HC Deb 27 April 1864 vol 174 cc1700-27

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

MR. HADFIELD

begged to call the attention of the House to a violation of its Standing Orders by the manner in which this Bill had been introduced and was now proceeded with. By those Girders no Bill imposing any charge upon the people could be introduced until the House, in a Committee of the Whole House, had passed a Resolution, on which the Bill, imposing the tax was founded. That was a very salutary regulation and was designed for the protection of Her Majesty's subjects: but in the case of this Bill it had not been observed. The Bill was introduced on the 9th of February—or rather at one o'clock on the morning of the 10th—without the preliminary formality of a Committee of the Whole House: and from the Reports of the proceedings in the ordinary channels, there did not appear to have been any observations made, and, therefore, it came upon the House by surprise. The clauses of the Bill were remarkably extensive. They affected all owners of real property in England, and he was not sure whether they would not extend to Ireland. These clauses provided that church rates in respect of occupation should cease, and that all real property should be subject to an annual charge of 2d in the pound. The income arising from the change would, he understood, amount to £934,022 per annum, which at thirty years purchase would represent a capital sum, which the hon. Member for Warwickshire had sought to raise, of £28,020,660. The 15th clause of the Bill proposed that the charge, which now fell upon occupiers, should be transferred to the owners of real property, who would thus be subjected to a new impost. It had been ruled in reference to the Irish Church Temporalities Bill, which affected benefices in Ireland, that the Bill should have been founded on a Resolution, and the Bill was ordered to be withdrawn accordingly. As the Bill had been introduced without the proper formalities, he submitted that the Order for the Second Reading should be discharged, and that the Bill should be withdrawn.

MR. SPEAKER

The rule of the House is this — that Bills which directly impose-a State charge upon the people must originate in a Committee of the Whole House But the rule has been held not to apply to Bills authorizing the levy of rates or charges for local purposes by local authorities. The question is under which head should this Bill for the commutation of church rates be classed. In my opinion it would be most in accordance with the spirit of the general rule of the House, and with the course of precedents, that it should be placed in the second class. The hon. Member urges that by the 15th clause a new tax is imposed on the owners of property to which they have not been: hitherto liable. But so in the Tithe Commutation Act, the 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 71, the tithe payable by the occupier was made a charge upon the land. The Bill was brought in without having been first considered in a Committee. Then came the Metropolis Police Act, the 10 Geo. IV c. 44, which shows that a Bill enacting that local rates are to be imposed by local authority does not require a preliminary Committee. That Act empowered over seers in every parish within the metropolitan district to levy a police rate not to exceed 8d in the pound, and it was brought in without a Committee. In 1839, the Prisons (Scotland) Bill provided for the erection of a general prison, the cost of which was to be defrayed by the several counties according to the number of prisoners, and the amount was to be levied by assessment. That Bill was brought in without a preliminary Committee. In my opinion there has been nothing irregular in the introduction of the present Bill, and I think the House may properly proceed to consider it on it,-merits.

MR. NEWDEGATE*

Mr. Speaker—Before proceeding to move the second reading of this Bill, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words with regard to the point of order which has been raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield. I beg; to state, that I have acted entirely in deference to your authority, Sir, in reference to the mode in which the Bill has been introduced. For two successive Sessions I have sought and obtained the advice which you are ever ready to offer to every Member of the House. For two successive Sessions you informed me, that I ought not to move for a Committee of the whole House, in order to introduce this Bill, because my doing so would give the Bill a character which would be inconsistent with its purport, since it does not impose a general charge or tax. The hon. Member for Sheffield will, I trust, allow me to assure him that, so far from having avoided giving due notice of the introduction of this Bill, I last Session gave notice of my intention to re-introduce it this Session; that I repeated that notice in the present Session, and that it was only the accident of my being called on to move the first leading late at night, that I was prevented from stating the objects of the Bill to the House at that time, and was compelled to defer doing so until the second reading. With respect to the amount of property affected and the amount of charge to be created, which has been adverted to by the hon. Member for Sheffield in enforcing his objections on the point of order, I will only say at present, that the amount of the charge actually imposed will not he much more than one-third of the sum which he has stated. Having made these observations, I will mm move the second reading of the Bill. I postponed this Motion from the day for which it was first appointed, because I found that on that day His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales was to hold a Levee for the first time on behalf of Her Majesty. I have given notice of Amendments, which propose that the period should be extended for one year; and, if the Bill goes into Committee, I shall propose to amend it in this respect, as also in the amount of purchase-money for commutation of the charge to be substituted for church rates, which should be calculated at twenty-seven years instead of thirty years' purchase. I expected to have seen a notice of these Amendments mi the paper this morning; but I conclude that those who have charge of the printing of the House thought that the printing of these Amendments should be postponed until a subsequent stage. I wish now to state the reasons for my having retained this Bill very much in the form in which I introduced it last Session, notwithstanding the decision of the House, that the Bill would not then be proceeded with. My reason is, that for several years I proceeded by Resolution, and I found that throughout the country and in this House the impression widely prevailed, that these Resolutions were merely a form of opposition to the Church Rate Abolition Bill, and that they did not contain the germs of practical legislation; I was also told that the scheme of commutation which they suggested was totally unworkable. Now I should have been very glad had some hon. Member, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wiltshire, introduced this Bill, for it is consistent with the views which the right hon. Gentleman has expressed; it is also in accordance with the Bill which was introduced on behalf of the Government of Lord Derby, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge; but it differs from that Bill in this respect—that Bill contemplated not only the commutation of church rates in the manner which the Bill before the House suggests, but it also contemplated a system of exemptions to be claimed by individuals, which seemed to me inconsistent with the general principle of the measure, and to which the objections are so grave, that they have been held to be fatal by both sides of the House. I hope the House will not think me presumptuous, because I persevere with this measure. I do not think it would have been respectful to the House had I laid upon the table a curt proposal, stating the bare object without proof, that I have sought from others more competent than myself, the means of giving effect to that proposal by law in a manner consistent with the local organization of parishes and of counties, consistent with the practice which prevails in the collection of the poor and county rates, and consistent with the character of the Church of England, but avoiding the interference of the Ecclesiastical authorities in the collection of the charge which I would substitute for church rate — an interference which has been condemned by Dr. Lushington and by all the authorities, whose experience is the most extensive on this subject, and condemned also by the Committee of the House of Lords which sat upon the question of church rates in the year 1861.

