HC Deb 02 August 1878 vol 242 cc982-92

Order for Consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration."

MR. PLIMSOLL

said, he had placed upon the Paper an Amendment, That the Bill be taken into Consideration on that day three months. Instead of making that Motion, he intended to substitute another—"That the Bill be re-committed to a Select Committee." His reason for taking that course was this—the Committee which had already sat upon the Bill was a small Committee, the numbers were equally divided in regard to the merits of the Bill, and the Bill itself only passed by the casting vote of the Chairman. Perhaps the House would consider it necessary that he should say a few words to explain the circumstances of the case. The authorities of St. Bartholomew's Hospital were the lay impropriators of the tithes of the parish of Christchurch, Newgate Street, and their tithe was derived from a Charter of King Henry VIII., granted between 300 and 400 years ago. About 200 years ago, the sum payable under this grant or decree was commuted or settled for a fixed annual payment of £200, and this sum had continued to be paid to St. Bartholomew's Hospital by the parish during all that time. Recently—in 1874—it was discovered that the terms of the original grant gave to the hospital a title to a sum equal to 2s. 9d. in the pound from the parish. This discovery disturbed the arrangement which had existed for 200 years, and the hospital actually sued some of the parishioners, who had bought property in the parish, for a rate of 2s. 9d. in the pound, which upon even the limited area of this parish would amount, he was told, to a total rate of £7,180 per annum. The matter was thrown into Chancery, and was argued before the Master of the Rolls, who expressed, in the strongest terms, his sense of the injustice of the demand, and said he would trace every principle of law which bore upon the subject, in order to ascertain if there were not means of defeating the claim. In the end, the Master of the Rolls hung up the matter, in the hope that it might be settled upon some satisfactory terms of compromise. The action had been defended by two of the parishioners—Mr. Tyler, and the Board of Christchurch Hospital. Before the cause in Chancery was disposed of, a Bill was introduced into the House of Lords. Lord Redesdale refused to proceed with it, while a case was pending in the Courts of Law; so that nothing should be done by Parliament to deprive the persons interested of their legal remedy. But the promoters of the Bill settled privately with the opponents, and proceeded with the Bill as an unopposed Bill, forgetful of the fact that there were other owners of property in the parish who had not come forward, because they thought the claims of the whole body would be defended and fought for by the opponents, who had since been got out of the way. The terms of the compromise proposed in the present Bill was that, instead of receiving £200 a-year, the hospital should receive £1,100 a-year at once, £1,650 at the end of five years, and £2,200 a-year at the end of five years more. As Lord Redesdale pertinently observed, if the promoters of the Bill were entitled to £2,200 a-year, why did they not take it at once? Why should they shirk their rights? It was evident that the authorities of the hospital, under the name of charity, were asking for as large a sum as they could get at present, with the intention of putting on the screw from time to time afterwards. When the Master of the Rolls was made acquainted with the nature of the compromise, he lifted up his hands in astonishment and said—" And such things are done in the name of charity!" It appeared to him (Mr. Plimsoll) that the question was one which a Select Committee of the House of Commons was eminently well fitted to decide. He did not impugn the decision of the Committee that had sat already; but he thought he had stated a case sufficiently strong to justify him in asking the House to re-commit the Bill. He had already pointed out that the Committee were equally divided, and that the Bill was passed by the casting vote of the Chairman. It was not, therefore, disrespectful to ask the House to refer the measure to a larger Committee, who would be better able to deal with a Bill of this sort. He would, therefore, move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be re-committed.

MR. SPEAKER

Does any hon. Member second the Amendment?

MR. WATKIN WILLIAMS

I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word " be " to the end of the Question, in order to add the word " recommitted, ''— (Mr. Plimsoll,) — instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

