Commons Sitting of 24 June 1836

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—North American Bank.—Read a second time:—Judges' Lodgings; and Sugar Duties.
Petitions presented. By Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE, from Ware, for Relief from Small Debts.

LIVERPOOL DOCKS.
Lord Francis Egertonmoved the further consideration of the Liverpool Docks Bill.
Lord Clivewished that the clause in the Bill which exempted vessels going to Run corn, Frodsham, and other places, from paying Dock-rates to the Liverpool Dock Company, should also extend to Elsmere. To accomplish his object, he would move that the Bill be recommitted.
Mr. Wilbrahamseconded the motion.
Viscount Sandoncould not agree to the motion of his noble Friend, which, if carried, would ruinously affect the property of the bondholders invested in the Docks, and which all the vessels that entered the port of Liverpool were liable to. The subject was one of much interest, and very deserving the attention of the House; and he contended that such a motion at least could not be made without previous notice.
Mr. Ewartapprehended that neither the amendment of the noble Lord (Clive), nor the clause of which it was merely an ex tension—the clause which exempted Run corn and other towns from paying Dock rates to Liverpool, could stand—for both the clause and the amendment were against the standing orders of the House. He felt so strongly on this point, that he would not detain the House, but appeal at once to the Speaker, for he felt confident that the point of law was decidedly against the clause; but if it were to be decided otherwise, he would oppose the measure generally.
The Speaker: Having been appealed to
850
for my opinion, with a view to decide the question, I will recall the attention of the House to the facts. A motion having been made by the noble Lord, the Member for Ludlow, relative to a certain clause in the Bill, the noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, stated, that such clause had been inserted contrary to the Standing Orders, and that it was his intention to move that it be struck out. The real question, then, for consideration is, whether the clause has been inserted contrary to the Standing Orders. I believe I am correct in stating, that the notices which have been given in the in stance of this Bill, apply only to alterations to be made respecting the constitution of the Board of Trustees, and the management of the Docks; and that no notice has been given of any intention to propose an alteration with regard to the tolls. If, then, there be an alteration made by the Bill in the tolls, whether by addition or diminution, notice should have been given to the parties interested, and whose property must be affected by such alteration, of the intention to propose it. Now, no such notice has been given here, and I apprehend, therefore, that the clause must be struck out of the Bill. I hope that the House will always bear in mind, that the Standing Orders have been framed for the protection of all classes of the community, and that they never can, and never ought to be, disregarded, unless where some strong special case is made out; and where, in addition, it is clearly and distinctly shown that that particular departure from them will not be productive of injury to those persons for whose protection they are intended.
Lord Clive, with the leave of the House, would withdraw his motion.
Bill to be considered.
Lord Francis Egertonmoved that the Amendment be read a second time.
Mr. Ewartwould proceed to oppose the Bill. The question was, whether the Dock-rate payers, a small constituency, or the immense municipal constituency of Liverpool, were to have the superintending power over the Dock estate. He said the Dock-rate payers were a small constituency. They consisted of hundreds—the municipal constituency was composed of thousands. The Dock-rate-paying constituency was a changing and fluctuating body—the constituency of the town was of a fixed and enduring character. If the Dock-rate payers formed the constituency, they might be subject to undue control. A wealthy merchant could (under the existing system) create voters only a day before the election

851
of those who were were destined by the Bill to manage the Dock-estate of Liver pool. The Municipal Reform Bill had secured the municipal voters from such undue interposition. They, therefore, were the body whose representatives in the new council, should manage a trust so important to the town as the Dock trust. That these powers should have vested in the old Corporation was highly objectionable. That they should not vest in the new, freely elected, and responsible body, was, in his opinion, most objectionable also. The Municipal Reform Bill involved the concentration of local funds in the hands of the Local Council. This Bill was against that principle. Was it against no other principle of the Municipal Reform Bill? Yes. If there was one element of that Bill more marked and more essential than the rest, it was this,—that the police of the towns should be concentrated in the new local authorities. The police was the organ of good government in the town. Yet this Bill continued a principle of separation of the police of Liverpool. The Docks of Liverpool, nearly all of them open to the streets, extended for three miles along the town. If the police were separated into a dock police and a town police, how could it act with due uniformity and vigour, or be conducted on proper principles of economy and order? The Committee on this Bill had received evidence of the most striking character on this point. Mr. Mayne, the chief of the metropolitan police, had declared it to be essential, on general principles, that both polices should be combined. He considered such combination the soul of a system of police. The superintendent of the police at Liverpool declared the same on his local knowledge. So did the magistrates' clerk, and the eminent stipendiary magistrate, Mr. Hall, who now presided in the courts at Liverpool. To this over powering evidence no answer, either of fact or of argument, was given by their opponents. Yet the Committee, by a small majority, carried the continuance of two separate police forces. He called on the House to assert the principles of that Bill; to act upon them; to devolve on the Council which they themselves had created, the powers of which it was worthy; to concentrate the police; and consult the lasting interests of Liverpool.
Viscount Sandonsaid, that from the interest made by his hon. Colleague and others, to fill the benches at the opposite side, it was very evident that the intention was to turn this, which, was strictly a com-
852
mercial question, into a party struggle; and he regretted to perceive that hon. Members connected with Government should sanction a proceeding that was likely to be productive of the most serious injury to the commercial interests of the country. The trustees of the Liverpool Docks were disposed to come to an amicable and satisfactory arrangement with the town-council, and for that purpose had made several propositions to them, and it was not until these propositions had been rejected, and all idea of anamicable termination to the differences had disappeared, by the town-council insisting on a predominance in the trust, that the present Bill was introduced into that House. There had been an ancient struggle between the corporation and the people of Liverpool on this subject. In 1825, and 1820, the first struggle took place, when Mr. Gladstone endeavoured to wrest the control of the trust from the corporation of that time, and to place it in the hands of the rate-payers, on the grounds that the corporation were an irresponsible body, and that those who contributed to the tolls had the best right to see them dispensed. Mr. Huskisson soon after followed, and insisted on the same right, and a compromise took place, which was favourable to the rate-payers. To show that this was not a political question, some of the gentlemen now in the town-council coincided with the views of the trustees, and signed their names to a document to that effect; and it was not until they had found that by the passing of the Municipal Bill, that they had the power in their own hands, that they changed their sentiments. It might be said that the case was materially altered since the passing of that Act; but he begged to inquire whether the town-council had been selected by the rate-payers, and whether they were responsible to them. Many of the promoters of this Bill had been the political friends of his hon. Col league (Mr. Ewart) at the last election. All that was desired by the friends of the Bill was, that 9,000 l. or 10,000 l. should not be applied to the general purposes of the police of Liverpool, without any security that the property of the Dock Company would be duly protected. That it would not be duly protected was evident from the fact, that although the Dock Companies of London contributed their proportion to the common police of the metropolis, they were obliged to maintain a special police to guard them against depredation. Such would doubtless be the case hereafter