Sir, I wish the House to understand that I am not presumptuous enough to hope that it will accept this Bill unaltered at my hands, or without examination. The Bill is not of my framing. It has been framed by far abler men than myself; but my object now is to ask the House to allow the Bill to be read a second time, in order that it may be referred to a Select Committee. Thus far my proposal is in the sense of the hon. Member for Sheffield. My desire is that a Committee should examine the provisions of the Bill, for the purpose of ascertaining how far they are, as they stand, in accordance with the purposes and the wishes of the House, and for deciding which of these provisions should be retained and which of them should be rejected. If the House should be of opinion, as was expressed in the debate of last Session, that the machinery of the Bill is cumbrous and intricate, the measure is so framed as to admit of ready curl ailment or alteration; not that I believe that a Select Committee of this House would have much difficulty in dissecting the most intricate composition that over assumed the form of a Bill; but this Bill has been so drawn that, if any of its proposals with reference to the creation of the Depository which the Bill would form in the bands of the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, for the safe keeping of the charge or of the surplus arising from the charge which the measure would create, were unnecessary. If the Committee were of opinion that the appeal to the Lords Justices proposed by the Bill would be superfluous, such provisions might be expunged without interfering with the principle of the Bill; that principle being, that whereas church rate has been for centuries a charge upon the occupiers of land and of real property in respect of their occupancy, a charge which is anterior to rent, which appropriates a portion of the gross proceeds of property, to this the inhabitants of every parish are entitled, as absolutely, if not more absolutely than the owner of the property is entitled to his rent. That the parishioners have been entitled from Saxon times to this portion of the gross value for the purpose of maintaining the fabric and services of their Church, is a fact attested by the highest authority. The Bill proposes, that this fact should be acknowledged, and that the law, so far as the average of the church rate, that is 2d. in the pound of the annual value, should declare that amount to be a charge directly binding upon property, and that the occupiers of such property should have the power of deducting this amount from their rent, a power similar to that which they possess, and for twenty years have exercised, under the provisions of the Income and Property Tax Acts. Thus the object of the Bill is to secure the right of the inhabitants to that portion of the gross value of property to which they have ever been entitled for the purposes of church rate: I say "ever," for their right extends beyond legal memory. The object of the Bill is to secure to them this right and this property, and at the same time to relieve the whole community, to relieve all the Nonconformists, to relieve the whole occupying class from that personal liability which has given rise to the objections against church rates, that have created so much division in this country now for more than thirty years, [Mr. HADFIELD: Hear, hear!] Let me appeal to the hon. Member for Sheffield. My object, I repeat, is to meet the conscientious scruples, to meet the legitimate objections, which are raised by the Nonconformist body against their being expected to contribute personally one penny towards the maintenance of the Established Church. Sir, the process which I propose is the same as has been adopted with respect to tithes in England and in Ireland; the consequence of the change in the case of tithes being that, whereas the collection of tithes used to be the occasion of disgraceful scenes in many parts of either country, of religious feuds and political differences, the provision for the maintenance of the clergy is now collected from the owners of real property without a murmur and with the deepest satisfaction. And I ask the House is it not, after thirty years of strife, an object worthy of their consideration, whether by sending this Bill to a Select Committee provisions may not be framed, which may afford the same elements of peace between fellow Christians and Protestants in the case of this matter of church rates, as in the case of tithes, in the respect of the collection of which a happy peace has been secured that has existed now for more than thirty years? That, Sir, is the object of this Bill. I know that there are opponents to it. In the first place I am opposed by the ultra advocates of extreme nonconformity. But why? Because if this Bill were to pass into a law, they would be deprived of all fair excuse for enlisting other Protestant Dissenters in whole sale attacks upon the Church of England; attacks which, but for this pressure, large bodies of Nonconformists to the discipline of the Church of Eng- land would never engage in. But I am opposed also in another quarter. I am opposed by the extreme high Churchman, who is unwilling that the Church should relax one tittle of that dominant right, which she possesses as he thinks, of taxing through church rate, personally and individually, every inhabitant of this country for the maintenance of the fabric of the Church. Sir, I am opposed to the extreme spirit of Nonconformity, which, after having troubled Queen Elizabeth during her reign, the period of the accomplishment of the Reformation, was equally unruly under James I., and struggled under Cromwell in the Long Parliament, which it drove into excesses. That spirit of Nonconformity I cannot hope to reconcile. I am opposed also to those who would, as Churchmen, ignore the fact that one-fourth of the population at least no longer accepts the doctrines and; the discipline of the Church of England; who would ignore the fact that in this very diocese, us has been stated by the Bishop of London but the other day, that there are a million of people, certainly more than 900,000, for whom, neither by the Church, nor by Nonconformity, nor by Roman Catholicism, has any spiritual provision whatever been made; nearly a million of persons for whom there is no pastoral care; for whom there is no space in any places of worship within reasonable distance from their residences. And I would say to my brother Churchmen, do not hold out or cling to the vain hope that the Church will over again be able to inflict such an injustice as that of levying church rates upon that million of people so long as her ministrations are inaccessible to them, that is, until spiritual necessities have been supplied; for to attempt this would be contrary to the very essence and principle of the law of church rate from the beginning; because church; rate ever was a local charge, which entitled the ratepayer to a direct return in the means of divine worship, in spiritual advice, and in church accommodation. As one of the representatives of Birmingham, I am in a position to assure the House, that it was from the total deficiency of church accommodation within that town, that the sense of injustice sprang up in former years which led to those contests against church rates, which: have