SIR SYDNEY WATERLOW

trusted that the House would not consent to disturb the decision already arrived at —first, of the Committee of the House of Lords; secondly, of the recommendation of the Master of the Rolls after hearing the case for two days; and, thirdly, of the decision of the Select Committee of that House. His hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) suggested now that the Bill should go before another Committee. He (Sir Sydney Waterlow) saw no substantial reason for adopting that course. They had already referred it to a Select Committee, who, after hearing evidence on both sides, had decided upon recommending the House to read the Bill a third time. He thought his hon. Friend the Member for Derby had been very much misinformed in regard to the statement which he had been induced to make to the House. His hon. Friend said that terms of compromise were settled with the two opponents of the Bill in the House of Lords; and, therefore, that it was passed on the withdrawal of their opposition as an unopposed Bill. The real fact was, that Lord Redesdale objected to the Bill being allowed to go on, while a suit in the matter was proceeding in the Court of Chancery; and part of the compromise agreed to afterwards, and assented to by the Master of the Rolls, was that all the other inhabitants of the parish should be placed upon the same footing as the defendants in the Chancery suit. Therefore, in that respect, there could be no complaint, because all the parishioners were placed upon the same footing. He asked the House to pass the Bill for this reason. They all disliked tithes. He disliked them himself as much as anyone could dislike them; and in this case, he thought it was to the interest of the parish to bring about a commutation of tithes, in order to prevent the tithes from increasing year after year with the increase of the assessment of the parish. The object of the present Bill was to fix a definite sum to be paid by the parish in future years, so as to prevent the charge from increasing with the assessment. A statement had been circulated that the property belonging to Christ's Hospital was to be exempted from tithes. That was altogether incorrect. The great bulk of the property belonging to Christ's Hospital had been exempted from tithes ever since it was a monastery. That part which was monastical property was exempted from the payment of tithes; but every other part had to pay tithes, and every portion of the property that was liable to pay tithes was taken into account. Under the compromise, effected by the present Bill, Christ's Hospital would be required to pay a sum of £200 a-year; whereas what it would be called on to pay under an assessment would be about £300 a-year more, none but the titheable property being taken into account. He trusted that the House would consent to the third reading of the Bill, because the matter had now been in dispute for a considerable number of years, and the parish had already expended as much in the way of costs as it would have been required to pay in the shape of tithes. If the House objected to read the Bill a third time, the question must go back again in November to the Master of the Rolls, who was of opinion that he would have to make a decree for the payment of 2s. 9d. in the pound, notwithstanding the fact that he thought such a rate would be unjust. If the Bill failed to pass, there was very little doubt that the parish would have to pay that amount. He did not propose to go further into the merits of the case, because he thought those merits had been already thoroughly threshed out in the inquiries which had taken place in the House of Lords, and before a Select Committee of the House of Commons.

MR. ROBERTS

said, he wished to say a word upon the subject, as he was one of the Committee appointed to consider the Bill. Although he thought it was desirable, in questions of this nature, to stop anything in the shape of litigation, he contended that the Preamble of the Bill, which was carried only by the casting vote of the Chairman, was not proved. The Master of the Rolls had clearly indicated his opinion upon the matter. He said that, although he might be compelled to give a decree in favour of the rate, yet he would take every opportunity of inquiring whether there were not some means of preventing him from doing what he regarded as an unjust act. Under these circumstances, he (Mr. Roberts) would be prepared, if the hon. Member for Derby went to a division, to give his vote in the same way as he had done before.

MR. ALLCROFT

said, that he also sat upon the Committee to whom the Bill was referred, and although it was quite true that the Preamble of the Bill was only carried by the casting vote of the Chairman, the opponents of the measure had every opportunity of giving all the evidence they could against the measure. It was shown to the Committee that the great majority of the ratepayers of the parish were in favour of the Bill. This he thought ought to be enough to induce the House to pass the measure. It was quite true that the measure would very considerably increase the sum derived by the hospital from the parish in the shape of tithes. At present the sum paid was not very large. He believed the parish had been in the habit of paying £200 a-year in the way of commutation of tithes; but St. Bartholomew's Hospital had recently been told that it was entitled to claim a much larger amount than that—indeed, that it had a right to claim a rate amounting to 2s. 9d. in the pound. A rate of 2s. 9d. in the pound would amount to no less than £6,000 or £7,000 a-year, and the determination of the Hospital to increase the charge so largely would, no doubt, give rise to very considerable litigation within the parish. Litigation had already commenced, and when the ease was brought before the Master of the Rolls, he said at once that the law was against the parish, and that if he was required to give a decision, his decision must be in favour of a rate of 2s. 9d. in the pound. In that case the parish, would be saddled with the full payment of an annual sum amounting to between £6,000 and £7,000 a-year. The Commissioners, not wishing to do that, had come to a compromise, of which the Bill now before the House was the result. Instead of paying £6,000 or £7,000 a-year, the parish would be required to pay £1,100 a-year for the first five years; £1,650 a-year for the next five years, and £2,200 a-year afterwards. His own opinion was that that was a very fair compromise, and that it was to the interest of the parish to accept it. Under these circumstances, he hoped the House would reject the Amendment of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll), and consent to read the Bill a third time.

