HC Deb 11 March 1868 vol 190 cc1415-30

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Compulsory Church Rates abolished).

MR. HENLEY

said, he was glad that the hon. Member for Buckingham had postponed his Bill, for, with two Bills under the consideration of the Committee at the same time, no progress would have been made. Both the Bills proposed to do away with the principle of church rates in different ways, and if the hon. Member thought his machinery preferable, it would be easy for him to propose to strike out the 4th clause of the present Bill, and to substitute his own plan instead. With respect to the first clause now under consideration, he should oppose it, and thus give an opportunity to anyone who wished to vote against the total abolition of church rates to say "No" to the clause.

Motion, made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 167; Noes 30: Majority 137.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2 (Saving where Money due on security of such Rates).

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, he wished to explain why he did not vote in the division which had just taken place. The Government, as he had said, were very anxious to deal with the present measure, and all proposals on the same subject, in as practicable a manner as possible, and he considered that they had gone into Committee in order to put the plan of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Glad- stone) into the best shape it admitted of, to see whether the House could or could not accept it. He regarded the vote on the first clause as a vote on the principle of the Bill. Therefore, he did not consider it fair, after consenting to go into Committee, to vote against one of the main principles of the Bill; and, as he did not entertain any very sanguine hope of a satisfactory conclusion being come to, he abstained from voting altogether. He had been anxious to have a comparative discussion on the provisions of the present Bill and those of the hon. Member for Buckingham; but, as an opportunity for that purpose was not allowed, he thought it was their duty to pass the Bill in the best shape possible.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 (Church Rate already made may be recovered).

MR. HUBBARD moved the insertion in line 12, after the word "rate," of the words "or rate in the nature of church rate."

MR. NEWDEGATE

asked, whether the object of the hon. Member was to extend the principle of the clause to those rates that were levied under local Acts not coming within the general provisions of the law? He thought it unjust and inexpedient to abolish compulsory church rates without giving some substitute to the parishes.

MR. HUBBARD

said, that the Amendment was intended to meet the case of loans made to some hundreds of parishes by the Public Works Commissioners on the security, not of church rates, but of rates in the nature of church rates.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he would agree in this definition.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 (Voluntary Assessments may be made).

MR. GLADSTONE

proposed to leave out the word "assess" in line 18, and insert "agree upon." The Amendment was a verbal one, but it was made to meet apprehensions entertained in some quarter in consequence of the use of the word "assess."

MR. HENLEY

said, that under the proposed change the question might arise, and probably would arise, whether the persons who "agree" would be liable to be made to pay. This clause proposed to assess ersons who could not be there, and the question was how far it was likely that persons so assessed would be likely to pay. He thought it was very probable that such persons might say that they would pay nothing. Where it was a voluntary affair he thought it was more likely that people would like to measure their gifts in their own way. If church rates were swept away he believed they would get more money a thousand times told without such a machinery as this. It seemed to him that the Bill was a delusion; the House might deceive itself, but it would not deceive people out of doors.

MR. POWELL

said, he thought there was considerable difference between the word "assess" and "agree upon," and that the difference was against the alteration suggested.

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

said, that the Amendment made no difference whatever with regard to the substance of the clause; it was merely an alteration in phraseology. With respect to the objection of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley), it was a sufficient answer that the Bill left the alternative of voluntary contribution without the form of a rate open wherever it might be preferred. On the other hand, there might be many places in which the object might be better accomplished by adherence to the accustomed mode of procedure; and no harm could be done by submitting the question to the parish, when those only would be bound who consented to bind themselves, and when even those who did consent would not be irrevocably bound till some expenditure had been made, or liability incurred, upon the faith of their agreement. It was well known as a legal principle that a voluntary promise founded on no consideration did not bind.

MR. WALPOLE

said, he was acquainted with one parish where the rates were collected every year, but they were not collected by law, because the whole amount of the rate imposed in the previous year not having been duly paid up they could not strictly impose another rate. But what had been done there was that which the Bill would enable all parishes to do in future—namely, to employ the existing parochial machinery for the making of the rate and to leave the inhabitants to pay or not as they pleased. A large sum was collected in that way and also by voluntary contributions, and though he should have been better satisfied to see the church rate question settled in another manner, he believed that in a great number of parishes the parochial machinery would still be kept up, from an earnest desire to maintain the fabric of the church, and that a very large sum would be collected by its means in a way which would not be galling to Dissenters. The word "assess" should therefore be retained in the clause.

