[BILL NO. 13.] SECOND READING. (Hansard, 9 July 1862)

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, Sir, early in the Session, the House gave me leave to introduce a Bill with a view to the Commutation of Church Rates. I truest I have proved to the House, by the course which I have adopted with respect to this Bill, that I am guilty neither of the presumption nor of the folly of supposing that I can force upon the House any opinions of my own. I have always felt that this subject is deeply and thoroughly worthy of the consideration of the House, and have always regretted that proposals for its settlement should be left in the hands of independent Members. But, Sir, I think the House will agree with me, that upon this grave question we are not prepared to accept the decision of any Government, however authoritative, without having a full opportunity of expressing our own opinions, and deliberating on any solution which may be proposed. Feeling this, and knowing that many hon. Members opposite have during the long course of the agitation of this question become deeply committed to the Church Rate Abolition Bill, I felt that it would be an utterly useless attempt on my part to ask for a second reading of this Bill until the Bill introduced by the hon. Baronet the Member for Tavistock (Sir John Trelawny), had been discussed and decided upon. I felt that I could not expect hon. Members who had voted for that Bill to consider mine, until that; Bill 99 had been disposed of. Afterwards, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt), desired that the House should consider certain Resolutions. Well, knowing the respect in which that right hon. Gentleman is held by every Member on this side of the House, and indeed by every Member of the House, I felt that it was clearly my duty to postpone the consideration of the Bill now be fore the House, until the Resolutions of my right hon. Friend had been duly considered. I think, therefore, the House must admit that I have suggested this matter for their consideration in no spirit of presumption, but from a sense of duty, and as respectfully as I could, hoping that either in the present Session or in the next the main principles and object of this Bill will meet with a careful consideration. My request is, that the House will refer this Bill to a Select Committee, because so conscious am I of my own inability—so conscious am I that my position in this House cannot give sufficient weight to the details of the scheme—that I propose that the details should be decided by, and have the authority of a Select Committee, whose opinion would have such weight with the House as might remove doubts and reconcile conflicting opinions.
With these few preliminary remarks, let me now ask the attention of the House to the substance of this Bill. It proceeds upon no new principle. If the House will allow me to glance, in passing, for two or three minutes at the history of church rates, I think I shall be able to show them that church rates originated in a charge upon property previously to the Conquest. In Saxon times, no other considerable amount of property existed in the country beyond landed property, or tenements, such as is denominated technically the real property. The congregations then belonging to the Church by custom contributed in one whole sum that which was necessary for the maintenance of the ministry of the Church, for the maintenance of the priest, and for the sustentation of the fabric. Afterwards the right of the priest was differently acknowledged; the provision for the sustentation of the fabric and the services of the Church was separated from the tithe, and was supplied from the rates. But still the sum requisite continued to be levied upon the almost only property that then existed—real property. In the course of ages large masses of other property, the fruit of the industry 100 of the people, were developed. Personal property grew up in all its various phases, and for hundreds of years remained taxable for the purposes of church rate. But, Sir, with some trifling exceptions, stock-in-trade has been exempted from rating. Therefore we come back to this position—that the church rate is practically levied upon the same sort of property as that upon which it was originally imposed—namely, with scarcely an exception, or with an exception not worth consideration, it rests solely upon land, or upon real property. I know that it has been disputed whether this is not a personal tax. But let me put this to the House. If a man comes into this city and lodges in an hotel for the rest of his natural life, he never can be touched by any church rate, or other rate. Well, then, although in theory, the rate is a tax upon the individual, it is so only in respect of his occupancy of some form of real property—land, or tenement, or some description of hereditament. Therefore the church rate, practically, is a charge upon land. Now, Sir, in that fact lies the solution—at least, I believe that I see the solution—of the great difficulties in which this question is involved. Not only has personal property accumulated and has been exempted, but about one-fourth of the population of the country are not members of the Church of England; large numbers claim to be considered and treated as not members of the Church, and I am sorry to say that many feel it a degradation to pay even a penny towards the sustentation of the Established Church. The Legislature of this country, in dealing with this question, has no right to ignore the existence of that wide-spread feeling.