853
at Liverpool, if the amendment were carried. If the present Bill were not passed, there would be no fit and responsible persons to regulate and manage the trust. [Cries of "Divide" "Question."]
Mr. John Stanleysaid, if any party zeal were shown on the occasion, it was on the side supported by the noble Lord, who himself was no inefficient or indolent coadjutor. As to the measure before the House, in the first place the promoters of it had departed from the form in which it was originally introduced, and had remodelled it more in consonance with their own views and wishes. In the next place, he (Mr. E. J. Stanley) considered the rate-payers the most improper persons who could be concerned in the Liverpool Docks; while the town-council, on the other hand, had a permanent interest in them. The rate payers cared nothing about the establishment, and would not suffer if it fell to ruin to-morrow. The interest of the town council was identical with the interests of the whole town of Liverpool. Whoever might be in possession of the Docks, care must be taken lest, in another year, a mea sure should not be passed, compelling them to reduce the dues to the lowest possible amount; for if they did not, the whole trade of the port of Liverpool might be endangered. As a representative of Cheshire, he called upon hon. Members to unite with him in rejecting this Bill. If it were not rejected, it would be impossible hereafter to reintroduce the clause, so material to the interests of that part of the kingdom.
The House divided on the original question: Ayes 173; Noes 197—Majority 24.

List of the AYES.

Agnew, Sir Andrew

Campbell, Sir H.

Alsager, Captain

Canning, Sir S.

Arbuthnot, Hon. H.

Cartwright, W. R.

Ashley, Lord

Chichester, A.

Ashley, hon. H.

Chisholm, A.

Bagot, hon. W.

Clerk, Sir G.

Bailey, J.

Cole, Viscount

Balfour, T.

Cole, hon. A. H.

Baring, F.

Conolly, E. M.

Baring, H. Bingham

Corbett, T.

Baring, W.

Corry, hon. H. T. L.

Baring, Thomas

Crewe, Sir G.

Beckett, Sir J

Dalbiac, Sir C.

Bell, Matthew

Damer, D.

Bethell, Richard

Darlington, Earl of

Blackburne, I.

Dick, Quintin

Boiling, William

Dottin, Abel Rous

Bonham, R. Francis

Duffield, Thomas

Bradshaw, J.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Bramston, T. W.

East, James Buller

Calcraft, J, H.

Eaton, Richard J.

854

Egerton, Wm. Tatton

Martin, J.

Egerton, Sir P.

Meynell, Captain

Elley, Sir J.

Miles, Philip J.

Elwes, J.

Mosley, Sir O., bart.

Entwisle, John

Neeld, J.

Estcourt, Thos. G. B.

Nichol, Dr.

Feilden, W.

Norreys, Lord

Ferguson, Sir R, A.

Owen, Sir John, bart.

Finch, George

Packe, C. W.

Fleming, John

Palmer, George

Forbes, William

Palmer, Robert

Forester, hon. G.C.W.

Patten, John Wilson

Forster, Charles S.

Peel, Sir Robert, bart.

Fremantle, Sir T. W.

Perceval, Colonel

Gaskell, J. Mines

Pigot, Robert

Gladstone, Thomas

Plumptre, J. P.

Gladstone, W. E.

Polhill, Frederick

Glynne, Sit S. R.

Pollen, Sir J., bart.

Gordon, W.

Praed, James B.

Gore, O.

Price, Richard

Goulburn, hon. H.

Pringle, A.

Goulburn, Sergeant

Rae, Sir William, bt.

Graham, Sir J.

Reid, Sir J. Rae

Greene, Thomas

Richards, J.

Greisley, Sir R.

Robinson, G.

Grimston, Viscount

Ross, Charles

Grimston, hon. E. H.

Rushbrook, Colonel

Hale, Robert B.

Russell, C.

Halford, H.

Scarlett, hon. R.

Halse, James

Scott, Lord J.

Hamilton, G. A.

Shaw, F.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Sheppard, T.

Hanmer, Sir J., bart.

Sibthorpe, Colonel

Harcourt, G.

Smyth, Sir G. H., bt.

Hardinge, Sir H.

Somerset, Lord E.

Hardy, J,

Somerset, Lord G,

Hawkes, Thomas

Stanley, Edward

Hay, Sir J., bart.

Stanley, Lord

Hayes, Sir E. S., bart.

Stewart, Sir M. S., bt.

Heathcote, G. J.

Sturt, Henry Charles

Henniker, Lord

Tennent, J. E.

Hill, Lord Arthur

Thomas, Colonel

Houldsworth, T.

Trench, Sir Frederick

Hoy, J. B.

Trevor, hon. Arthur

Hughes, Hughes

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Jackson, Sergeant

Twiss, H.

Ingham, R.

Tyrrell, Sir J.

Inglis, Sir R. H., bart.

Vere, Sir C. B., bart.

Irton, Samuel

Vesey, hon. Thomas

Johnstone, Sir J.

Vivian, John Ennis

Jones, W.

Vyvyan, Sir R. R.

Jones, Theobald

Wall, Charles Baring

Kearsley, J H.

Walter, John

Kirk, Peter

West, J. B.

Knatchbull, Sir Edw.

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Knightley, Sir C.

Williams, T. P.

Lees, J. F.

Wodehouse, E.

Lefroy, Sergeant

Wood, Colonel

Lincoln, Earl of

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Lowther, Col. H. C.

Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.

Lowther, Lord

Wynn, Sir W.

Lowther, J.

Young, G. F.

Lucas, Edward

Young, J.

Lushington, S. R.

TELLERS

Lygon, hon. Col H.B.

Mahon, Lord

Sandon, Lord

Manners, Lord C.

Egerton, Lord Fran.

855

List of the NOES.

Adam, Sir C.

Fergus, John

Aglionby, H. A.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Ainsworth, P.

Ferguson, Robert

Anson, G.

Fergusson, rt. hn. C.

Bagshaw, John

Fitzgibbon, hon. B.

Baines, Edward

Finn, Will. Francis

Baldwin, Dr.