MR. HENLEY

said, he doubted whether there was any instance under the voluntary system of contributions in which owners had been assessed as contra-distinguished from occupiers.

MR. HUBBARD

said, he hoped the wording of the clause would not be altered as proposed, because the word "assess" implied an equitable apportionment.

MR. AYRTON

suggested that it would be well to insert a clause which should permit of the assessment of either owners or occupiers, in order that the owners of property, who—as they were frequently told by the representatives of counties—desired to see the church maintained in all its integrity, might have the fullest possible opportunity of contributing in a proper legal form towards such maintenance. To deprive them of that power would not only be a hardship upon them, but it would also be a great national misfortune.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

suggested several difficulties that, to his thinking, stood in the way of this being done in a proper legal and binding form.

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

said, he should be willing to insert a clause which would, he thought, meet the case, and would also meet a difficulty suggested by the hon. Member for Lincolnshire North (Mr. Banks Stanhope), who wanted provision against the occupiers of property meeting and determining to tax the owners.

MR. SERJEANT GASELEE

said, it appeared to him that the word "assess" was preferable. How could any one agree to pay a rate when they did not know to whom it was to be paid? They had passed the first clause; they had abolished church rates, and the best thing now that could be done would be to tear up the Bill. A select vestry could not know who would contribute, and therefore could not agree upon the rate that was necessary. The better course would be for the parishioners to be called upon to put down on paper how much they would contribute. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) would divide on every one of these clauses, and he should have great pleasure in supporting him.

MR. HIBBERT

suggested that the Amendment should be adopted, but that after the word rate they should insert, "to be assessed"

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

accepted the suggestion, and the clause was altered accordingly.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

was disposed to move that the word "owners" should be omitted.

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

hoped the word "owners" would not be left out.

MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIE

suggested that the word "or" should be substituted for "and," so that the clause should run "owners or occupiers."

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

observed that the clause did not authorize a separate assessment in each case. The assessment was alternative.

MR. BANKS STANHOPE

thought they were much more likely to raise a large sum if the assessment was upon occupiers only, and therefore proposed the omission of the word "owner."

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

explained that the only object in inserting the words was to enable the owner to pay the rate for the occupier.

MR. AYRTON

suggested the insertion of a clause to the effect that where the owner paid the rate he should be deemed a parishioner within the meaning of this Act. It would be a great pity to leave out the word "owner," seeing it had always been asserted by those who represented counties that the owners of property were so anxious to maintain the church in all its integrity. Why, then, deprive them of the opportunity of giving effect to their opinion?

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, it was impossible to separate altogether the 4th and 5th clauses, and he wanted to know what would be the effect of the 5th clause in the case of an assessment being made by the parishioners in vestry upon the owners who were not otherwise members of the vestry; would they or would they not have a right to give their votes if a poll were demanded?

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

undertook to bring up a clause to carry out the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton). As to the question just put to him, the 4th clause, as it now stood, did not authorize the vestry to make a rate upon the owner and not upon the occupier, but it provided that the rate when made should be upon the owner or occupier.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

Suppose they both wish to have the option, which is to have the opportunity of going to the poll?

MR. AYRTON

said, he did not think there would be any difficulty in the matter. If the owner arranged with the occupier that he would take the burden upon himself, he might do so at the very commencement, and take part in the vestry.

MR. BANKS STANHOPE

said, he would withdraw his Amendment upon an undertaking by the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) to provide against owners of property being assessed instead of assessing themselves.

MR. HUBBARD

proposed to add at the end of the clause the words— And nothing herein contained shall prejudice or affect the provisions of the Act of the fifth year of George the Fourth, chapter thirty-six, except that the consent of the entirety of the persons in vestry assembled shall be substituted for the consent by the said Act required. He explained that the object of the abolition was to enable money still to be borrowed on the rates for re-building, repairing, and enlarging churches; and his proposition was that money should be borrowed only upon the consent of all those at the vestry, instead of by a majority, as the law now was.

MR. LEEMAN

thought the adoption of such words would altogether stultify the Committee, and give a few energetic Churchmen the power of passing a resolution for the re-building of churches, whereby rates would continue to be levied for twenty years.