MR. GILES

remarked that he had some personal interest in the matter. All the persons who had been hitherto opposed to the measure had, he believed, given way, and now, at the last moment, when the Bill had reached its final stage, the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) came forward with an objection to it. He (Mr. Giles) could not find that any of the parishioners entertained any real objection to the compromise which would be effected by the Bill. They had had full opportunity of being heard before the Committee, where they could have raised any objection they chose, but they had abstained from doing so; and now, at the last moment, an attempt was made to throw over the Bill on the third reading. He trusted that the House would not yield to such a demand. If it did, the only result would be that the parishioners would have to expend a still further sum in litigation, and in all probability in the end, the same advice would be given to them by the Master of the Rolls as that which he had already given—namely, that the parties should endeavour to arrange terms among themselves. The advice of the Master of the Rolls had been taken, and terms had been arranged. He hoped the House would do nothing to throw over the arrangement, and to land the parish in further litigation, and expense, and waste of time.

MR. E. JENKINS

thought the ease brought forward by his hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) was, to say the least of it, a strong case for further consideration, and for not pro- ceeding hastily in the matter. What were the circumstances of the case? It appeared that the Commissioners of St. Bartholomew's Hospital had recently made a claim upon the parish of Christ-church for tithes, which enormously increased the sum the parish had been in the habit of paying. The parish resisted the claim, and two of the largest ratepayers had been put forward to fight the battle on behalf of the whole of the parish. While they were engaged in fighting the battle, a Bill was introduced into the House of Lords for the purpose of carrying through Parliament a compromise which would have the effect of defeating the results of the litigation. He would simply put it to the House of Commons whether that was a proper thing to do; whether, when litigation was going on, it was a proper thing for people who had the power and the money to introduce a Bill into that House for the purpose of overriding the results of the litigation? It was perfectly clear, from the statement of the case which had already been made to the House, even by the supporters of the Bill, that that was what had taken place, and that those who had been relied upon by the parishioners to fight their battle in the Courts of Law, and who ought to have carried their opposition into the House of Lords, had been successfully squared by those who were promoting the Bill. There was one fact which, he thought, ought to have considerable weight with the House. It was this—that Christchurch Hospital had been squared for the very small sum of £100 a-year upon the amount of property in the parish held by Christ's Hospital. He presumed that although there would be this small increase in the contribution of Christ's Hospital, the effect of the Bill would be to relieve the property of Christchurch of an enormous charge, which it might otherwise be called upon to pay, provided that it paid in due proportion to the rest of the parish. With such facts as this brought to the notice of the House, surely there was sufficient to justify the opposition which had been raised to the Bill, or, at any rate, in making out a case for delaying the confirmation of the decision of the Committee upon the question. He hoped the House would assist his hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) in the endeavour he was making to have the question referred back again to the Committee.