ultimately extended so far as to have exempted the property in many large towns for several years past from all contributions for the purposes of church rate. The intention of the law was that the owners of property should provide church accommodation, and that then the inhabitants should aid them by church rates in maintaining that accommodation; but the fact that large populations are left without church accommodation condemns the application of the law of church rate in localities where such a sad deficiency of church accommodation and of spiritual ministration exists, as is the case in the diocese of which the great metropolis forms a part, according to the showing of the respected bishop of this diocese. Then, if there is this sad deficiency of spiritual provision, if there is this amount of spiritual destitution, if there are nearly a million of people within the diocese for whom no accommodation in church or chapel is provided, for whom no spiritual provision is made either by the National Church or by the Nonconformists; if it is true that the estimate which has been submitted to the Bishop of London is correct, that no less than £6,000,000 would be required to supply the deficiency in this one diocese alone, I do appeal to the representatives of the Nonconformists in this House—I appeal to the hon. Members who are particularly attached to the Church of England in this House, whether the House has not done wisely in refusing to deprive the parishioners of this country generally of the amount of church rates which remain; since it is a known fact that if the cost of the maintenance of the churches throughout England and of their services, hitherto provided by church rates, were to be cast upon voluntary contributions, the sum so required and obtained will be deducted from the fund to which the Bishop of London and other Bishops look, in order to provide a remedy for this enormous amount of spiritual destitution, an evil that I must say has with truth been lately represented at Rome by one who has left the Church of England to become a Roman priest, as a disgrace to this Christian and highly civilised country. Sir, I cannot believe that the House will be induced to withdraw from the parishioners of this country this right to this portion of the real value of its property. I am confident that Parliament would not yield, that the House of Commons would not be induced to do so great an injustice, to be guilty of so gross an act of impolicy—an injustice, remember, not to the clergy, but to the inhabit- ants of every parish in England. For church rate is a lay property. It belongs to the laity; it does not belong to the clergy. The whole organization by which it is administered proves that fact; for church rate cannot be collected or expended unless by the direct authority and sanction of the laity, convened in vestry through their representatives the churchwardens. It is a property belonging to the laity of the Church of England, then, that I seek to commute and to establish in a form that shall be inoffensive to the consciences of those who object to contribute personally to the support of any form of religion but their own. I really am unwilling to detain the House, but I have been asked by some hon. Members who are attached to the Church of England, "Why do you persevere? The Church Rate Abolition Bill has ceased to be proposed, and we, the representatives of the Church, are therefore in a better position; why persevere? "Sir, my answer to that is a very simple one, and I think I cannot give it better than in the words of one, whom I believe every Member on this side of the House respects. Just thirty years ago the Government of Lord Grey proposed a measure for the appropriation of a certain amount of direct taxation, some £250,000 from the land tax and certain Church property, in lieu of church rates. A debate ensued, and in the course of that debate, the late Sir Robert Inglis used language something like that of those who say to me, "There is no Church Rate Abolition Bill in the agitation: why do you proceed with this Bill?" What was the answer given by Lord Stanley, then Chief Secretary for Ireland, the organ of the Government, who were attempting to improve the law? Lord Stanley said— 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 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. I appeal, Sir, to those who have been for a lengthened period Members of this House, whether the expectation thus expressed by Lord Derby has not been amply fulfilled; whether the last thirty years have not been marked by religious agitation, by a slumbering discontent, or by open attacks upon church rates? Ami I ask those who would have me desist, "Do you desire to see another thirty years of strife among fellow Christians and Protestants upon the subject of church rates, when, as I humbly believe, and as men far better informed than I am—men most fully competent to understand the question, are confident that the means of securing peace are ready to your hand?" Why, Sir, the same statesman who gave the advice which I have quoted thirty years ago, repeated it but three years since. In the Committee of the House of Lords upon Church Rates, which sat in 1861, Lord Derby proposed and carried this Resolution— 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 this subject. Sir, it is in accordance with that wise opinion enunciated by Lord Derby that this Bill has been framed; for in that Resolution is embodied the very principle of the Bill, except that the Resolution contemplates continuing the charge in the form of a rate. The example of Scotland has warned me that the personal liability which a rate imposes must be abandoned, if peace is ever to be secured in this matter. For, in Scotland, the charge which provides for the fabrics of the Kirk, and for the support of her Ministers, and I believe for Schools, is almost, without exception, levied through the heritors upon real property. It is not a personal charge: it is a charge upon property. Now, in England, we have no persons in the position of heritors. Had there been such persons, representing property in this country, such as the heritors in Scotland, I should have been willing to leave the assessment to them as the representatives of property. That, however, is not the case in this country. In many parishes there is only one owner; in some there may be two, and in others three. In many cases the owners are not resident; and in others again they are not Members of the Church of England. It would not be wise or safe, therefore, that the House should commit to the hands of these individuals the assessment for maintaining the fabric and the services of the Church. Indeed, it would be unjust to the inhabitants to do so; because by this process you would annul the functions of the vestry; you would annul the voice of the congregation and inhabitants of the parish with regard to the arrangements of their own Church; you would inflict upon the congregations of the Church of England an incapacity to which no other denomination of Christians is willing to submit. It would be unjust to allow the occupiers alone to tax the owners. I therefore wish to substitute a poundage of fixed amount, the collection of which should be made with the poor and county rates; and further, that the sum collected should be transferred