MR. HODGKINSON

appealed to those who had charge of the Bill to deal with the question of giving people liberty to assess themselves.

MR. HUBBARD

said, his proposal would only come into operation with the consent of the entire parish.

MR. ACLAND

said, he was unwilling to embarrass those who for so many years had been endeavouring to effect a settlement by abolishing the compulsory rate; he thought, however, it might be expedient to adopt in this Bill a clause he had brought forward last year, enabling the owners of property to charge their estates to a certain extent for the maintenance of churches.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he wished to explain the principle on which he had proceeded. His hon. Friend proposed that there should be, under certain circumstances, a power of voluntary charge upon property, to be executed by owners individually, and without any parochial machinery, for purposes to which church rates had been heretofore applicable. That might be a very proper subject for legislation; but he would say to the hon. Gentleman, and to the promoters of other propositions, that it would not be convenient to make this Bill a comprehensive measure on the subject of church rates. The object of the Bill was to remove that which had been an element of contention in reference to most questions connected with the Church. He confessed that there were several matters connected with the law of church rates which required further consideration. There were the questions as to the mode of providing for old rates made under an Act which had been referred to; as to ecclesiastical districts in reference to this Bill; as to voting at select vestries; and as to the compulsory payment of visitation fees, which heretofore had been charged upon church rates. But he repeated that the matter would be greatly perplexed if it were attempted to make this Bill a comprehensive measure upon church rates.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, that the existing provision, which enabled money to be borrowed on the security of the rates for the repair or restoration of a parish church, was of the greatest value. Without it in many cases it would be impossible to carry out repairs amounting virtually to re-building the church. Under this Bill, the power now possessed by vestries to so borrow money would be necessarily terminated; and to that extent the measure was certainly objectionable. He therefore hoped the House would pause before finally giving its assent to the Bill.

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

said, it would be quite possible on some future occasion to provide a substitute for the borrowing powers of vestries on the security of the rates, without in any way infringing upon the principle of this Bill. He agreed, however, with the right hon. Member for South Lancashire that it would be wrong to complicate this Bill, which was intended to effect a particular purpose, by introducing into it clauses to carry into effect all those consequential measures which, on a future occasion, it might be right and expedient to take.

MR. HUBBARD

said, he hoped that the right hon. Member for South Lancashire would introduce a Bill to effect this object.

MR. BAINES

said, he thought the fear expressed by the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) was visionary and groundless. He knew the cases of comparatively poor Dissenting congregations, who had by voluntary contributions raised sums amounting to £2,000, £5,000, £10,000. £15,000, and even £25,000, in order to build chapels and carry out other similar objects. If this was so, there ought not to be very great difficulties in the way of rich Church of England congregations.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he was aware that it was perfectly easy for rich Dissenting communities to raise the necessary sums for building and repairing their chapels; but the case was very different in small rural districts, where the churches—many of which required repairs almost amounting to re-building—had been built 400, 500, 600, or 700 years ago. In cases of that kind, it was not mere repair that was wanted every now and again, but an almost complete re-building of the church. In order to show that the provision to which the hon. Member (Mr. Hubbard) had referred had been of great value to the Church, he might say that the last Return showed the amount which had been borrowed for Church purposes on security of the rates, and now remained outstanding, was £170,000, no less a sum than between £14,000 and £15,000 having been borrowed for that purpose last year. He thought the House ought to consider very carefully before it finally committed itself to the approval of a Bill, one of whose provisions was the doing away with a power so important and useful as the one to which he had referred.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 (If at any Vestry for assessing such voluntary Rate Poll demanded, Names of Voters to be entered in a Book).

MR. GLADSTONE

explained that the object of this clause was to prevent those who did not intend to be bound by the decision of the majority from obstructing those who really intended to contribute to the rate. He proposed to insert words which should limit the operation of this clause to the first time of a meeting being called for the purpose of assessing such a voluntary rate, since the 8th clause pro- vided for all subsequent meetings for that purpose.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

thought, before adopting the Amendment, they ought to know more clearly from the right hon. Gentleman, or from the hon. and learned Member for Richmond, how far the provisions of the Bill would go in enforcing an equitable promise; and, also, whether a ratepayer might signify, by letter addressed to the churchwardens, his desire to have his name placed among the number of the voluntary subscribers.

