§ The Marquess of Lansdowne, in moving the order of the day for bringing up the report of this Bill, said, considering that a great many amendments had been made in the Bill, with the general concurrence of the House, he thought it might be convenient to their Lordships if he very shortly adverted to the few points which were reserved for consideration. In the first clause, providing for the appointment of the Commissioners, their lordships would recollect an amendment was proposed by a Noble Baron to substitute the name of his Majesty for that of the Secretary of State, and subsequently another amendment was moved in the same clause by a right reverend Prelate, who proposed that the Commissioners should only be removeable jointly by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other power, viz. his Majesty. In this amendment their Lordships seemed disposed to agree were it not for the obvious objection that it would be indecorous that the Archbishop should be joined with his Majesty by name. The two amendments could not be adopted. That being the case, he proposed to restore the name of the Secretary of State, the nomination resting with the Government, who would be responsible for it, and that arrangement would admit of their adopting the suggestion, that the Secretary of State jointly, and only jointly, with the Archbishop, should 311 have the power of removal. He would recommend their Lordships to prefer this course, because he believed the effect of it would be, to raise the Commissioners in the estimation of the public. The noble Marquess concluded by moving the amendment.
The Archbishop of Canterburyconcurred in the amendment moved by the noble Marquess. He thought the Commissioners would appear to the public more independent if they were only removeable by the joint act of the Archbishop and of the Secretary of State.
§ The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, he would postpone the clause, in order that it might have some further consideration, till the third reading, when it might be moved by way of rider.
§ Several verbal amendments were agreed to.
§ The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, he had no further amendment to suggest until Clause 16, for which, as it at present stood, he should propose the substitution of another, which would more clearly and accurately define the authority of persons who might act as agents. It was to the effect that any landowners or titheowners be allowed to appoint agents, in order to carry into execution the provisions of this Act; that anything which by this Act, is directed to be done, by or with relation to any person, may be lawfully done by, or with relation to the agent of such person; that such agent be allowed to vote on any question upon which the principal of such agent might have voted; and that the powers of attorney under which such agents acted be appended to every agreement entered into by them."
§ The clause agreed to.
The Archbishop of Canterburyrose to propose an additional clause to the Bill. He could see no reason why tithe-owners should be deprived of any prospective right which they would enjoy under the present law. With respect to waste lands, he had already expressed his opinion, that when they were brought into cultivation they should not be subject to tithes, because that would act as an impediment to the expenditure of capital, which it was the object of the Bill to encourage, but that a portion of them should be set apart as the property of the titheowner; and he now proposed the introduction of a clause, after Clause 38, to enable the Commissioners to set apart from all common lands brought into cultivation such a portion of land as would now of right belong to the tithe-owner.
Lord Ellenboroughdecidedly objected to the clause. It might come into operation 100 years hence; and then they must refer back to the valuation under this Bill, and must strike off the rent-charge. At the present moment, if any enclosure were to be made, many persons, for the purpose of conciliating the titheowner to consent to such enclosure, might be willing to give a portion of the land; but when, instead of tithes, they paid a rent charge, there would no longer be the same inducement for them to give a portion of their land in order to obtain that consent. At the present, the value of such tithes would be infinitely small; but when portions of the land were given they were always given according to what might be the future value of the tithes. Now, there was nothing prospective in this Bill; but if they introduced the present clause, then it would become prospective to any extent.
§ The Marquess of Lansdownefelt compelled, and he did it with great reluctance, upon the grounds stated by the noble Lord (Ellenborough), to oppose the clause of the right rev. Prelate. He opposed it upon the general principle. The Bill at present afforded security to the titheowners for a rent-charge according to the value of tithes which they had hitherto received; and at the same time relieved the landowner from all eventual burdens, and all obstacles arising out of the tithe-law.
§ Lord Ashburtonsaid, there were very few parishes in England in which there were any commons worth enclosing which were not already enclosed, and he felt that it was a much greater hardship upon the landowners to be called upon to pay tithes for lands which might go out of cultivation, than for the titheowner to be deprived of tithes for lands which might hereafter be enclosed. The Bill, upon the whole, was, he thought, favourable to the titheowner; and, as his greatest objection to this Bill was with respect to the manner in which it dealt with lands that might go out of cultivation—he should most decidedly oppose the clause of the right rev. Prelate, which would inflict an additional hardship upon the landowner. He knew in many cases, particularly if there should be any alteration in the corn-laws, that it would be the interest of the owners of land to give up the land altogether to the tithe-owner rather than pay tithes for it.
§ The clause negatived without a division.
§ The Marquess of Lansdownewished to propose a clause after Clause 28; it was a 313 clause of some importance, and one which he thought would meet with general concurrence. It had been suggested, that it would be expedient that rent-charges should be convertible into land, provided that land did not exceed a certain amount. The right rev. Prelate had proposed twenty acres. His object was to carry that into effect with respect to clerical owners, and with regard to lay owners to convert rent charges into land without any restriction as to extent.
Lord Ellenboroughwas not prepared to offer any opposition to the principle of the clauses; but he certainly did think that they should form the subject of a separate measure.
The Bishop of Exeterbegged to express his gratitude, as a Bishop, for the introduction of the clauses which were now proposed. He was sure they would be considered a great boon by the country. As to the number of acres, he, however, thought that regard should be had to the quality of the land.
The Archbishop of Canterburysaid, that, with regard to the number of twenty acres, he thought twenty acres of the richest land not too much; and even twenty acres of poor land was a very considerable accommodation in the conversion of a rent-charge into land. Those reasons, with the advantage of having some definite number, had induced him to make the suggestion which he had done.
§ Lord Wynfordapproved of the clauses.
§ The Earl of Devondid not think it prudent to introduce a clause of this nature into the Bill.
§ The Marquess of Lansdowneobserved, that so much doubt existed as to the propriety of converting the rent-charge into land in the case of lay titheowners, that he thought it better to postpone the clause for further consideration to a future stage of the Bill.
§ Clause accordingly postponed.
§ The remaining clauses agreed to. House resumed; Bill to be reported.