MR. RAIKES

observed, that if this were merely a matter of abstract right, he should be of opinion that the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) had made out a fairly strong case. He was entirely of opinion that the claim put forward on behalf of St. Bartholomew's Hospital was one which fully deserved the expressions used with regard to it by the Master of the Bolls when the case was brought under his notice. For a long series of years the Hospital had been content to compound with the parish for a fixed sum in lieu of tithes; and it was only now, after the lapse of a great number of years, that the Commissioners put forward another claim, which very largely increased the sum hitherto payable. But, at the same time, there were other considerations which must weigh upon the House, as well as those which had been put forward by the hon. Member for Derby; and he would advert for a moment to a matter mentioned in one of the clauses of the City Tithes Act of 1864, which appeared to him to bear upon the subject, and which he thought would have considerable weight with the House. In the 19th section of the London City Tithes Act, there was this provision— With respect to the parish of Christchurch, Newgate Street, it shall be lawful for the parishioners of the said parish assembled in vestry, of which and of the special object thereof notice shall have been given, in the accustomed manner, to agree with the lay impropriators of the tithes of the said parish for the commutation of the said tithes or sums of money, instead of tithes arising or growing due therein, under the provisions of the said Act and decree, into an annual fixed tithe or sum to be paid by the said parish, and to be raised by tithe rates to be assessed therein. That was the mode in which the parish had endeavoured to meet the case. A suit, as they were told, had now been proceeding for some years. Considerable costs had been incurred on both sides, and the parties to the suit had now been willing to effect a compromise. That compromise would be carried out by the present Bill; and, under those circumstances, the House was asked by two or three Gentlemen, who declined to assent to the compromise, to reject the decision of the Select Committee, and to send the Bill back to them for further consideration. He was bound to say that, in his opi- nion, it would be an inconvenient course for the House to take upon itself, in the present case, to set aside what was really the legitimate expression of the views of the parish, especially when an Act of Parliament passed in 1864 had made a special provision for such a case. He was unable to see that sufficient grounds had been stated by the hon. Member for Derby to induce the House to take a course which was not only unusual, but which would be opposed to the wishes of the parish and of those most interested in the question, and would be contrary to the express stipulations of an Act of Parliament, by which an arrangement of this sort was contemplated. There was no allegation of improper influence having been brought to bear at the time of the passing of the Act, and it certainly appeared to have been in the minds of the framers of the Act that some such arrangement as that now proposed was likely to be made and sanctioned. Under these circumstances, it seemed to him that the House would probably make a mistake, if they sent back the Bill to the Select Committee. He quite admitted that there might be a hardship in individual cases. He quite agreed that a smaller sum might have been fixed, and that the promoters of the Bill seemed to have gone upon their legal right, and had shown that they were fully alive to the nature of their claim. At the same time, the Commissioners had a perfect right to make what they deemed to be a fair compromise with the parish, and that compromise had been accepted by the persons who were parties to the suit before the Master of the Rolls. All the persons interested in the matter had, he understood, been before the Select Committee, and the Committee, after a full hearing, had decided against the opponents of the Bill. Under these circumstances, he thought it would be undesirable, upon the whole, to send the Bill back to the Select Committee.

MR. WATKIN WILLIAMS

hoped the House would consent to the proposal made by his hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) for the re-committal of the Bill. He had paid some attention to the course of litigation in regard to this matter; and he was bound to say that it appeared to him this was one of the most monstrous attempts he had ever heard of on the part of the owners of a tithe to take advantage of an anomaly in the law. He would tell the House what the point in the matter really was. For more than 200 years the property in the parish of Christ-church, Newgate Street, was rated at 1½d. in the pound for tithes. Property within the parish had for that length of time been bought, sold, settled, and disposed of on the footing that it was liable to a fixed rate for tithes of 1½d. in the pound. But some ingenious person had recently discovered that under an old Act of Parliament, by which the rate was originally levied, the case of this tithe commutation was not provided for by the Statute of Limitations, and that there was nothing to prevent them, notwithstanding the lapse of 200 years, from re-asserting their old claim in the language of the ancient Act of Parliament. They accordingly put forward a claim to raise the rate from 1½d. in the pound to the enormous sum of 2s. 9d. in the pound, and, in order to enforce that claim, the suit to which reference had been made was brought before the Master of the Rolls. The House had already heard that the Master of the Rolls expressed his astonishment; he (Mr. Watkin Williams) had almost said his disgust—at any rate, it was as near that as possible—at such a claim being made. He further expressed his amazement that there was no such thing as a Statute of Limitations applying to the case. He was anxious to discover whether he could find, among the ancient authorities, anything that would bear upon the case, or whether the old Statute which formed the foundation for the claim had not become obsolete. The learned Judge, however, scarcely found his way to arrive at that conclusion, and he ventured to recommend that some arrangement should be come to in order to put a stop to litigation. He (Mr. Watkin Williams) thought the compromise which had been come to between the promoters of the Bill and the two litigants in the suit was unjust and unreasonable to other persons in the parish. The proposition now made to the House was not to negative the scheme, but to give further time for consideration. Having regard to the fact that the Select Committee were equally divided, and that the Bill was passed through the casting vote of the Chairman, it would, he thought, do no harm to give an opportunity for further consideration, and he hoped the Bill would be re-committed for that purpose.

Question put.

The House divided: — Ayes 130; Noes 74: Majority 56. — (Div. List, No. 249.)

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill considered; to be read the third time.

Forward to