Fitzroy, Lord Charles

Ball, N.

Fitzsimon, Chris.

Bannerman, A.

Fitzsimon, N.

Barclay, David

Fort, John

Baring, F. Thornhill.

French, F.

Barnard, E. G.

Gaskell, Daniel

Barry, G. S

Goring, H. D.

Beauclerk, Major

Grattan, J.

Bellew, Richard M.

Grattan, H.

Bennett, J.

Grey, Sir G., bart.

Bentinck, Lord W.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Berkeley, hon. F.

Grote, George

Bewes, T.

Guest, J.

Biddulp, R.

Gully, John

Bish, Thomas

Harvey, D. W.

Blackburne, J

Hay, Sir Andrew L.

Blake, M. J.

Hector, C. J.

Blamire, W.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Bodkin, J.

Hodges, T. L.

Bowes, J.

Holland, E.

Bowring, Dr.

Howard, P. H.

Brady, D. C.

Hume, J.

Bridgeman, H.

Jervis, J.

Brodie, W. B.

Johnston, Andrew

Brotherton, J.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Browne, R. D.

Lambton, H.

Buller, C.

Langton, Wm. Gore

Buller, E.

Leader, J. T.

Burton, Henry P.

Lefevre, C. S.

Butler, hon. P.

Lennard, Thomas B.

Byng, G. S.

Lister, Ellis Cunliffe

Callaghan, D.

Loch, J.

Campbell, Sir J.

Lushington, Charles

Campbell, W. F.

Lynch, Andrew H. S.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Macleod, R.

Cayley, Edward S.

M'Namara, Major

Chalmers, P.

Mangles, J.

Chapman, M. L.

Marjoribanks, S.

Clay, William

Marshall, W.

Clive, Edward B.

Marsland, Henry

Clive, Viscount

Maule, hon. F.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Methuen, Paul

Codrington, Sir E.

Morpeth, Lord Vis.

Collier, John

Morrison, James

Conyngham, Lord A.

Mostyn, hon. E.

Crawford, Wm. S.

Mullins, F. W.

Crawford, William

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Curteis, Edward B.

Nagle, Sir Richd.

Dalmeny, Lord

O'Brien, C.

Dennison, J. Evelyn

O'Connell, D.

D'Eyncourt, C. T.

O'Connell, John

Donkin, Sir Rufane

O'Connell, M. J.

Duncombe, T. S.

O'Connell, Morgan

Dundas, hon. J. C.

O'Conor, Don

Dundas, hon. T.

O'Ferral, Rich. More

Dundas, J. Deanes

Oliphant, L.

Edwards, Colonel

O'Loghlin, M.

Elphinstone, Howard

Ord, W. H.

Evans, G.

Oswald, J.

Fazakerley, John N.

Paget, F.

856

Parker, J.

Thompson, Col.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Thornely, T.

Parrott, Jasper

Tooke, W.

Pattison, J.

Townley, R. G.

Pease, Joseph

Tracey, Charles H.

Pechell, Capt. R.

Trelawney, Sir W. L.

Pelham, hon. C. A.

Tulk, C. A.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Turner, W.

Phillips, C. M.

Tynte, J. K.

Pinney, W.

Verney, Sir H., bart.

Potter, R.

Villiers, Sir Charles P.

Power, J.

Wakley, T.

Price, Sir R.

Walker, C. A.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Walker, Richard

Roche, W.

Wallace, Robert

Roche, D.

Warburton, H.

Roebuck, J. A.

Wason, R.

Rolfe, Sir M. R.

Westenra, hon. J. C.

Rundle, J.

Wigney, I..N.

Russell, Lord

Wilbraham, G.

Ruthven, E.

Wilde, Mr. Sergeant

Sanford, E. A.

Williams W.

Scott, Sir E. D.

Williams, W. A.

Scrope, G. P.

Williams, Sir J.

Seale, Colonel

Williamson, Sir H.

Sharpe, Gen.

Winnington, Capt. H.

Sheil, R. L.

Wood, C.

Smith, B.

Woulfe, Mr. Sergeant

Steuart, R.

Wrightson, W.

Strutt, E.

Wrottesley, Sir J.

Stuart, V.

Wyse, T.

Talbot, J. H.

Talfourd, Sergeant

TELLERS.

Tancred, H. W.

Ewart, William

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Stanley, E. J.

The Bill thrown out.

COMMUTATION OF TITHES (ENGLAND).
Lord John Russellmoved the order of the day for the further consideration of the Report on the Commutation of Tithes Bill.
Mr. Thomas Duncombepresented a petition from Ware against the payment of small tithes. He would take that opportunity of asking the noble Lord whether he meant to introduce any Bill this session for the abolition of personal tithes?
Lord John Russellwas understood to say that he had such a Bill in preparation.
Mr. Arthur Trevorwished to call the attention of the noble Lord, the Secretary of State, to the clause, which appointed Commissioners to carry this act into execution. He thought it most important for the interest of all parties concerned, but more especially for the interest of the clergy, that it should be known who the Commissioners were to be. By the Bill as it now stood, they might be Roman Catholics, or Dissenters, or Jews, or persons of any other persuasion. Now, he held it essentially necessary that these commissioners should be members of the Church of England as by law established. He