through the Clerks of the Peace to a depository, to be drawn thence by the inhabitants in vestry assembled, for the purpose of being applied at their discretion within the limits prescribed by the law for the purposes of church rates. My proposal is, that the collection should be entirely by a civil process. And the Bill will attain this great object, which is recommended by the Committee of the House of Lords; so that whilst the collection and he means of recovery will he by purely civil process, the whole administration of the charge for the purposes of church rate will be Ecclesiastical in the sense of the Church of England, which has ever recognised the ecclesiastical rights and functions of the laity in all matters contemplated or provided for by the law of church rate. Thus, although the Bill proposes a change, it does not propose a novelty. Throughout, the framers of the measure have sought to create no new machinery, but to effect a gradual change through existing agencies, so that within a reasonable period we may hope for that peace upon the question of church rates which has been so effectually achieved in the matter of tithe, both in England and Ireland. We, English Protestants and Members of the Church, desire to have the privileges secured to us similar to those which are secured to the Members and Laity of the Church of Scotland, and which have been so for some hundreds of years. These, Sir, are the objects of the Bill. But let not the House imagine that I have any coxcombical attachment to its provisions. I am not so presumptuous; but I may mention that I have transmitted copies of this Bill, or a statement of its object, to a great number of the clergy of the Church of England, to every Clerk of the Peace in England and Wales, to every Board of Guardians and to all the principal Denominations of Dissenters. The result of this labour, which I thought was due to the House before I presumed to lay upon the table this measure for their consideration, is, that I find a general concurrence of opinion among moderate men in favour of the principle of the Bill though I admit fully that I have received statements of objections to several parts of its machinery; objections some of them based no doubt upon valid grounds, whilst some were contradictory to each other, and therefore claim a solution at the hands of a Committee of this House. I hope the House will allow me very shortly to refer to some authorities in confirmation of the position that church rate in its average amount is a charge upon property. I will simply cite by name the authorities which I have quoted in former years. These include the names of the late Sir Robert Inglis and Mr. Whittle Harvey, who in the debate of 1834 asserted that church rate is a charge upon property. I have quoted the Poor Law Commissioners in their Report of 1843 in support of this fact; I have quoted the authority of the late Sir Robert Peel; I might have quoted the authority of the late Sir James Graham; I have quoted the authority of Mr. Goulbourne, and that of Earl Russell; and I might refer to the evidence which was given before the Select Committee of the House of Lords in 1861, by Mr. Coode, who of all the public officers now living is perhaps the person best qualified to give information to Parliament upon this subject: nothing can be more conclusive than the proofs which he adduced that church rate in its average amount ever has been and still is a charge upon the real property of each parish. Let me also for one moment advert to that which has fallen from the hon. Member for Sheffield. The hon. Member stated that the amount of this charge levied under this Bill would be not less than £900,000 annually; during the debate of last year another hon. Member stated the amount at £700,000 annually. Well, Sir, I have felt bound to obtain an estimate of the amount, and I find that, instead of £900,000 a year, or even of £700,000 a year, the amount that would be directly levied by this Bill, as far as I was able to calculate two years ago (and I had the kind assistance of Sir George Lewis, when he filled the office of Secretary of State for the Home Department) would amount to £318,000 a year. The fact is that considerable misapprehension prevails upon the subject; and let me give this explanation to the hon. Member for Sheffield. In a note appended by the Home Office to a Return for which I moved (No. 7, 1859) he will find this statement— Remarks preliminary to the Return of church rates," ordered to be printed February 3, 1859:— "The question under the head of 'amount rated to the relief of the poor' has in very many cases been incorrectly answered, the amount of the rating or poundage being given instead of the rateable value of property upon which assessment is made. From a Return made to Parliament in 1852 (No. 539) it appears that the total amount rated to the poor rates in England and Wales was £67,700,153 13s. 7d.; but this includes the glebe and tithe land, which, though liable to the poor rate is exempt from church rate, and the difference in amount is considerable, varying from 7 to 27 per cent, and even higher. As much as 20 per cent of real property is thus exempt either as tithe or glebe land, and this the hon. Member for Sheffield has overlooked. But the exemptions under this Bill are not limited to that extent. The Bill proposes that no property, upon which church rate has not been levied within seven years, shall be affected by the charge created by the Bill; that no property in any parish where a church rate has been rejected on three successive polls, or where no church rate has been levied for seven years, shall be touched by the charge, unless two-thirds of the inhabitants shall sign a Memorial to the Quarter Sessions, reclaiming for themselves their inalienable right to the portion of that real property which has, from time immemorial, by the Common Law as declared by the Judges, been treated as liable to a charge for the maintenance of the fabric and the services of the Church. I hope the House will forgive me for having made this explanation in order to show that the proposal I make is not of the exaggerated character that the hon. Member for Sheffield supposes, for the amount levied in the first instance will not much, if at all, exceed the amount levied up to this day for the purposes of church rate; because, though it appears by the Returns that this amount is £260,000, the Returns of church rate are avowedly imperfect, and the nearest amount at which I have been able to arrive, and I have made careful inquiries on the subject, is, that church rate is worth to the parishioners in the aggregate for England and Wales about £300,000 a year. This Bill, therefore, if the House sanctioned it, would create a charge equivalent to the amount which the parishes now actually receive and possess in the form of church rate. I was unwilling to detain the House, but, as the hon. Member for Sheffield complains that when I introduced this Bill I did not fully explain its provisions, perhaps the House will allow me to lay before them a rapid summary of those provisions; and, in so doing, I beg the House to consider that I ask no hon. Member to pledge himself to the details of the Bill, or to the Bill itself, except as it may be approved by a Select Committee. The objects of the Bill, then, are—