Sir, my proposal is this—at once to declare all personal liability on account of church rates void, and to revert to the arrangement originally made for the maintenance of the fabric and the services of the Church, by declaring that that portion of the gross produce of real property, which never was included in the rent paid to the landlord, shall continue to be reserved for the purpose of maintaining the fabric and the services of the Church free for the worship of all, and also free in this respect, that the Church is willing to acknowledge the difference from her creed and discipline of those who conscientiously object to her organization. I think, when this House considers that it is twenty-eight years since the first serious proposal was made 101 by the Government of Lord Grey for the solution of this question; that the records of Parliament contain nothing upon this subject since that period but the recognition of grievances and the wrecks of abandoned Bills, the record of the impotence of the Legislature to deal with this question—I think they will not consider me impatient or presumptuous, if I am anxious that the Legislature, if I am anxious that the country, should have some definite proposal before them for the remedy of this grievance, and for the amendment of the law. For what is the state of the law at present? It is perfectly contradictory. The original state of the law was this—that persons in respect of the property they held or occupied in each parish should contribute to the maintenance of the Church; and the law gave the churchwardens the right to levy the money, and also imposed upon them the duty of expending it in concurrence with the vestry. It imposed a duty upon the vestry. The function of the vestry was not to consider whether the Established Church should be maintained in decency within the parish for the use of all or not; but the function of the vestry was to ascertain what sum was necessary for that purpose, and to decide in what manner that sum should be applied for the accomplishment of this object. Why, Sir, one-half the irritation which has attended this question has arisen from the decision in the Braintree case, which is totally opposed to the original law on which church rates have been founded. According to the decision in the Braintree case, the majority of the parishioners can decide whether, so far as the legal provision for the sustentation of the fabric and the performance of the services of the Church is concerned, the Church of England shall exist at all within the parish. It has always appeared to me that the decision was a most lamentable one. I can understand the feelings of the Dissenters who are in the minority in a parish, and who consider it a tyranny when this great question—the existence of an Established Church—is left to the decision of their neighbours in vestry, and is decided against them, and at their expense. It is a question beyond the functions or competency of a vestry to decide, and feelings of bitter irritation have sprung up from this. The minority say, the law declares that we have a voice, and by the law we are bound to exercise that voice in accordance with our opinion, when 102 voting practically whether the Established Church shall have a locus standi in the parish of which we are inhabitants or not. The sincerity of these convictions compels them to continue the struggle. They would be held recreant if they did not oppose the church rate in the vestry, since the decision of that matter in the vestry has been made to comprehend a question, on which they have a peculiar opinion, a question on which the vestry is not, I submit, at all fitted or competent to decide. It is in order to remove this, which I believe to be the chief cause of the dispute and bitterness on the subject of church rate, that I ask the House to consider the principle of this Bill. Can it be said that the present state of the law is satisfactory? I think no hon. Member will deny that it exists in the condition I have described. Why, Sir, eight-and-twenty years ago the present Lord Derby, then Mr. Stanley, Chief Secretary for Ireland under Lord Grey's Government, and one of the most eloquent Members of this House, thus spoke on the then existing state of things. He was, in 1834, supporting the proposal of Lord Althorp, for the settlement of this question, and he then said— He was perfectly ready to admit such maintenance of an Established Church ought to be conducted upon principles and in a manner the least irritating and offensive to other parties, both as respected the amount and the mode of collection. He was equally ready to acknowledge that church rates, as they stood, formed to the Dissenters a serious and substantial grievance. To afford them real relief from that grievance was the object which His Majesty's Government had in view, but his hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Sir Robert Inglis) objected to the proposed measure as endangering the security of the Established Church. Now, so far was he from participating in the fears of his hon. Friend respecting the security of the Established Church, it was his full persuasion that no step could be taken better calculated to fortify its true interests than the proposed measure of his noble Friend. His hon. Friend appeared quite to mistake the temper of the times when he supposed that the people of England were not decidedly adverse to church rates in their present form. His hon. Friend had said (and he appeared to attach considerable importance to the statement) that it was only in fifty or sixty parishes that anything like successful opposition had been offered to the levying of church rates." [3 Hansard, xxii., 1035.] And I beg the attention of the House to what follows:— But his hon. Friend had not stated in how many instances opposition had been put down for a time in order to be renewed at a future opportunity, should no proposition be brought forward by the Executive, and submitted to Parliament 103 for the relief of Dissenters and all parties upon whom that burden might unjustly press. His hon. Friend forgot to tell them how many hundred parishes there were waiting to follow the example of those which had successfully resisted, should the decision of the Legislature give them no hope of relief. [3 Hansard, xxii., 1035.] That was the opinion of Mr. Stanley in 1834, and I appeal to the experience of the House whether the foresight evinced in that declaration has not been justified by the constantly-renewed disturbance of this question ever since that period. Mr. Stanley afterwards said— But though he addressed those arguments to his hon. Friend, he was by no means prepared to go the length of agreeing with the hon. Member for Boston in not only relieving the Dissenters, but in abolishing church rates totally. He was not prepared to leave the Church without the means of defraying those expenses hitherto supplied by the rates." [3 Hansard, xxii., 1036.] The Bill which I have submitted to the House is, to the best of my poor ability after years of consideration, intended to effect the objects indicated by Mr. Stanley in the year 1834. And is the opinion of the Earl of Derby of this day different from that of Mr. Stanley of 1834? Why, Sir, I find in the Report of the Committee on Church Rates, appointed three years since by the House of Lords, the following Resolution was proposed by Lord Derby and adopted by the Committee:— That the principle of assessing the owner instead of the occupier to the church rate is well deserving the serious consideration of Parliament in any future legislation on the subject. Thus we have the authority of the concluding Resolution of the Committee of the House of Lords, that the object proposed by the Bill, which I have had the honour of laying before the House, "is well deserving the serious consideration" of the Legislature. Now, Sir, perhaps it may be doubted, whether the fact, which I have stated is true—namely, that church rate is practically a charge upon real property; in other words, that the church rate rests upon a portion of the gross value of real property reserved for the purposes of church rate to the use of the parishioners, and represents the right of the parishioners to that portion of the gross value of the land, which is beyond the rent and never included in it. Now, it may be said, if this were true, it must have appeared in the early debates upon this question. And so it did appear: for in the discussion of 1834 I find not only a statement of this fact, but the admission of this fact from both sides of the House; and it was the 104 potency and cogency of this fact which defeated the Bill proposed by Lord Grey's Government, I will quote high authorities upon both sides of the House in proof of this assertion. At that time Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey was a very eminent Member of this House; and so was the late Sir Robert Inglis, whom many of us remember, and all who do so, regret What did Sir Robert Inglis, the Member for the University of Oxford, say?— It was precisely and strictly as an element of charge upon his property, as he had bought it, that a Dissenter, as well as every other man, was called upon to pay his proportion of church rates. If the amount had been raised by a poll tax, then the Dissenters might have complained of being included in its operation; but he could not understand how any person, upon the principles of honesty as between man and man, he having purchased a house or land with certain liabilities, calculated in its value, could come forward and claim to be relieved from those liabilities upon the ground of holding certain opinions upon points on which he had, perhaps, changed his mind since the period of making his purchase. He thought those remarks disposed of the question of right and justice. He contended that the church rate was a tax upon property, not upon individuals, and that the Dissenters acquired their property liable to the payment.…The church rate amounted to about three pence in the pound upon the whole landed rental of the kingdom; and he would ask any one whether Dissenters could be supposed to pay more than one-fourth of a farthing on the pound upon the rental?" [3 Hansard, xxii., 1026, 1027.] That was the opinion of Sir Robert Inglis. I will now ask the House to consider the opinion of a very different man—Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey—an eminent representative of the Dissenting interest. What were the objections he took to Lord Althorp's plan—that plan being to take £250,000 a year from the land tax, and to apply it, under the authority of the Ecclesiastical Commission, in addition to £50,000, taken from church property, with certain other funds, to the purposes of church rates, thenceforth to be abolished, as regarded the maintenance of the fabric, What was Mr. Harvey's objection to the plan? He said— But to come more directly to the plan of the noble