857
was aware that the view he had taken f this subject differed widely from the opinion of other hon. Members; at the same time, conceiving it to be a matter of great importance, he should move, that after the words "it shall be lawful to appoint two fit persons" the words "being members of the Church of England as by law established" be inserted.
Lord John Russellconsidered such an amendment altogether unnecessary, and should oppose it.
Mr. Arthur Trevorwould divide the House on it; a division accordingly took place:—Ayes 19; Noes 58; Majority 39.
Mr. Humewished to call the attention of the House to the 9th Clause, which enacted that the salaries of the Commissioners, &c, and all other expenses attendant upon the operation of the Act, were to be paid out of the consolidated fund. Now to this he was decidedly op posed, and he did not see why the parties interested in the settlement of the tithe question should not pay a rate in proportion to the amount settled, for the purpose of defraying these expenses. It was sup posed that both parties would be benefitted by this Bill, it was supposed, too, that the public generally would be benefitted; but even allowing that they would, he did not think that the consolidated fund should be resorted to so very frequently as it had been. He should therefore move, that the remainder of the clause after the words "shall be paid" be omitted, for the purpose of inserting words to this effect—" out of a rate chargeable on those interested in the award of the Commissioners, in such a manner that all aforesaid expenses may be equally and justly borne."
Lord John Russellbelieved the proper time for the hon. Member to move such an amendment would be on the re-commitment of the Bill. The hon. Member was quite right in his opinion respecting the consolidated fund regarding bills generally; but in this instance he (Lord John Russell) did not see how they could impose these charges upon particular individuals.
Mr. Humewould move that the Bill be recommitted.
Sir Robert Peelvery much doubted in this instance the propriety of attempting to impose the onus of defraying the expense upon any particular class. It was the settlement of a great national question, and he thought it but just that the expenses should be paid out of the national fund.
Mr. Thomas Duncombewas of opinion,
858
that the measure then before the House was a settlement of a question between two disputing parties who could not agree, and he did not see why the public should be called upon to pay for the arrangement of their dispute by the Legislature. He thought it would very much expedite and promote the voluntary commutation of tithe if the costs of arbitration were to be paid by the parties themselves—namely, the parson and the lay impropriators.
The House divided on Mr. Hume's motion:—Ayes 10; Noes 60; Majority 50.
The Solicitor-Generalproposed the introduction of a proviso at the end of Clause 35, relating to the modification of special cases, for the purpose of giving the Com missioners power in cases where the tithe owner had taken a less amount than the composition originally agreed upon, in any year during the last seven years, to fix that diminished amount as the rate of payment in future.
Sir Robert Inglisthought it would be very unfair to the tithe-owner to take ad vantage of his liberality to the tithe-payer.
The proposition was agreed to.
Lord John Russellsaid, it was his intention to propose that in cases where com positions, either from the length of time they had been in existence, or from other circumstances, were either too high or too low, to give the Commissioners a fuller power to deal with such as appeared to be fraudulent or collusive, according to the best of their judgment.
Mr. William Crawfordsaid, he had been induced to give a great deal of attention to this subject by an accidental circumstance. He had become acquainted with the case of a rectory in Surrey, the composition for the tithes of which was very inadequate. During the last seven years, comparing it with the price of the produce, the proportion of tithe which the rector got was as forty to 100. Taking the expense of collection, and all other charges, at fourteen per cent., which he was sure would be more than sufficient, there remained 86 l. out of every 100 l. in the hands of the tithe-payer, who, according to the amount of composition, would pay only forty-eight parts, and retain thirty-eight parts of the tithe justly due to the rector. He believed this case was not an uncommon one, and therefore he was glad that the noble Lord was disposed to meet it.
Mr. Blamirethought the proposition calculated to do a great deal of good; but he believed that when the Bill came into

859
operation the Commissioners would find many difficulties spring up, which were never anticipated. He thought it would be an improvement upon the plan of the noble Lord if the Commissioners., when they met with cases of difficulty, not fairly provided for, were required to suspend their decision, and to institute an inquiry and report thereon to the Government. This would prevent the necessity of giving them too much discretionary power, to which he believed many hon. Members were opposed.
Mr. Edward Bullerwas satisfied with the proposition. He did not think the discretionary power to be reposed in the Commissioners too large. In regard to such cases as those alluded to, it would be found, that by a subsequent clause of the Bill the Commissioners were required to compare the compositions under consideration with the average rate of composition in neighbouring parishes.
Mr. Goulburnexpressed a fear that these special provisions would be productive of serious inconveniences to many clergymen. Since the House had not adopted the voluntary principle, but had decided in favour of a compulsory payment of tithes, he thought the Commissioners ought to be vested with ample discretion. He trusted also, that by whomsoever they might be appointed, they would be men of firmness, integrity, ability, and high character. The clergy were most anxious for an amicable adjustment of this question; they asked no extraordinary favour, no partiality; but, on the other hand, they were entitled to all the protection which the Government Commissioners could afford to them.
Lord Ebringtonquite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, being convinced that the success of the measure wholly depended upon the character and qualifications of the commissioners.
Mr. Lennardbelieved the clause would be very beneficial to both tithe-owners and payers. He was doubtful, however, whether it would sufficiently meet the case of landlords of small estates, who would become responsible for the payment of tithes, and be, as it were, mere bailiffs for the tithe-receiver.
The amendment proposed by the noble Lord was agreed to.
On Clause 37 being brought under the consideration of the House,
Mr. Jervissaid, there would be considerable difficulty in applying this clause to the wealds of Kent and Sussex. For example, how could it be applied fairly to the case
860
of wood grown for hop-poles? On these the average of the last seven years would never operate with justice. He thought that with respect to such cases the Commissioners should be left a discretionary power, and be permitted to take the tithe according to the district, or according to the form, just as they might find upon inquiry to be the practice of the place.
Lord John Russellsaid, that the wealds of Kent and Sussex were generally exempt from tithe, but there still might remain some difficulty as to coppice woods.
Mr. Humesaid, it was monstrous that fruit and the produce of gardens should be subjected to tithe, they being the result of an amount of capital vastly greater than was applied to land used for other purposes. As respected gardens, the average of the last ten or seven years could be no fair rule, the more especially as the increasing facilities for the transport of garden produce would materially alter the value of garden ground. As respected this part of the subject, it might be difficult to alter existing practices, but he hoped that new ground would be protected.
Sir Robert Peelremarked, that as this question stood on separate grounds, and the noble Lord found great difficulty in dealing with it, it had better be treated as a special case, and he therefore thought it would be more advisable to leave the words "coppice wood" out of this clause, and allow the Commissioners, after an inquiry on the subject to suggest what seemed to them the best mode of dealing with this difficulty.
Lord John Russellconsented to this proposition, and the words "coppice wood" were struck out of the clause, which was agreed to.
Clause 38, which provides for the case of charge of culture of hop-grounds and market-gardens, being proposed.
Mr. Humeobserved, that he agreed with the clause as far as the word "land" in in the 40th line, but what followed was wholly against the principle of the Bill, which was, to make a settlement once for all of the tithe question, in order to give an opportunity of improving the land by an application of capital. All land which might be cultivated as garden-grounds or hop-grounds after the commutation were to be subjected to an additional rent charge. Now he objected to this taxation of capital, and he should therefore move that all that part of the clause after the word "land," line 40, should be left out.
Lord John Russellwas quite ready to admit that this clause was in opposition to the general principle of the Bill, but he introduced the exception because a deputation of the constituents of the hon. Member for Middlesex waited on him to represent the peculiar hardship of their case. He explained to the market gardeners the general principle of the Bill— namely, that a rent-charge was to be payable on the average of the last seven years, upon which their representation to him was, that they having expended a large capital on the improvement of their market gardens, if this principle were acted upon they would continue liable to a very heavy charge, while the owners of arable land or common land in the neighbourhood, paying a very low tithe composition, would come into competition with them, and they would be ruined. He was extremely reluctant to introduce this exception into the Bill, but when the hon. Member's constituents pressed him so strongly, he, very much against his will, gave way on this point. He had, therefore made this provision, that when land was brought into cultivation as market-garden ground, or hop-ground, it should be liable to the same payment which the same kind of land was to pay now. This was one point of view in which the question might be considered; but there was also another view of the subject. The hon. Member did not object to the first part of the clause. He said, it was quite fair that when land ceased to be cultivated as a market-garden, it should cease to pay the extraordinary rent-charge, but that, if arable land was cultivated as market-garden land, it should not pay a higher tithe than it did before—a proposition in which there was neither fairness nor justice. If the hon. Member meant to say that market-gardens should be liable for ever to the higher amount of tithe-composition, but that all persons who were not liable now should never be liable, he could understand that argument, but to make this one-sided proposition was not agreeable to common sense or common fairness.
Mr. Warburtondid not think that the noble Lord had fairly put the argument of his hon. Friend, the Member for Middlesex, because the principle of the Bill was not to throw any obstacle in the way of the extraordinary application of capital by increasing the tithe on account of the im-
862
provement of land. Whether his Friend, the Member for Middlesex, or any one one else, had made representations to the noble Lord, he wished he had attended to the principles of his own Bill. There might be other persons who had made representations, there were the hop proprietors as well as the market gardeners affected by this clause, and what was this but an endeavour to maintain the mono, poly of the existing hop-growers in favour of Worcestershire, Kent, Surrey, or any other part of England which was a district for hop cultivation? This was against the principle on which the Bill was founded, and was a proof that it would have been better to adopt his (Mr. Warburton's) plan to get rid of tithes altogether, throwing the burden on the consolidated fund, and getting quit of the difficulty in this way.
Sir Robert Peelobserved, that if, when they came to discuss the proposition of the hon. Member, he had not more cogent arguments to adduce than those which he had now employed, a more futile motion could never have been made; and, as he had put forward these arguments in advance, he presumed that they were the most efficient which he had at his command. But he would inquire, if this exception applied to hop-grounds why should it not apply to market-gardens? And where was the injustice if hop-grounds and market-gardens were put on the same footing? The hon. Member seemed to assume that all market-gardeners were small freeholders, each cultivating their acre of land, and that their interests were to be neglected because they were humble people. But he apprehended, that, although the market-gardeners cultivated a small portion of land, the owner of that land might be a very rich man, possessing a great quantity of this kind of ground, let out to tenants-at-will, and whatever advantage would be derived if the hon. Member's proposition were agreed to, would not benefit the tenant-at-will, but the great proprietor, for they might depend upon it that when the land was out of lease he would have the advantage. The object of the Bill was to get rid of an uncertain charge on the application of capital to land, and that if a large amount of capital were expended in the improvement of land, it should not be subjected to the payment of the value of one-tenth of the produce, but of a definite sum. The Bill divided the charges made upon the