1. To remove all personal liability in respect of church rate.

2. To acknowledge and confirm the right of the parishioners to that portion of the gross value of real property in each parish, which, being beyond the rent paid to the landlords, has always been reserved for church rate.

3. To exempt all parishes in which no church rate has been levied for seven years, or in which a church rate has been rejected on three successive polls, from the charge on real property, reserved by the Bill elsewhere to the use of the parishioners.

4. To give to two-thirds of the ratepayers of parishes, exempt as above, power to claim that the exemption shall cease, and thus to bring their parish within the charge.

5. 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 the purposes of church rate.

6. To provide that the charge substituted for church rate shall cease on the creation of such an endowment.

The machinery by which the Bill proposes to attain these objects is—

  1. 1. To render the whole process for levying the charge, local and civil, analogous to and combined with that for collecting the poor and county rates.
  2. 2. To create a Depository, in which the proceeds of the charge thus levied may be safely kept, and whence it may be easily drawn by the representatives of each parish, as required for annual or occasional purposes.
  3. 3. To provide that any surplus of the charge remaining to the account of any parish in the above Depository, shall accumulate to the credit of such parish for the purpose of forming an endowment.
  4. 4. To render this Depository ecclesiastical in the sense of the Church of England, which combines the clerical with the lay element, both regulated by legal knowledge.
  5. 5. To provide that the money thus rendered available be appropriated by an agency, ecclesiastical in the sense of the Church of England.
  6. 6. To revive and strengthen the parochial system of the Church of England by conferring upon the incumbents and churchwardens of each parish corporate powers (analogous to those which they possess in the case of Church of England Schools) for receiving the charge, and for holding benefactions or endowments for the purposes of church rate, subject to the legitimate control of the vestries.
Sir, throughout this Bill it has been the object of its framers to retain to the parishioners, to the inhabitants of the parishes in this country, to retain to the congregations of the Church of England, that liberty to control the mode in which the fabrics of their churches shall be maintained, and the mode in winch services therein shall be conducted within the limits of the law, which is incident as a first clement of freedom to every other denomination of Christians in this country. During the last Session of Parliament, I am aware that one of the leading organs of public opinion appeared to have had a dream that I desire to confer some arbitrary power upon the Church. Sir, I am one of those who would secure freedom by law. I am ready by law to resist intolerance and tyranny of every kind. I am attached to the law because I believe the law, when rightly framed—and, thank God! the principles of English legislation are such that it is difficult to make bad laws—affords the only real security for freedom, as contra-distinguished from vesting in any living human being a capricious discretion, which he may exercise according to the whim and fancy of the moment tyrannically upon his fellow countrymen and neighbours. That, Sir, is the reason why I wish to see the law maintained; the law improved; the law rendered charitable in the ease of Nonconformists, who conscientiously object to any particular charge; the law rendered just in the case of populations which are deficient of or are left altogether without spiritual provision by the Church or other denominations. Such, then, are are the objects of this Bill. I trust it is framed in the true spirit of Christian charity, not of vague sympathy, but in the spirit of that Christian charity, which makes allowances for feelings which we may deem the errors and weaknesses of our neighbours, which would deprive the members of the Church of England of some power of personal taxation, provided the objects for which that power of taxing personally was granted, can otherwise be accomplished. On such terms it would be both right and wise to act with deference to the feelings of our neighbours and fellow citizens by abandoning a power which they deem offensive, which has been the source of division and discord between Christians—Churchmen and Protestant Dissenters—amongst whom there ought to prevail that catholicity of spirit which is best expressed in the Divine command, "Do unto your neighbour as you would he should do unto you;" for in thus doing we fulfil the behest of the beneficent Creator of us all.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill he now read a second time."—(Mr. Newdegate.)

SIR CHARLES DOUGLAS

thought that the reasons which he should give in favour of reading the Bill that day six months would receive the support of a large majority of the House. With the highest respect for the ability and honesty of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, he believed that the opinion of the majority was that the best course to be taken at present was to decline dealing with the question in the present Parliament. Those who supported the abolition of church rates might regret the position in which the question had been placed, but they were prepared to accept the situation. For his own part, he deeply regretted that position, for it was certain to be warmly discussed with the violence of party spirit upon the hustings in the country at the next general election, and it would be far better if it could have been settled before that election took place. Giving the hon. Member for North Warwickshire all credit for consistency, and an earnest desire to carry out what he believed to be a measure of relief, it was to be regretted that it was not in the power of the Members on that side of the House to accept any such measure as that now proposed. He believed it was the wish of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire—as it certainly was his own—that perfect freedom should be given to Dissenters; and it was manifest that so long as the question was discussed without the introduction of party feeling, and while reason alone was brought to bear upon it, the chance of a settlement was becoming more and more probable, as the majorities in favour of the abolition of church rates were continually increasing; and it was only when the influence of party was brought to bear on the opposite side, which could not on this, that those majorities ceased. The leader of the party opposite had stated that if the House could be brought to rescind the Resolution in favour of abolition, he hoped to find the means of obtaining a final and satisfactory settlement of the question. Unfortunately it had not been possible to form a Government which was united upon the question of church rates; and while it was made a party question on the other side of the House, there was a want of that combined action on the Ministerial side which was required to bring the matter to a final conclusion. The Bill, or one similar in its principles, which was brought forward last year, did not obtain the support of the right hon. Gentleman's own friends; and the absence upon the present occasion of the right hon. Gentleman the leader on that side, and of his friends, was a proof that they did not incline favourably to this measure as a solution of the vexed question. In his opinion, if the great party who had defeated the measure for the abolition of church rates were unable or unwilling to settle the question, the course for the advocates of abolition to support was not to attempt in this Parliament any legislation on the subject. They accepted the situation, and would go to the hustings on this question at the end of the present Parliament. He hoped that the Government which should be in power when the new Parliament was sitting would then take up the subject, as he thought it was one which properly belonged to the Government to deal with. In his opinion, however, the question of church rates could be settled in no other way than total abolition, and, therefore, without attempting to discuss the nature of the Bill, he should simply move that it be read a second time on that day six months.

VISCOUNT ENFIELD

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Sir Charles Douglas.)