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

said, that the object of the 5th clause was to exclude the possibility of obstruction being offered, in the first instance, to the use of the power to make a voluntary rate by persons who, if a rate were made, would not be willing to pay it; whilst the 8th clause said that where a rate was in operation no one who refused to pay the last rate should be at liberty to take part in voting in respect to the application of the money, or to the making a further rate. With regard to what the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) said, he (Sir Roundell Palmer) did not understand that the provision referred to had for its object to bind any persons who agreed to pay the voluntary rates by contract. He apprehended no mere promise of the kind contemplated would be in itself, without some subsequent consideration arising out of expenditure made, or liability incurred, upon the faith of it, a contract enforceable either at law or equity. It was not the object of the clause to control or interfere with the operation of the ordinary rules of law as to contracts, but to secure the system against the obstruction of persons who were not bonâ fide willing to accept the measure. He apprehended that there would be no obstacle to any person wishing to subscribe signifying his desire by writing.

MR. DENT

thought it would be better to omit this clause altogether, as the class of small farmers, who would be principally affected by this Bill, were notoriously averse to putting their names to anything which they thought might subject them to unknown liabilities. He was opposed to the provision in question.

MR. HENLEY

remarked that the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) had, by his explanations, made the matter less easy to understand than it was before. It appeared to him (Mr. Henley) that these things ought to be made as plain as possible. When it was considered the difficulties of proving what was or what was not a contract, it was not unreasonable to urge objections to such machinery as that proposed. The introduction of the words "the first time" made the meaning of that part of the clause somewhat dubious.

MR. GOLDNEY

suggested that the meaning of the words "first time" was made intelligible by a reference to the 8th clause.

MR. GLADSTONE

proposed the insertion of the words "for the first time after the passing of the Act," to make the provision intelligible, and to meet the objections of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire.

Amendment agreed to.

Words inserted.

On Motion, "That the Clause, as amended, be agreed to,"

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

expressed his opinion that it would be likely to prove an encumbrance rather than of value to the rest of the Bill. People would be afraid to put their pen to a declaration which might commit them to a liability they knew nothing of. The whole scope of the Bill was to get rid of the compulsory enforcement of church rates, and this clause appeared to him calculated to operate in the exact opposite direction. By Clause 8 no person was to be entitled to vote upon any question as to making any voluntary assessment who had not paid the amount of his share of the previous voluntary assessment, and he did not see why that clause was not sufficient for the purposes for which the 5th clause was proposed.

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

said, that unless the 5th clause was retained there would be no security, in the first instance, corresponding with that given at a subsequent stage by the 8th clause, against obstruction being offered to those who were willing to pay the rate.

MR. KENDALL

said, it was obvious that persons would not sign such a declaration as that proposed by the clause, unless they were distinctly informed what liabilities would be incurred by their so doing. He thought that the tendency of the clause would be to prevent those who were anxious to support the Church from endeavouring to do so.

MR. DENT

said, he could not see that any useful object would be attained by re- quiring the names of an unsuccessful minority to be attached to the schedule, as was contemplated by this clause.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he did not believe that practically any majority would be inclined to abuse its power; but having heard from the Secretary of State his opinion that the clause was not necessary, he should certainly not feel justified in pressing it upon the House.

Clause negatived.

Clause 6 (Voluntary Payments and Agreements for Contribution may be made).

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

thought that an addition was required. He was not sure that any action at law could be sustained against a subscribing parishioner, unless the whole of the subscribers were made plaintiff. He suggested that words should be added providing that the churchwarden, chapelwarden, or treasurer should be the nominal plaintiff in any action brought for the recovery of the rate.

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

said, he had no objection to offer to the proposed Amendment.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

objected to the words proposed, on the ground that the rate being placed upon the voluntary principle there should be no legal proceedings for its recovery.

MR. GLADSTONE

reminded the House that voluntary promises were binding under the present law, where third parties had been induced to incur certain expenses under them. In the event of parishioners agreeing to a rate for repairs, and the repairs being consequently executed, it was clear that there was a legal as well as moral obligation to pay for them; and all that the present clause did was to place the voluntary promises in the same position as those who by the present law were liable, and not that there should be a special and separate law on the question. If he were to abandon this clause he should be breaking, substantially infringing, the contract or understanding on which he had brought forward the measure. He had no objection whatever to the adoption of the judicious Amendment of the Solicitor General.