863
land in lieu of tithes, into two classes, an ordinary and extraordinary charge, but the extraordinary was equally definite with the ordinary charge. It would not be an uncertain sum, varying with the amount of produce, but ascertained and fixed. One would indeed exceed the other, but each would be equally definite.
Mr. Jerviscontended, that the clause was in opposition to the principle of this Bill, as it would check the expenditure of capital upon land. It was quite right that garden-ground and hop-ground should pay the extraordinary charge as long as they remained under that mode of cultivation; but, that ground which would now have to pay the ordinary charge should be subjected to an extraordinary payment when improved by the application of capital was wholly mischievous in principle, and inconsistent with the Bill itself. The fact was, this clause was introduced merely because a deputation of hop growers had waited on the noble Lord.
Mr. Benettexpressed his wish to do justice to all parties, and if the market gardeners were injured by the Bill, he would give them compensation, but he could not agree to an exception which would lay an embargo on the whole land of the kingdom. They were prohibited by this clause from converting their lands into gardens or growing hops. When railroads were established, land fifty or sixty, or even 100 miles off, might come into competition with the market-gardens near the metropolis, and he had no doubt that hops would be grown in other counties than those in which they were now cultivated. The principle of the Bill, which was very ably laid down by the noble Lord in bringing forward the measure, was to take off the embargo of taxation upon, and encourage the outlay of capital. By the adoption of this proposition injury would be done to so lasting an extent, as to make the Bill wholly different from what it was originally.
Sir Robert Pricesupported the original clause, which, in his judgment, was of considerable utility. The amendment of the hon. Member for Middlesex would, if carried, operate as a great fraud upon the tithe-owners of the country.
Mr. Aglionbyadmitted that the question was one of great difficulty, but he thought no person could have attended to the observations just made by the hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. Benett), without
864
feeling bound to vote for the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Middlesex. He hoped the House would not consent to sacrifice the great principle of the Bill for the sake of serving the interests of a few individuals.
Colonel Thompsonthought the clause, instead of involving the principle of fairness which had been attributed to it, gave two boons at once to the possessors of old hop and garden-ground, and to nobody else. It first relieved them from the continuance of the full rate in the event of their land being wrought out, and then guarded them against the competition of their neighbours who might have land, which the removal of the burthen of tithe would bring into profitable cultivation for hops and gardens. He could appeal to the other side of the House, whether in any share he had taken in the debates on the present subject, he had not shown a friendly disposition to the tithe-owners and to the church; and he therefore said with more confidence, that he did not believe the church was at the bottom of this demand for the preservation of the principle of tithe in a particular case, or would make any objections to the first part of the clause without the last. It was the owners of old hop and garden grounds versus the owners of new, with a view to keeping them out of the market, and thus depriving the public of the advantage they ought to have derived from the removal of the tithe system.
Major Beauclerkobserved, that the only difficulty arose from the want of a proper definition of the words "market-garden." Unless those words were properly defined, thousands of persons would spring up, and by changing the cultivation of their lands effect a fraud on the tithe-owners, by obtaining an exemption from tithes.
The Solicitor Generalsupported the clause as it stood in the Bill. The clause was founded in justice, and would work beneficially to the whole community.
Mr. Struttremarked, that the effect of the amendment of the hon. Member for Middlesex was to abolish this species of tithes altogether. If such was the object of the hon. Member, he begged of him to make the proposition directly, and then it could be fairly met and disposed of, instead of by this side-wind, circuitous, and expensive mode of effecting that object. If the amendment was carried, a man had only to change his mode of cultivating his lands to be exempt from tithes, and to