MR. SALT

said, he would vote for the second reading of the Bill, because he was favourable to any reasonable attempt to settle this difficult question; but was not prepared to say that he should support the Bill in its future stages. The Bill proposed to introduce two material alterations in the law respecting church rates. In the first place, it proposed to remove the liability from the parishioners to the landowners. Whatever difficulties might exist, still from time immemorial the general character of the law was that of a law to compel parishioners to perform their duty of repairing the Church, and he should feel some hesitation in supporting any prin- ciple that would limit that duty. The second alteration proposed in the Bill was one of more importance. The character of the rate was essentially local; it was a matter of local privilege, of local duty, and of local action in every respect. He could not help thinking that the provisions of the Bill which had reference to the operation of Queen Anne's Bounty were very unnecessary, cumbrous, and inconvenient. Still he-admitted the urgent necessity for legislation. Some of the difficulties of the question might be removed; but there were others which in his opinion were insuperable. Church rates had their origin centuries ago, in times when society and manners were very different to what they are now. It was a very rude piece of legislation, and required to be polished and suited to the habits and opinions of modern times. He therefore desired to see some prudent and well-considered legislation on the subject. But whenever any proposition for legislation had been made, it had been rejected by the representatives of the Dissenters in the House almost with scorn. A more particular difficulty was that of calling on Dissenters to pay church rates. He had considered this question carefully, and he had always come to the conclusion that justice and argument were against the Dissenters; but still he had always felt some dissatisfaction at such a conclusion. Then there was another point of great importance, which he had never heard brought, forward in the House, and seldom mentioned out of doors. He must confess he could not see the justice of calling on parishioners to pay a rate for the maintenance of a building, which was public properly and for general use, but from which they themselves were excluded, and in which there was not room for the performance of the sacred functions for which the building existed. Where the poor were not admitted, or where the parishioners could not get seats, it was hardly fair that church rates should be levied at all. That was a question which had never been prominently before the House, That was a question which must be dealt with after more experience and at a future time. In legislating upon this subject the great point to keep in view was, that it was purely a local question, and that it had gained an importance hat was not essential to it, and which really did not belong-to it. It was a matter of local difficulty and of local amendment; but from the peculiar circumstances attending it and the position of the parties, it had become the battle-ground of party in that House and an Imperial question. Were they, however, to bring the question back to its natural limits and position, he thought it would not be a hard task to find remedies for most of the evils which were at present complained of. He reminded the House that the question must be considered purely in its local character, and in a local point of view there were four matters greatly requiring attention, namely; the present system of ecclesiastical jurisdiction; the position of district churches; the especial purposes for which a church race might be levied; and another point still more important, that a new rate could not, as the law now stands, be levied unless the whole of the previous rate had been levied from every inhabitant liable to the rate. He thought that if that rule was to be done away with it would enable parishes to relieve Dissenters and others from the impost. If, therefore, these four propositions could be carried out, and the question dealt with in a local rather than in an Imperial point of view, it would set the matter at rest, for the present at least. Taking a more general view of the subject he would remark, that appeals had often been made in that House for concession to certain parties; but he thought "concession" was a wrong term; concession must be mutual, or if made wholly by one party must be regarded as admissions of defeat. Now, he did not see that either party was prepared to own itself vanquished, and there was no chance of their mutually agreeing upon the subject; therefore he wished that the term used had been, not "concession," but "conciliation." Men might be conciliatory in tone, in manner, in expression, even in thought; and he believed that many men, sitting on different sides of the House, and holding different opinions, yet started honestly and sincerely from the same basis and with the same object, namely, the promotion of the moral and religious welfare of the people. There was another side of the question. It had been said that there was a Church party growing up in that House and the country; but if that was so, it must have been created not by its own action or have grown up by its own merit, but from the action and the policy of the opponents of church rates. What, therefore, he asked, must be the policy and position of such a party? They had been year by year, Session after Session, forced back into a position which he believed to be almost unassailable and almost impregnable. They had become the advocates of a moderate reform, as opposed to a measure which had been described by a high authority to be almost revolutionary. They had become the advocates of nearly every landed proprietor in the country. They appeared as the protectors of the local rights and privileges of between 6,000 and 8,000 parishes. They had become the professed defenders of the English Church — a church which, with all its faults, with its sad want of the power of expansion and of adaptation, was yet the noblest, the purest, the most effective church system which ever existed in any country in the world, and which was most closely bound up with the liberties and the institutions of the country. That, he believed, was a policy and a position of which no party need be ashamed, and to such a party no man need be ashamed to attach himself.

MR. ALDERMAN ROSE

said, that if he had entertained any doubt as to the vote he ought to give upon the present occasion, it would have been removed by the speech of the hon. Baronet who moved the Amendment (Sir Charles Douglas). The hon. Baronet had told them that he and his friends were content to let this question remain as it was during the continuance of the present Parliament, which had determined to maintain church rates, but that they intended to resort to a general agitation at the hustings at the next General election. He (Mr. Alderman Rose) would, therefore, vote for the second reading, in order that this question might, if possible, be settled before the threatened agitation could arise. The policy of those Gentlemen was quite intelligible. It was a policy whereby a minority, by a system of complete organization, could exercise a terrorism, over the country in order to coerce the majority to accept their views. He was not quite sure that the agitation would result according to the expectations of those who promoted it, but he deprecated it as injurious alike to the Church and to Dissenters. He should support the second reading of the Bill, and thought it would be very unwise to reject a settlement of this question when an opportunity presented itself.

LORD FERMOY

said, he could see nothing in the Bill which would give him the smallest hope of any compromise being come to upon fair and reasonable terms, and, therefore, he could not support the second reading, even with the view of sending the Bill to a Select Committee. So far as he understood the Bill, he thought it would make bad worse. The hon. Gentleman simply proposed to remove the payment from the occupier to the landlord.

MR. NEWDEGATE

From the person to the property.

LORD FERMOY

That was the same thing in other words, and the result was, the landlord would put the charge on the tenant in the shape of rent, and the tenant would still have to pay to support a Church in which he did not believe. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire said it was a lay question—then let them settle it on the principle of lay justice, and not refuse to let the members of the Established Church bear the onus of supporting their own Church. There was no principle of reason or of justice on which they could call on a man to support a religion which he did not believe; and if the members of the Established Church were in the majority, why did they fear to leave them to support their own church? He believed that, under the voluntary principle, the Church would be better supported, and he moreover believed that those were its enemies who endeavoured to force on Dissenters these church rates. There had been no compromise proposed by the other side. The fact that there was but one solution to the difficulty, and that was by abolishing church rates altogether and relying upon the voluntary system, by which already so many new churches had been built and endowed. This was the only step that would allay agitation in the country, and would make people better friends and better neighbours, and establish the Church on a more solid and a safer foundation.

MR. R. P. LONG

said, he was astonished to hear the noble Lord say that no compromise had been offered on this question. Did the noble Lord forget that, when Lord Derby was in office, the right hon. Member for Cambridge University proposed a Bill that was a compromise? He did not say a word as to the merits of that Bill, but he ventured to remind the noble Lord that that measure was brought forward as a compromise by the right hon. Gentleman, who in that Government occupied a position which was much more creditably filled their than it was at this moment in the present Government; for when a question of so much importance as this was under discussion, they had a right to expect to find the Secretary for the Home Department in his place. He would also remind the noble Lord that the right hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt), when in office, also introduced a measure which was a compromise; and they had now before them the Bill of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, the object of which was to allay the animosities which had existed on this subject for thirty years. All those propositions were honest attempts to meet the objections of the Dissenters; but the present Government had not the courage to bring forward any measure of its own, nor even to father the proposition of the hon. Baronet the Member for Tavistock (Sir John Trelawny), although a continued delay in the settlement of this question was a positive disgrace to the House. He was content to accept this Bill as the basis of a settlement, and as such would give it his support.