MR. SERJEANT GASELEE

objected to the Amendment of the Solicitor General, as it might give rise to much confusion. Counsels' opinion would have to be taken who was the right party to sue. He did not agree with what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) said of the hon. Member for Finsbury because he believed that his hon. Friend was as capable of understanding the subjects upon which he spoke as any other hon. Member of that House. He objected to all proceedings for enforcing payment in Courts of Law or in Equity. He was a supporter of the Church, and he preferred that it should be done voluntarily. This Bill was a sham, and he objected to the introduction of the proposed words on the ground that they would not be intelligible to the farmers. In such a measure it was out of place to make provision for an action being brought as the clause provided "in a Court of Law or Equity." If any Court was to be resorted to why should it not be the County Court, where "expenses were small?" Fancy the idea of a man who promised to pay £1 being drawn into a Chancery suit, and having to pay large costs. He had some experience of Courts of Law, and he advised everybody to keep out of them. And as to the Court of Chancery, he once had some money left him, about £1,500, to obtain which it was necessary to have what was called an amicable suit. All parties were friendly, and there was nothing hostile in any of the proceedings, but it actually cost him £300 before the affair could be settled. For that reason he was very anxious that people should keep out of Chancery. He trusted that the latter part of the clause would be altogether omitted.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 (Application of Funds).

MR. GLADSTONE moved, that, at the end of the clause, the following words be added:— Provided also, That nothing in this Act contained shall authorize any alteration of the Fabric, or Ornaments, or Services of any Church, which would not be lawful if this Act had not passed. He moved the addition of these words for the purpose of removing any apprehensions that might have existed that the funds raised under the Bill might be the means indirectly of weakening or altering the present law. He thought, however, it would be well to add the words now proposed.

MR. HUBBARD

asked, if any case could by possibility arise under the Act for which the Amendment was proposed to provide?

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

said, that in his opinion the Amendment was not in the least degree necessary. The words were unnecessary, but their addition would do no harm.

Words added.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8 (No one to vote who has not paid).

MR. HENLEY

asked, for how long a person would be liable who had declined to pay his contribution?

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

said, he would only be liable to the exclusion for non-payment of the last preceding assessment only, whether made in the current or in any preceding year.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9 (Short Title).

MR. HUBBARD

proposed to amend the short title of the Bill from Compulsory Church Rates Abolition Bill to the Compulsory Payment of Church Rates Abolition Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Mr. CANDLISH

then moved the following new Clause:— Definition of 'Church Rate'—The expression 'Church Rate' in this Act shall extend to and include every rate or part of a rate levied in any parish, under any local Act or otherwise, for any purpose to which Church Rates may now legally be applied. He mentioned the case of a parish in Sutherland, a local Act for which provided for the levying of a church rate for the payment of the stipends of the parson and the clerk, and for the repairs of the church. That Act was not repealed by the present, and as similar Acts might exist for many other parishes, church rates would subsist in their full force in those cases. In order to produce uniformity he proposed his clause.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion; the clause involved a large question, and would be unjust to many. It happened that the Church in many places had possessed lands which she had given up on being empowered by a special Act to levy church rates. Moreover, the clause was too broad in its wording. It would in some cases prevent the collection of rates for ordinary parish purposes, such as mending roads.

MR. THOMSON HANKEY

concurred in the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goldney), and stated that the parish of Marylebone would be injuriously affected by the clause as it stood.

MR. PEASE

said, he hoped the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) would take the sense of the House on the question, for without the proposed clause the church rate of Stockton would be levied as before, whereas if it passed no injustice would be done to any person, and no vested interest would be depreciated.