Lord (Lord Althorp). Stripped of all details, what is it? It is a proposition, if not directly to tax the people to the extent of £250,000 a year, at least to take away from the available resources of the country a sum of money to that amount. …. The noble Lord, in his statement of his budget, said that he had reserved a surplus of £500,000, wherewith to meet probable contingencies; but now he takes away from this sum £250,000, to be deducted from the land tax—a tax, be it remembered, which constitutes a 105 part of the ways and means of the country as certainly as any other item. … … Let me ask, if you were to extinguish tithe to-morrow, and substitute for it a payment of £5,000,000 annually out of the Consolidated Fund, would not this be a clear and direct dealing with the finances of the country? By either or both of these measures, you will relieve property at the expense of the people, and thus be doing that which, on former occasions, I have ventured to say we show too ready a disposition to do—namely, relieve ourselves at the expense of others. It was well said by the hon. Member for the University of Oxford, that the church rate was not less a charge upon property than tithe. This is no fallacy. The church rate affects property in the same manner as any other charge. The other day I was called upon to pay £14 for my house in Great George Street, for the repair and maintenance of a neighbouring church. Now, if I were to sell my house, would not the purchaser inquire after the church rates as well as the parish rates, the sewer rates, and all other charges affecting property; and having taken them into consideration, would not the amount of them influence the price?" [3 Hansard, xxii., 1042, 1045.] The late Mr. Hume had said— The noble Lord had told them that the reason (of the opposition to church rates) was because the Dissenters objected, on principle, to pay for the support of the Established Church. But had the noble Lord by his plan altered that state of things? No; the noble Lord had merely changed the manner in which the payment was to be made. It was merely paying the money out of one pocket instead of out of the other." [3 Hansard, xxii., 1020.] But that statement was totally overruled by Mr. Harvey and Sir H. Inglis; for they both said that the plan of the Government could not be admitted, because it was equivalent to taking £250,000 out of the general taxation of the country and putting it into the pockets of the owners of real property. Sir, I think I have shown the House that when I ventured boldly to assert that church rate is a charge upon real property, I did not make the statement upon light grounds.
While looking at the debate of 1834, let the House consider the circumstances of Parliament at the time. It was two years after the passing of the Reform Bill. That has been called a revolution. Certainly the feeling of the population was such, that it brought every Member of this House to consider first principles, and to commune closely with his neighbours and constituents. There was a freedom of thought produced, and a freedom of inquiry induced by the circumstances of the time, which tested the nature of each grievance; and although the remedy at first proposed might not have been suitable, still the perception of the evil was more distinct and the indications of the 106 future remedy more apparent than they have been in any subsequent discussion, which has taken place since that time. For, take the facts as they stand. When a grievance exists, an agitation springs up, and nothing can prevent persons from availing themselves of the popular movement in the sense of making some little political capital for themselves; organization springs up whether for the maintenance of some established institution, or for its abolition, and parties become interested in the continuance of the agitation; and thus the consideration of the original grievance becomes clouded by the interposition of personal objects and personal considerations, and matters are introduced totally alien to the functions of those, whose duty it is by legislation to provide for the removal of every real and well-proved grievance which may press upon any portion of the people. Have we, Sir, since 1834 been without authoritative declarations on this subject? In 1843 the Poor Law Commissioners, in their Report, state distinctly that rates in their average amount are a charge upon real property; and they state that it is the non-recognition of this fact that has led to one-half the difficulties in the assessment for the rating and the disposal of the rates. The late Sir Robert Peel, whose sense of the present condition of church rates was so keen, that together with the whole tory party he voted for the introduction of the Bill proposed in 1834, by Lord Grey's Government, subsequently declared church rates to be a charge upon real property. I think, Sir, I need not cite further authorities. Nothing can be more clear than the demonstration given in the evidence of Mr. Coode, the real author of the Irish Poor Law, that rates, in their average amount, are a charge upon real property. And this House has recognised the fact, for on the assessment under the Irish Poor Law, one-half the burden is imposed directly upon the land. That being a case where no poor rate existed previously—for formerly there was not in Ireland, as there has always been in England, a portion of the gross value of the property reserved for maintenance of the poor.
