[BILL 82]. SECOND READING. (Hansard, 11 May 1863)

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
, in moving the second reading, said, that as he intended to accede to a Motion on the paper for referring the Bill to a Select Committee, he would not trouble the House with many observations on the present occasion. The Bill aimed at the entire repeal of nineteen Acts of Parliament, and the partial repeal of seven more. Its object was to consolidate and reduce into a coherent and consistent system the material provisions of those Acts. Of course, some Amendment and alteration had been necessary; but the Bill was essentially one for the consolidation of the existing law, with only such modification as was requisite for producing harmony and consistency. The Bill had been prepared for him by a gentleman who perhaps had as much knowledge as any one living on the subject—namely, Mr. Stevens; and in revising it, it had been his desire to avoid any innovation, one way or another, with reference to the important and much disputed question of church rates. Accordingly, all the clauses in the present Church Building Acts which could be said to contain any positive or affirmative legislation on the subject were proposed to be left exactly as they stood in the old Acts. The Bill also steered clear of some questions connected with the working of portions of the acts consolidated, which had led to recent litigation in the courts of law, and as to the effect of which different opinions might be entertained. It would not have been proper, in preparing the Bill, to seek to alter the law; but it would he competent in the Select Committee, or afterwards for any hon. Member, to make any proposal that he might deem expedient.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, the hon. and learned Gentleman had exercised a wise discretion in resolving to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. So far from opposing the second reading, he thought every friend of the Church and of common sense was indebted to the hon. and learned Gentleman for preparing that elaborate Bill for the consideration of the House. He had some observations to make upon certain clauses, especially those relating to the subject of pew rents, but would reserve them till a future occasion.

MR. REMINGTON MILLS
said, he had to complain of the omission from the Bill 1574 of the 18th clause in Sir Robert Peel's Act, which contained a provision against the levying of church rates for the support of district churches. It was understood when the Acts authorizing the constitution of new districts were passed that no church rates were to be levied for the support of the churches to be erected under them. Doubts had lately been expressed by Dr. Lushington, the Dean of the Arches, whether, as the law stood, such rates might not be imposed; and it was therefore most important that no provision should be omitted from the Bill which would carry out the understanding upon which the House had acted in legislating for the constitution of these new districts.

§ MR. HADFIELD
said, he could bear witness to the existence of the understanding to which his hon. Friend had referred. Unless he received an assurance that a provision would be inserted in the Bill to carry out that understanding, he should move an instruction to the Committee upon the subject.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, that it was no doubt understood that church rates should not be leviable for the support of these district churches. The question was one for the Select Committee, and no instruction would be necessary.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
, in moving that it should be referred to a Select Committee, explained that the insertion of the clause from Sir Robert Peel's Act would not have met the views of the hon. Member for Wycombe, because it was upon the words of that clause that the doubts of the learned Judge referred to had arisen.

§ MR. F. S. POWELL
said, he was glad that the hon. and learned Solicitor General had acceded to the wish of several hon. Members to send the matter before a Select Committee, which was the only competent tribunal to deal with it; but he hoped that the question of church rates and pew rents would not be discussed by the Committee.

§ MR. HENRY SEYMOUR
said, he had hoped to have seen a complete consolidation of the Church Building Acts during the Session, but at the same time he thanked the Government for having directed their attention to the subject, and expressed a hope that the labours of the Select Committee would not be thrown away.

§ SIR FRANCIS CROSSLEY
said, it was not satisfactory that after a pledge had been given in 1856 that the districts 1575 which had been referred to should not be liable for church rates, that question should be referred to a Committee.