MR. LOCKE

said, the hon. Member asked why did not the Government come forward with a Bill? Well, why not? There was only one way of settling that matter; and the country had come to the conclusion to which the House must also come, that that only way was by the abolition of church rates. Some Members of the Government might have a misgiving as to the desirability of that course, and therefore as a Government they did not bring forward a measure for the purpose. But the matter had been discussed over and over again, all compromises had been met by a negative, and there was but one solution of the difficulty. If the hon. Gentleman who had introduced this Bill did not represent North Warwickshire he should have thought that he had framed his Bill on an Irish Bill introduced the other day with reference to the Game Laws, which transferred the privilege—or the burden, whichever it was—of prosecuting poachers, from the tenant to the landowner. The present Bill amounted to this, that instead of the occupier paying church rates, the landlord should pay them, without reference to whether he belonged to the Church of England or was a Dissenter, and the landlord would of course put the church rate on to the rent of the occupier. Then what the better would he be for the compromise? He said he did not like to pay a rate for the sup- port of a church to which he did not belong; but he would be obliged to pay if this Bill were passed. He really believed that in North Warwickshire there might be found a landowner who was a Dissenter, and in what position would the hon. Member place this constituent if he passed this Bill? The hon. Baronet the Member for Tavistock (Sir John Trelawny) had given up the church rate question in despair. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Long) asked the Government to bring in a Bill to settle the question; but when such a measure was brought forward by the hon. Baronet the Member for Tavistock, the hon. Member opposite and his party had always opposed it. Next year there would be a new Parliament, the opinion of the country would be taken on the question of church rates, and then would be the time to re-introduce the Bill of the hon. Baronet. It was useless to bring in the Bill till the sense of the people had been taken with respect to it. Why, then, did the hon. Member for North Warwickshire on the present occasion bring in this wretched measure. It was a farce. It was not a compromise. The Bill of the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge was a compromise, but it was opposed on his own side of the House, and it fell to the ground. That Bill was a compromise. The present measure merely made this alteration—that a man who had previously paid his church rates in half-crowns should in future pay it in shillings. He would like to ask the Speaker whether, looking at the title and preamble of the Bill, it was competent to the House to pass one clause only—that was the 38th. The clause proposed to enact that after a particular clay all church rates should be abolished, but he supposed it would not be in accordance with the preamble to omit all the other clauses, and then pass the Bill containing that clause only. He certainly coincided with the Bill to that extent, and he would give the second reading his support, on the understanding that they might exercise that power in Committee.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he was sure that the House could not but be sensible of the pains and unwearied assiduity bestowed on the Bill by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire: but it seemed to him that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down seemed to be a kind of Parliamentary Rip Van Winkle, who had been in a state of coma on the church rate question for the last two years. The hon. and learned Member said that nothing short of total abolition of church rates would satisfy the House. The hon. and learned Member must either have absented himself from the church rate debates during that period, or his memory failed him. The Bill of the hon. Member for Tavistoek (Sir John Trelawny) which had formerly been passed by large majorities, had been defeated on the last two occasions, and for two years the House had refused to vote the abolition of church rates. [Mr. LOCKE: I know that.] Then he had the greater difficulty in reconciling the hon. Member's opinion to his knowledge. The hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Charles Douglas) was of opinion that the House having given its assent to the principle of total abolition, and then said that the abolition ought not to take place, was incapable in this the fifth year of its existence to settle this church rate question, and that the public discussion of this intricate and difficult question ought to be remitted to the hustings and to another Parliament; and the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Alderman Rose) appeared to be so alarmed at that prospect, that he was prepared to vote for this measure. But he (Lord John Manners) had no fear of the question being discussed at a general election; for he believed that the change in the votes of the House of Commons was in accordance with a change which had come over the country at large. It was clear this Bill did not satisfy the opponents of church rates; but were the supporters of church rates in its favour? Never since he had had the honour of a seat in that House had a more desirable period existed for the discussion of the church rate question. The great synod of the Church was sitting. There was not only this great Church Congress, there was every rural deanery in the country assembled; the churchwardens were brought together, and their opinions pretty nearly represented the laity of the country. But had any of these bodies pronounced in favour of this measure? He asked his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire, had he any hope that this measure would really satisfy the Church feelings of the country? He (Lord John Manners) did not believe it would. While he recognized in much of what his hon. Friend had said sentiments in which he fully agreed, and gave him credit for the pains he had taken and the assiduity he had displayed, he could not think that the measure was one really calculated or in the least degree likely to settle the question. Therefore he would counsel his hon. Friend to rest satisfied with having, in the course of a full and exhaustive speech, directed the attention of the country to his scheme, and to withdraw the Bill.

SIR CHARLES WOOD

said, that his right hon. Friend (Sir George Grey) was engaged in an important Committee which was sitting upstairs on a question which concerned the constitution of the House, and therefore there was no dereliction of public duty on his part in not being present in the House on the present occasion. He entirely concurred in every encomium that had been bestowed upon the trouble which the hon. Member who had brought in the Bill had taken in reference to the question of church rates; but with regard to the Bill itself he could not agree with it. He believed it to be open to the objection which was urged against a similar measure last Session by his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department — namely, that it would be ineffectual in attaining a settlement of the question. He was fully persuaded that it would be better if they did not pursue the discussion on the subject during the present Parliament, or, at all events, during the present Session. It was a subject which the country ought fully to consider, and it would, no doubt, as the hon. Gentleman had said, be dwelt upon at the hustings. He thought the wisest course was to avoid the use of irritating language on the subject, and that the hon. Gentleman would do well to adopt the suggestion of the noble Lord.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

said, that the speech of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Wood) held out little prospect of the solution of a question which had occasioned the most violent contests on a matter which ought not to be made the arena of party contest. The right hon. Baronet suggested that it would be better to allow the question to rest for the present. That course might suit those who wished to have a fertile field for discussion on the hustings kept open. But this was a question which entered so closely into the comprehension and daily life of every parish, that it was most unfortunate that the question of attachment to the national Church should be canvassed and agitated in support of what was after all but a miserably small question. If a plan could be devised which would intrust the maintenance of the national Church to the property of the country, he should consider it a most wholesome settlement of the question. He had watched the working of a similar system in Scotland. In that country the ecclesiastical difficulties were greater than in England, and the gentry to a great extent did not belong to she national Church. Under such circumstances, it might naturally be imagined that difficulties would arise in the erection and repair of churches; but such was not the case; and he did not recollect an instance in which it had been found necessary to put the law in force to carry those objects into effect. This was a proof of the good working of the system which his hon. Friend wanted to introduce; and unless the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) or the Government were prepared to propose a better scheme, he trusted the House would allow the Bill to be read a second time, in order that its provisions might be fully considered.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: —Ayes 60: Noes 160: Majority 100.