Sir, I will not trouble the House with any further documents, but will, with the permission of the House, proceed to consider the changes which it is quite obvious are necessary in the law of church rates. I desire that a substitute for church rates should be recognised and reserved 107 to the use of the parishioners for the maintenance of their church. I admit, that when an intended occupant proposes to take either land or a house, the deduction which he makes is based upon an average, and that therefore, if at any period a new rate is imposed, or an old rate is suddenly increased in amount, the amount of the new rate, or the increase of the old rate, defeats the calculation, and imposes a charge upon the occupant personally. Well, Sir, that is a consideration which induces economy in every vestry and in every Board of Poor Law guardians, because the occupant, if he sanctions an expenditure above the average amount of the rate, for which he has made a deduction from the rent, will have to pay the excess himself. In considering the propriety of establishing a charge directly upon real property, it is obvious that it would be most unjust to allow occupants, who would cease to pay one penny of it under any circumstances, to assess the amount. They would have no economical interest; and therefore, seeing that the amount of the gross value of real property, which I wish to preserve to the use of the parishioners for the purposes of church rates, has been calculated at an average by every occupier, I would take an average. And what overage ought I to take? I tried to take an average of the church rates of each parish during a certain period. But I found that would be a most difficult test, because in a parish where there is a new church, very likely there may not have been a church rate including any considerable amount for repairs for twenty years. I could not take that as a test; nor could I take an average except by some estimate (always uncertain) in the case of a parish where the church has been dilapidated and has recently been restored, and may have caused a large expenditure. That would tend to raise the average in a most unfair manner. What I propose, therefore, to take is the average amount of church rates upon the property liable to church rates in England and Wales, during a period of twenty years. I have made the calculation, but I am sure the House will not desire me at present to go into the figures. I will therefore merely state that the average amount of church rates is twopence in the pound; and twopence in the pound I would reserve out of the value of real property liable to church rates to the use of the parishioners for the purposes of church rate. These are some 108 of the considerations upon which I have based my plan. It has been admitted in the Resolutions submitted to the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, that the action of the Ecclesiastical Courts is either so lax or so expensive that it stands condemned. Besides, according to the evidence of Dr. Lushington, the assessments for church rates will not bear investigation, and that learned and respectable judge recommends, in his evidence before the Committee of the House of Lords, the removal of all trials relating to church rates from the Ecclesiastical Courts. Mr. Foster, the chairman of the Liberation Society, showed the inconvenience and irritating nature of the law under the present system of assessment and trial; and Mr. Gladding, an Independent, recommends the recovery of church rates before the justices, and the abolition of the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts.
Perhaps the House will now allow me to recapitulate the principal objects of the Bill. The first principle of the Bill is to abolish all personal liability in respect of church rate. That is the largest advance, the widest concession, that has been proposed on the part of churchmen, in order to meet the objections that have been raised, with a view to the settlement of this question. The second object is to acknowledge the right of the parishioners to the portion of the gross value of real property in each parish, which, being beyond the rent paid to the landlord, has always been reserved for church rate. The third object is to exempt from the charge on real property, thus reserved to the use of parishioners elsewhere, all parishes in which no church rate has been levied for (say) seven years. The fourth object is to give to two-thirds of the inhabitants of such parishes power to claim, that this exemption shall be cancelled and cease. The fifth is to provide for the eventual commutation of the charge thus substituted for church rate, into an endowment for each parish, the proceeds of which shall be applicable to purposes of church rate; on the creation of which endowment the charge substituted for church rate shall cease. Now, Sir, if the House consents that these principles of this Bill shall be submitted to a Select Committee, they will consider these proposals in detail, and make such recommendations to the House as may appear in their judgment to be most desirable. I may be told that in this 109 case legislation will be impossible until next year. I admit that it would be impossible. But what I respectfully ask the House to do is this, to prove that it is ready to deal practically with the grievance, and yet so to deal with it as not to despoil the parishioners, throughout England and Wales, of their right to a property which they have always possessed. That, Sir, is what I ask the House to do. I will not enter into the question of the machinery of the Bill, I know that it is imperfect. Some clauses have been suggested to me which are essential: these may be considered in the Committee, But I do ask this House to prove, by considering this practical scheme, by testing whether it deserves the recommendation and the authority of a Select Committee, that the House will not allow another year to pass without a practical attempt to deal with this long-experienced grievance. In recognising the fact that the church rate is a charge upon property, there are two objects which must not be lost sight of. The first is to preserve the functions of the vestries for the disposal of the means reserved to the parishioners for the purposes of church rate, but without investing them with an uncontrolled and irresponsible power of taxing the landlords. The second is, not to place the landlords in possession of the churches, while preventing their pocketing that portion of the value of real property which never belonged to them. To allow a single landlord, where there may be but one in a parish, to take possession of the parish church, when he may be non-resident or not a member of the Church of England, would be absurd; to allow him to manage it according to his own fancy, if resident, would be unsafe. What can be safely done is, having secured to the parishioners their ancient right in the value of property, to fix the amount in accordance, as nearly as may be, with the average amount it has represented, and then to leave to the vestries their original, legitimate, and appropriate functions—namely, the disposal of the fund thus re-established for the purposes of church rate for the benefit of the parishioners generally.