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

thought the principle of the proposition clearly right, although the wording of the clause might require revision, and perhaps some provisos would be wanted to meet the case suggested by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney). If, by particular Acts, powers were given to levy, under the name of church rates, rates for purposes substantially different from those to which church rates were by common law applicable, in consideration of some pecuniary or other equivalents, it would clearly not be right to interfere with those powers. But it would be impossible to work upon any provisions which might be contained in those Acts, as to raising money by church rates for purposes to which they were previously applicable by common law, as more sacred than ordinary church rates. The power to make rates for these purposes existed before any such Acts were passed; and therefore could not have formed any part of the consideration for any relinquishment of other proprietary rights. Since the clause had been upon the Paper he had received communications from Marylebone, which had a local Act of the nature referred to, showing that considerable alarm existed there for fear that the proposal would disturb the local arrangements of the parish. If the hon. Gentleman who had proposed it would consent to its withdrawal, he (Sir Roundell Palmer) would, between the present time and the Report, consider the subject, and put the clause into such a shape as, he hoped, would meet the object of its mover, and at the same time obviate the objection just mentioned.

MR. CANDLISH

said, after the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman he would for the present, with, the leave of the House, withdraw the clause.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would also take into consideration the cases he had suggested.

Clause withdrawn.

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH moved the following clause:— Every person who shall be tenant or lessee of any property of house or land, or either or both, who shall have heretofore paid Church Rates as part of the legal and customary outgoings of his tenancy, if he shall not give notice of his intention to continue to pay such Church Rates in future, shall pay to his landlord or lessor a sum equal to the average amount of Church Rate which he may have paid during the previous seven years, if his tenancy shall have lasted so long, and if not, then the average amount he may have paid during the time of such tenancy, to be paid by him to his lessor or landlord in addition to his rent, and as part of the same, and to be recoverable at law or in equity by the same legal means as his actual rent. The clause, he said, was not opposed to the principle of the Bill, but he thought the tenant-farmer ought not to derive any incidental advantage from it. Church rates, of course, belonged to the land, for where they were imposed there was a corresponding deduction from the rent; and if the tenant held by a lease, he would without this clause obtain an advantage to which he was not otherwise entitled.

MR. READ

said, if this clause were added to the Bill he hoped a proviso would be added to the clause that the landlord should not put the money so obtained into his own pocket, but hand it over to the churchwarden.

MR. NEATE

supported the clause in the interest of the tenant-farmer, who, he believed, would be a grievous sufferer by this Bill. At present there were many Nonconformist tenant-farmers, and the landlords, as a rule, did not object to them; but under this Bill, if a dissenting tenant farmer did not pay the church rate he would become a marked man. It would be the same with the village grocer. The Bill, in fact, would prove in effect, though not in intention, a Bill for the eviction of rural dissent. He must add that religious intolerance was not all on one side, for very lately a Dissenter having come into some property evicted a very excellent tenant because he was a Churchman. Properly entitled, the measure would be called an Act for the Extermination of the Rural Dissenter, and the House might expect that after it had been in operation for some time a wail of lamentation would be raised in the country, and petitions would pour in praying that the Church be thrown on the Consolidated Fund, and that a law be passed to prohibit the pernicious practice of eviction, the fruits of religious intolerance.

SIR MATTHEW RIDLEY

trusted the hon. Gentleman would not persevere with his Motion. They had now disposed of compulsory payments, and this was an attempt to introduce them again by a side wind. These matters ought to be left to private adjustment between landlord and tenant, and he was confident that in the main such an adjustment would be made. He had always been a strenuous supporter of the church rate, and had voted against the first clause of this Bill. But he had been left in a minority, and now he hoped the question would be settled.

MR. HENLEY

said, his opinion was that the Bill was not a good Bill; but this clause, with all due deference to his hon. Friend, was a great deal worse than the Bill. The Bill was something like a proposition to rob the Church, and now this clause would not allow the tenant-farmers for the few years of their lease to come in for their share of the spoil. That was something like consenting to a theft, and was much worse than the Bill. He did not think any landlords would be found to take the money—they would feel it burn in their hands.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he thought the objections taken to this clause by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire, in whose opinion he fully concurred, with the reservation of course of his opinion as to the general scope and aim of the Bill, and the objections of the hon. Baronet the Member for Northumberland, in whose opinions he fully concurred, saved him the trouble of going into his objections in detail. The broad objection to the clause was that these matters between landlord and tenant were beyond the discretion and useful scope of legislative interference, and he therefore hoped the hon. Gentleman who had proposed the clause would not press it further seeing that the sense of the Committee was evidently opposed to it.

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH

said, he would withdraw the Clause.

Clause withdrawn.

House resumed.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 59.]