865
prevent this injustice to tithe-owners he should support the clause as it stood.
Mr. Hume, before the House divided, wished to set himself right in respect to what had fallen from the noble Lord at the head of the Home Department. The noble Lord had stated, that this clause was the mere adoption of the proposition of the deputation which had waited upon him on this subject. He must be allowed to say, that the proposition made by him on behalf of the deputation was, that garden-ground should be placed on the same footing as similar land adjoining it, and that his whole argument had been against the injustice of giving to the clergyman a tithe upon the capital expended and employed. If the clause were his, he would now most readily give it up.
The House divided on the amendment —Ayes 23; Noes 104—Majority 81.
Mr. Warburtonmoved a proviso, to be added to the clause, to the effect that all gardens, not being cottage-gardens, should be deemed and taken to be market-gardens, for all the purposes of this Bill.
Proviso rejected, and clause agree t o.
On the 49th Clause,
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that the principle of the Bill was, that the rent-charge should be estimated with reference to the value received for tithe during the last seven years. Now, it so happened, that in parishes where there was a great extent of common, a large portion of the Vicar's tithes were derived from that common. He received the tithe on the milk of the cows, and on the wool of the sheep which fed on the common. These, then, were tithes paid on cattle belonging to small cottagers. The apportionment clause directed that the total amount of the rentcharge should be apportioned among the lands of each parish. Now, he did not see how it was to be apportioned over the common land, or to whom the tithe-owner would have the right of applying for the payment of his tithe. Was the lord of the manor to be liable? If the tithes were not paid, the owner might proceed to recover them by distress, but that would be levied on the cattle on the common belonging to the cottagers, who might actually have paid their tithe. He trusted that the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Solicitor-General) would consider the point before the third reading.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 53,
Mr. Humesaid, that he considered the proportions of wheat, barley, and oats, for the valuation of the rent- charge ought to be altered; and that the proportions ought to be one-half of wheat, one quarter of barley, and one quarter of oats.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonobserved, that that point had been fully discussed in Committee.
Mr. Goulburnthought that the clause would materially affect the security of the clergyman's income, because it permitted the rent-charge, instead of being laid on, the whole of the land belonging to one estate, to be apportioned on a certain part of the land, provided the value of that part should be equal to double the value of the tithe due for the whole estate. Now, he thought that the clergyman's income would be much less secure, if it were made to proceed from only a part, and not from the whole of the land. If the value of that part of the land should fall, or if the land itself should cease to be cultivated, the incumbent might be reduced to utter destitution.
Sir J. Wrottesleysaid, that such an apportionment as the right hon. Gentleman had alluded to could not take place without the consent of the tithe-owner; and the value of the portion of land on which the rent-charge might be laid must be not merely double, but at the least double of the value of the tithe due on the entire estate.
Lord John Russellsaid, he had no objection, if the right hon. Gentleman wished it, to make it necessary that the value of the particular portion of land on which the rent-charge might be placed should be at least three times more than the value of the tithes due for the entire estate.
Amendment to that effect adopted.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that the alleged grievance in Ireland was, that parties were called on to maintain a Church from which they derived no benefit. Now, let the House consider what might be the operation of the present clause fifty or 100 years hence. He saw nothing in the clause to prevent tithe due on land in one parish from being apportioned on tithe situate within a different parish. Now, if a Dissenter should become possessed of the land thus subject to tithe, he would certainly have a greater grievance to complain of than that which it was alleged the Catholics of Ireland laboured

867
under, for he would have to pay not only for the support of a Church from which he derived no benefit, but he would also be compelled to contribute to the support of the incumbent of a different parish from that in which his property was situate.
Mr. Edward Bullersaid, that the Dissenter might feel cause to complain even when he paid for the maintenance of a clergyman of the Established Church in the parish where his property was situate; but if the property, peculiarly subject to the payment of the rent-charge, fell into the hands of a member of the Church of England, he could have no right to object, although that rent-charge might be paid to the clergyman of a different parish, inasmuch as its purpose was the maintenance of the Church to which he belonged.
Clause agreed to.
After all the clauses had been considered,
Mr. Waltersaid, that in recommending the clauses of which he had given notice to the consideration of the House, he did trust that he should have a friendly audience; for after all that had been said on the sufferings of those who were called the labouring clergy—the inadequacy of their remuneration—the injuries resulting; to religion, and consequently to the country, from pluralities and non-residence, he thought that it would be a great reflection on the character of honourable persons, connected in fact with the Church by the tenure of lay impropriations, if the first measure which had a tendency to diminish those great evils, by an operation or supposed operation upon their interests, were cried down. They could not put much faith in the sincerity of the lamentations which they so frequently heard from laymen—whether belonging to the Established Church or Dissenters—of the destitute state of numerous parishes, and the inadequacy of the revenues to support a resident minister, if the moment when a reasonable method of cure was suggested—and his should be no other than a reasonable one—it were rejected, because it could not effect that which was impossible, namely, apply money to the existing wants, without in fact, taking it from anywhere. He hoped he should be enabled to show, both from law and reason, from whence the money ought to come; and that it would be taken with such moderation, and under such restrictions, and with such a portion of countervailing in-
868
demnification to the individuals who might be affected, that none should have any great cause for complaint. There had been laid on the table of the House three Reports from certain Commissioners appointed to consider the state of the Established Church with reference to ecclesiastical duties and revenues. The Commissioners it was, perhaps, unnecessary to state, were his Majesty's late and present Ministers, joined with certain of the dignitaries of the Church. It was notorious, that very general satisfaction was felt both in that House and throughout the country with the recommendations and general tenour of these reports; for therein they found the members of a Church certainly not overpaid upon the whole—though the funds of the Establishment might be unequally distributed—therein, he said, they found the members of the Church throwing themselves upon their own resources, curtailing their own dignities, and reducing the more opulent members of the body, to raise the poorer and more unfriended. Not to dwell much upon those Reports, he found by the second of them, that the number of prebendal stalls to be abolished was above 360; after which there would barely be a sufficient number of the clergy left to perform the ordinary cathedral duties; and that the sum to be derived hence, and applicable to the improvement of small livings, would not exceed 130,000 l. per annum. But applicable to the improvement of what livings? Not those certainly which were the property and in the patronage of laymen, and of which laymen were now, and were to continue to be, in the receipt of the tithes. This, he said, would be a plunder of the Church, of which there was no similar instance on record; and were the plunder executed, what would be the effect of such a misapplication of funds which ought to be held sacred? Why simply this—that those livings (at least many of them) would be sold at a higher price; they would forthwith be brought into the market with a view to put more money into the pockets of the needy proprietors; and he (Mr. Walter) had already heard of an increased demand being made for the advowson of a small living, on the plea that its revenues would be shortly improved by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. It was obvious, therefore, that even in common honesty the 130,000 l. given up by the Church at one end of the