I feel, Sir, that I have trespassed too long on the attention of the House. My scheme is based on this understanding—that speaking of the great majority of this House, I believe few Members wish to disturb the Established Church. I believe they are but few who wish to break down 110 the great Christian organization which has been handed down to us, I may say, from apostolic times; I believe that hon. Members generally respect the Church of England as the purest branch of the Church Catholic. It is in accordance with the long-established organization of the Catholic Church, that the provision for the services and for the maintenance of the fabric in which the congregations worship should not be left to chance—should not be left to the various and varying circumstances, inclinations, or conveniences of a small local population, as these may chance from time to time, but that a national provision should be preserved, not for the rich, but for the benefit of the poor. The Legislature of this country, as of all civilized States, has recognised the great fact, of which the whole history of mankind proves the existence, that religion is a necessity of man. There scarcely is an instance of a people so barbarous, so idiotic, as not to have recognised this craving for religion. That craving is the primary evidence of the immortality of the soul. It is a recognition of a future state, which is inherent in man's nature; it is not of earth, earthy, but proves the composite nature of man as an immortal being. Sir, the Legislature of this country will never, I trust, be tempted to ignore the fact, that religion is a necessity of man; and if it is so, shall we in this wealthy country consider it prudent or politic, to leave the poorer classes, the great producers of its wealth, witnesses of our luxury, but so far as this great necessity is concerned, themselves unprovided, destitute of spiritual provision? Look to the history of this country, and you will find that the Church, whether in its primitive form before the Norman Conquest, whether in its Papal form during the Mediaeval period, whether in its present form since the Reformation, has ever been the prime element for securing the freedom and happiness of the community. Sir, it is with the view to reestablishing some secure provision for the maintenance of the fabrics and services of the Church, and at the same time to removing the present liability, which has for so many years been considered a grievance, that I ask the House and the Government to allow this Bill to be read a second time, hoping that the House will have the goodness to appoint a Select Committee to decide upon the machinery and the details by which these objects may be eventually carried into effect by law, after a due con- 111 sideration of all the circumstances of the case.

§ MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEY
said, that he conceived that there were errors in the measure of such a fatal character that it became the duty of the House to reject the Motion for the second reading. He doubted very much whether half the inhabitants of the country were not exempted from the payment of church rates, and must say that in his opinion it was not a sound mode of legislation to continue, as was proposed, the tax on one portion of property and one class of persons to the exclusion of others. The machinery, he might add, which was provided to carry the Bill into effect, appeared to him to be highly objectionable, and for those reasons he should move that it be read a second time that day three months.

MR. HEYGATE
begged to express a hope that his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) would, in the interest of the cause which he advocated, withdraw his Bill with the view of moving for a Select Committee early next Session to consider the principle which it involved.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, the Bill made an important change in the law with regard to church rates. The Bill recognised parishes in which there had been no church rate for seven years, and provided that those parishes should be exempt from the rate. He thought, that if anything were done short of abolishing church rates altogether, it was essential to recognise by law the exemption from church rates of parishes where practically there had been no church rate for a long period Then the Bill went on to provide that in other parishes, in place of church rates there should be a perpetual fixed charge of 2d. in the pound. He was not going to discuss these proposed changes, but he mentioned them to show the importance of them. He trusted that the hon. Member would consent to let the Bill stand over until next Session. It was quite impos- 112 sible during the short time remaining of the present Session that a Select Committee could take these matters into consideration.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
begged to thank the House for the attention with which they had listened to his statement, and hoped that they would allow him to reprint his Bill, with such Amendments as would render it more in accordance with the suggestions of hon. Members for whose opinions he entertained the highest respect. He should, therefore, ask leave to withdraw the Bill for the present, with a view of having it presented in an amended form in the next Session of Parliament.