEACH

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

(5.5.) The House divided:—Ayes-143; Noes 57.—(Div. List, No. 104.)

Question put accordingly, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

(5.15.) The House divided:—Ayes 58; Noes 146.—(Div. List, No. 105.)

Sir M. HICKS BEACH claimed, "That the Original Question be now put."

Original Question put accordingly, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

(5.25.) The House divided:—Ayes 148; Noes 60.—(Div. List, No. 106.)