869
establishment, could only be employed at the other end of it—that is, to relieve those livings which were strictly clerical property, and dependent on the cathedrals whose revenues had been sacrificed for this very purpose. He was aware that in many cases the impropriations had been sold and resold since the original grant by Henry VIII., and it would be asserted on behalf of many of the present possessors, that the full value of them had been given, the stipend of the clerical incumbent being a fixed sum; and this, he had no hesitation in confessing, was the chief difficulty with which he should have to contend. But he denied that this property had ever borne the same value in the market as other freehold property; he asserted that its saleable value had been lower on account of its liabilities. He knew it would be said that the difficulty and expense of the collection of tithe rendered it less valuable. He allowed for all this: he would set apart what sum gentlemen liked for covering these expenses, and he would then take the net residue, and he asserted that this had never ordinarily sold for as many years' purchase as the same sum derived from any other species of freehold property: it was obvious, therefore, that the clerical incumbent had always been considered as having a lien upon it. He was aware also, that what had been conceived as the highest legal authority—that of Bishop Gibson, who had been since copied by Burn and other writers on ecclesiastical law—might appear at first sight to make against that doctrine. That eminent writer said, "that it is a perremptory doctrine delivered throughout the books of common law, that since the dissolution, all impropriations, at least in the hands of laymen, have become mere lay-fees, or inheritances of a mere temporal nature, from whence it is inferred that the ordinary hath no power to make any augmentation of a vicarage out of a rectory which is in the hands of a lay impropriator." Bishop Gibson, however, and the writers who have copied him, could not mean that lay impropriations were, to use the words just cited, under no more liabilities generally than "mete lay fees," or inheritances of a mere temporal nature. Why, in the first instance, they were liable to the repair of the chancel; and it was stated on the high legal authority he had just quoted, that they might be sequestred, and the revenues derived from them consigned, temporarily at least, to other hands, till the repairs were executed. To assert, therefore, that they
870
were mere lay fees, and to infer from thence that they were not more tangible for contingent obligations than other freehold properly, was contrary to the fact. What these liabilities were would be best learned, and might indeed he learned with certainty, from their origin. Henry VIII., on the dissolution of the monasteries, by taking from the religious houses—that is, on their compulsory resignation—what was theirs, took it also, and must have conveyed it to others, with all its liabilities, limitations, and burdens, as well as its privileges; and among those liabilities the adequate support and maintenance of a minister for the performance of divine worship in the parochial churches was, beyond all doubt, one. Wherever a regular minister was instituted, he was entitled to sue for a congrua porlio of the tithes for his support. On these grounds he thought it right, on an occasion like the present, when a general commutation of tithe was about to take place, that the congrua porlio, or adequate part, to the parish priest should be assigned out of all lay impropriations. The reasonableness and justice of such a measure, he himself felt he had demonstrated. Its public utility would be almost past calculation; but it might, in some degree, be estimated by the evils which were felt, and the dissatisfaction on account of those evils, resulting from the non-residence of the clergy, and the consequent necessity of pluralities. Neither did he believe that the impropriators themselves, if they considered the matter justly, would find their rights very injuriously affected by the clauses which he now proposed, but, on the contrary, they would only be the more permanently established and secured by them; for if, while the insufficiency of every other species of benefice to maintain its minister was gradually removed by the measures now in hand, the incumbents of lay impropriations were still suffered to starve or to exist on a pitiful pittance, the people would begin to ask themselves the question why they paid tithes, or whatever else the noble Lord's Bill might substitute for tithes, to these persons, lay impropriators, when whole parishes of which they were the impropriators were allowed to derive no corresponding good from the payment, were deprived, or nearly deprived, of all religious instruction. It was only, therefore, by the just relinquishment of a very small portion, that they could ultimately secure the rest; and by the partial restoration of these impropriations to their legal use, that the residue