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put, mid agreed to.

Second Reading put off for six months.

AYES.
Archdall, Captain M. Grogan, Sir E.
Beecroft, G. S. Haliburton. T. C.
Bentinck, G. W. P. Hamilton, Lord C.
Bentinck, G. C. Harvey, R. B.
Beresford, rt. hon. W. Hay, Sir J. C. D.
Bremridge, R. Hesketh, Sir T. G.
Bridges, Sir B. W. Hornby, W. H.
Bruce, Major C. Hume, W. W. F.
Bruce, Sir H. H. Jones, D.
Butt, I. Knightley, R.
Cargill, W. W. Langton, W. G.
Cartwright, Colonel Leslie, W.
Cole, hon. H. Long, R. P.
Cole, hon. J. L. Lopes, Sir M.
Copeland, Mr. Aid. Lyall, G.
Du Cane, C. Miller, T. J.
Duncombe, hon. A. Morritt, W. J. S.
Du Pre, C. G. Pakenham, Colonel
Fellowes, E. Rose, W. A.
Fergusson, Sir J. Salt, T.
Finlay, A. S. Seourfield, J. H.
Forde, Colonel Selwyn, C. J.
Galway, Viscount Smith, A.
Gard, R. S. Smollett, P. B.
Goddard, A. L. Somes, J.
Gore, J. R. O. Stracey, Sir H.
Grey de Wilton, Visct. Surtees, H. E.
Tottenham, Lt.-Col. C. G. Whiteside, rt. hon. J.
Treherne, M.
Vyse, Colonel H. TELLERS.
Walcott, Admiral Newdegate, C. N.
Way, A. E. Montagu, Lord R.
NOES.
Adair, H. E. Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.
Adam, W. P. Gilpin, C.
Agnew, Sir A, Gladstone, rt. hon. W.
Alcock, T Goldsmid, Sir F. H.
Angerstein, W. Gore, W. R. O.
Anson, hon. Major Gower, hon. F. L.
Anstruther, Sir R. Greene, J.
Ayrton, A. S. Greenwood, J.
Aytoun, R. C. Gurney, S.
Bagwell, J. Hadfield, G.
Barnes, T. Hanbury, R.
Bass, M. T. Hankey, T.
Baxter, W. E. Hardcastle, J. A.
Bazley, T. Hartopp, E. B.
Beach, W. W. B. Hayter, rt. hn. Sir W.G.
Berkeley, hon. Col. F. W. F. Henderson, J.
Henley, Lord
Berkeley, hon. C. P. F. Heygate, Sir F. W.
Biddulph, Colonel Hibbert, J. T.
Black, A. Hodgson, K. D.
Blencowe, J. G. Hopwood, J. T.
Bond, J. W. M'G. Horsman, rt. hon. E.
Bouverie, hon. P. P. Humphery, W. H.
Brand, hon. H. Hutt, rt. hon. W.
Briscoe, J. I. Jackson, W.
Buchanan, W. Jcrvoise, Sir J. C.
Buller, Sir A. W. King, hon. P. J. L.
Butler, C. S. Kinglake, A. W.
Buxton, C. Kingscote, Colonel
Carnegie, hon. C. Knatchbull - Hugessen, E.
Clifford, C. C.
Clifton, Sir R. J. Langton, W. H. G.
Clive, G. Lawson, W.
Cobden, R. Leatham, E. A.
Cochrane, A. D. R. W. B. Lefevre, G. J. S.
Cogan, W. H. F. Lee, W.
Coke, hon. Colonel Lennox, Lord G. G.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Lewis, H.
Collins, T. Lindsay, W. S.
Colthurst, Sir G. C. Locke, J.
Cox, W. M'Cann, J.
Craufurd, E. H. J. Mackinnon, W.A. (Rye)
Dalglish, R. Maguire, J. F.
Darner, S. D. Manners, rt. hn. Lord J.
Davey, R. Marsh, M. H.
Dawson, R. P. Martin, J.
Dent, J. D. Mildmay, H. F.
Dering, Sir E. C. Morris, D.
Duff, R. W. Morrison, W.
Dunbar, Sir W. Neate, C.
Dunlop, A. M. O'Conor Don, The
Egerton, Sir P. G. Paget, C.
Elcho, Lord Paxton, Sir J.
Evans, T. W. Pease, H.
Ewart, W. Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Ewart, J. C. Pender, J.
Ewing, H. E. Crum- Pilkington, J.
Fenwick, E. M. Pollard-Urquhart, W.
Fermoy, Lord Potter, E.
Ferrand, W. Powell, W. T. R.
Finch, C. Wynne- Powell, J. J.
Fitzwilliam, hn. C.W.W. Price, R. G.
Fleming, T. W. Pryse, E. L.
Foljambe, F. J. S. Ramsden, Sir J. W.
Forster, C. Ricardo, O.
Gaskell, J. M. Robartes, T. J. A.
Robertson, D. Waldron, L.
Robertson, H. Walter, J.
Roebuck, J. A. Warner, E.
Rogers, J. J. Waterhouse, S.
Russell, A. Watkins, Colonel L.
St. Aubyn, J. White, J.
Sclater-Booth, G. White, hon. L.
Seymour, A. Wickham, H. W.
Smith, J. B. Williams, W.
Stacpoole, W. Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Taylor, P. A. Woods, H.
Tollemache, hon. F. J. Wynn, C. W. W.
Tracy, hon. C. R. D. H.
Tynte, Colonel K. TELLERS.
Verney, Sir H. Douglas, Sir C.
Vivian, H. H. Enfield, Viscount
Vyner, R. A.