871
could be secured to the proprietors. The clauses proposed would of course speak for themselves. He only hoped that it was thoroughly understood that he did not mean in every or in any case to take 300 1. a-year out of the impropriators' receipts, but simply to raise the existing income of the living to that sum wherever the clerical duties were satisfactorily performed. The hon. Member moved the following clauses:
"And whereas, by an Act passed in the 1st and 2nd years of the reign of his present Majesty, entitled "An Act to extend the provisions of an Act passed in the 29th year of the reign of his Majesty King Charles 2nd, entitled ' An Act for confirming' and perpetuating Augmentations made by Ecclesiastical Powers to small Vicarages and Curacies,' and for other purposes, ecclesiastical corporations, and certain other corporate bodies, being owners of rectories impropriate or of any tithes, or portions of tithes, were and are enabled under certain restrictions to annex such rectories, impropriate tithes, or portions of tithes, or any part thereof, to the church or chapel of the parish or place in which the rectory impropriate shall lie, or in which the tithes, or portions of tithes, shall arise:
"And whereas a great number of small vicarages and perpetual curacies, and other benefices, have been augmented by ecclesiastical corporations under the provisions of the said Act, and great benefits have resulted from such augmentations; and it is desirable that further augmentations of a like nature should be encouraged, and with that view it is expedient that such facilities as are hereinafter mentioned of augmenting small vicarages and perpetual curacies, and other benefices, should be given to lay impropriators and others: Be it therefore enacted, that it shall be lawful for any lay person or persons (not coming within the provisions of the said Act of the 1st and 2nd years of his present Majesty) who is, or are, or shall be, the owner or owners of, or who shall have any absolute power of disposition at law and equity over any rectory impropriate, or any tithes, or portion of tithes, arising in any particular parish or place, or any rent-charge for which the tithes shall have been commuted under the provisions of this Act, by a deed duly executed, to annex such rectory impropriate or tithes, or portion of tithes, or rent-charge, or any lands or tithes on rent-charge, being part or parcel of any such rectory impropriate, unto any church or chapel within the parish or place in which the rectory impropriate shall lie, or in which the tithes or portion of tithes, or rent -charge shall arise, to the intent, and in order that the same may be held by the vicar, perpetual curate, or other incumbent for the time being, of such church or chapel; and every such deed shall be effectual to all intents and purposes whatsoever, any law or statute to the
872
contrary notwithstanding. And be it enacted, that, any person or persons otherwise within the provisions of the last preceding section of | this Act, shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be the owner or owners of, or to have the absolute power of disposition over any rectory impropriate, or tithes, or proportion of tithes, or lands, notwithstanding such rectory impropriate, tithes, or portion of tithes or lands, may at the time of the annexation there of be subject to some existing lease or leases; provided that in any case in which any rectory, impropriate tithes, or portion of tithes, or lands shall be annexed to any church or chapel, pursuant to the power in that behalf hereinbefore contained, the annexation thereof shall be subject, and without prejudice to any lease or leases which previously to such annexation may have been made or granted thereof. And in every such case, any rent or rents, which may have been reserved in such lease or leases of the premises so annexed, or (in case any other hereditaments shall have been also comprised in such lease or leases) some proportional part of such rent or rents, such proportioned part to be fixed and determined in and by the instrument by which the annexation shall be made, shall, during the continuance of the said lease or leases, be payable to the vicar, perpetual curate, or other incumbent for the time being of the church or chapel to which the premises shall be annexed as aforesaid. And, accordingly, such vicar, perpetual curate, or other incumbent for the time being, shall, during the continuance of such lease or leases, have all the same power for express payment of the same rent or rents, or of such proportional part thereof as aforesaid, as the person or persons by whom the annexation shall have been made, or any of them might have had in that behalf in case the said premises had not been annexed.
"Provided always, and be it enacted, that in all cases in which any rectory, or tithes, or glebe, or any rent-charge for which tithes shall have been commuted under the provisions of this Act, shall be in the hands of any lay person or persons not coming within the provisions of the said Act of the 1st and 2nd years of his present Majesty, and it shall appear to the Bishop of the diocese in which the same shall he or arise, that the income of the vicar, perpetual curate, or other incumbent of the parish or place, where such rectory, tithes, glebe, or rent-charge, shall he or arise, is not adequate for enabling such vicar, perpetual curate, or other incumbent efficiently to discharge the duty of the church or chapel belonging to such parish or place, it shall be lawful for such Bishop, and he is hereby directed and required, by writing, under his hand and seal, to give notice thereof unto his Majesty's Commissioners appointed to consider the state of the Established Church, with reference to the ecclesiastical duties and revenues, who shall thereupon give to the person or persons who shall be in the possession or receipt of

873
the rents, issues, and profits of such rectory or glebe, or in the receipt of such tithes or rent charge, or who shall otherwise be known, or supposed by such Commissioners to be the owner or owners of, or to have an interest in, such rectory, tithes, glebe, or rent-charge, notice of the inadequacy of the income of such vicar, perpetual curate, or other incumbent, stating summarily in such notice the particulars and extent of the duty which devolves upon such vicar, perpetual curate, or other incumbent, and thereby requiring the person or persons to whom such notice shall be given to augment the income of such vicar, perpetual curate, or other incumbent, by all, or some, or one of the ways or means pointed out in the provisions of this Act: provided always, and be it enacted, that the power of annexation, hereinafter contained, shall not in any case be exercised so as to augment in value any vicarage, perpetual curacy, or other benefices whatsoever, which at the time of the intended exercise of the power shall exceed in the clear annual value the sum of 300/.; and shall not in any case be exercised so as to raise the clear annual value of any vicarage, perpetual curacy, or other benefice, to any greater amount than the sum of 300/. Anil be it enacted, that in every case in which it shall be desired, upon the exercise of the aforesaid power, to ascertain, for the purposes of this Act, the clear annual value of any vicarage, perpetual curacy, or other benefice, it shall be lawful for the Bishop of the diocese within which the same shall be situate, for the information of the said Commissioners, to cause such clear annual value to be determined and ascertained by any two persons whom such Bishops shall appoint for that purpose, by writing, under his hand, which writing is hereby directed to be afterwards annexed to the instrument by which the power shall be exercised. And a certificate of such clear annual value, written or endorsed on the instrument by which the power shall be exercised, and signed by such persons as aforesaid, shall, for all the purposes of this Act, be conclusive evidence of such clear annual value as aforesaid.
" And be it enacted, that in every case where the power of annexation hereby given shall be exercised, the instrument by which the same shall be so exercised shall, within two calendar months after the date of the same, he deposited in the registry of the diocese within the vicarage, perpetual curacy, or other benefice augmented, shall be locally situate. And an office copy of any such instrument deposited in any such registry as aforesaid (such office copy being certified by the registrar or his deputy) shall be allowed as evidence thereof in all courts and places. And every person shall be entitled to require any such office copy, and shall also be allowed at all usual and proper times to search for and inspect any instrument which shall be so deposited. And the registrar shall be entitled to the sum of 5s.
874
and no more, for depositing any such instrument as aforesaid, and to the sum of 1s and no more, for allowing any such search or inspection as aforesaid, and to the sum of 6d. and no more (besides the stamp-duty) for every law folio of seventy-two words in any office copy to be made and to be certified as aforesaid.
" Provided also, and be it enacted, that this Act. so far as regards augmentations of vicarages, perpetual curacies, and other benefices, shall extend only to that part of the United Kingdom called England and Wales."
Lord John Russellsaid, he would oppose the bringing up of the clauses. They did not at all refer to the Bill then before the House. They referred solely to lay impropriations, and he thought that lay impropriate tithes could not be applied to the uses of the Church. Lay impropriate tithes were now objects of mortgage and sale like any other property in the market, and there was no power in the law to compel lay impropriators to contribute to the Church in the way which the hon. Member for Berkshire proposed. He had received a letter on this subject from a lay impropriator who had a nominal income of 500/. a-year, but after paying the clergyman 100/. a-year, he had only 100/. left to himself; but if the proposition of the hon. Member for Berkshire were carried, of paying the acting Minister out of the lay impropriate funds, the impropriator would have to pay the difference out of his own pocket. He (Lord John Russell) objected to the bringing up of the clauses therefore, because they proposed to deal with property which could not be considered as Church property. It was property held and disposed of under circumstances totally different from those which related to property belonging to the Church.
The question that the clauses be brought up was negatived.
The Bill to be read a third time.