§
Motion made, and Question put—
That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee of five Members, two to be nominated by the House and three by the Committee of Selection.
That all petitions against the Bill presented five clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their counsel, or agents, be heard against the Bill, and counsel be heard in support of the Bill.
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
That three be the quorum."—(Mr. Carvell Williams.)
*MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Notts, Mansfield)In proposing that this Bill be referred to a hybrid Committee, I am not adopting either an unusual or an unreasonable course. I see it stated as an objection that it would create an undesirable precedent, but I am really only following precedent; for, though I have not had a very lengthened Parliamentary experience, I can recall several instances in which private Bills of special importance, or raising questions of great public interest, have been referred to hybrid Committees, instead of to ordinary private Bill Committees. As to the reasonableness of the proposal, no one who was present at the Debate on the Second Reading can regard this Motion as being either frivolous or merely 608 obstructive. I am not entitled to repeat the objections stated during that Debate, but I may name certain important questions which were then raised. The first was the all-important one whether the rate to be commuted by this Bill is valid in law. That is a point which I leave to legal Members who may follow me; and I, therefore, only say that if it is found that the rate is illegal, then the case for the Bill is completely destroyed. A second question is, whether, though the rate may be valid, it should be commuted into a perpetual endowment, and an endowment of only seven out of the twenty-four episcopal churches in the parish. A third question is, whether the churches built at the cost of the parishioners should be handed over to the incumbents, and the vestry lose their present powers over them. And, lastly, there is the question whether the ratepayers have expressed such an opinion in favour of the Bill as to justify Parliament in placing it upon the Statute Book. When objection is taken to the Second Reading of private Bills it is constantly urged that the objections ought to be considered by a Committee upstairs, but that plea is available only in the case of Bills which can be opposed. But this Bill is not, technically, an opposed Bill; because the rules which govern private Bill legislation give the inhabitants no locus standi in cases where there is a local body which is supposed to represent their interests. It is stated that no petition has been presented in time against the Bill, but I may inform the House that that is the result of accident, a petition having been lodged, but lodged informally. But even if it had been presented within the prescribed time it would have had no effect, because the locus standi of the petitioners would have been disputed and have been disallowed. What will happen if this Motion is rejected? Why, the Bill will be treated as an unopposed Bill, and be subject to the usual treatment of such Bills. The Committee to which it will be referred will probably be composed of the Chairman of Ways and Means, the honourable Member for the Partick Division of Lanarkshire, and Mr. Chandos Leigh; and when it reaches their hands it will be sanctioned without any inquiry into the facts of the case, or any consideration of the objections urged 609 against it in this House. Mr. Speaker, I submit that that will inflict great injustice upon a large number of the inhabitants, of Marylebone. And what are the reasons assigned for the rejection of this Motion? One is that the Bill has passed the Lords without opposition, and has not been petitioned against; but the obstacles in the way of opposition are the same in the Lords as those existing in this House. Another objection is that the provisions of the Bill have been fully-placed before the ratepayers; but, in fact, they have never had an opportunity of objecting to it, and even in the vestry it has been approved by but small majorities. Next, it is alleged that the adoption of this Motion will throw increased expense upon the ratepayers; but, surely, when as much as £80,000 is at stake, that is a risk worth the running, and I cannot help thinking that, if there had been a regard for the pockets of the ratepayers, which is now professed, no Bill containing such extravagant proposals would have been submitted to Parliament. Then, finally, it is stated that delay will imperil the passing of the Bill this Session. That, in my opinion, is not a serious contingency; for if the Bill goes back to the vestry it will certainly not be reintroduced in its present shape. I am not in favour, as has been suggested, of any confiscatory measure; on the contrary, I am desirous that this sore, which has been running for so many years in Marylebone, should be healed; but, then, it should be healed by equitable and reasonable means, and it is because I regard this Measure as being both unjust and unreasonable that I ask the House to adopt the Motion which I now move.
§ MR. BOULNOIS (Marylebone, E.)I think I am justified in describing the Motion made by the honourable Gentleman opposite as a dilatory Motion. It is quite clear that the object that he has in view to-day is to defeat the Bill, and being unable to attain that object upon the Second Reading of the Bill, that having been carried by a majority of this House, he now comes down and asks that a Special Committee shall be formed in order to consider all kinds of subjects that may be brought before it. I think I am also justified in describing 610 it as a dilatory Motion, because, if the House will look at the Motions which are on the Paper, it will be seen that it will be practically impossible for this Committee to get through the matters which will be brought before it in time for the Bill to pass into law this Session. There are all kinds of subjects which are to be introduced before the Committee, ranging from pew rents to that of the incidence of taxation. I object altogether to this Bill going before a hybrid Committee. I object on general grounds, and we know quite recently that the right, honourable Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition made a very strong appeal to the House not to send a private Bill to a hybrid Committee. The reasons why the right honourable Gentleman objected to that was that a hybrid Committee was a partisan Committee, and that members of that Committee could be approached by their friends outside the House, and that it is not really in a sense a judicial tribunal. There is no reason why this particular Bill should not follow the usual course. It is an ordinary Bill, and should go in the ordinary way to an ordinary Committee. I admit that because it is an unopposed Bill it will go in the usual way to the Unopposed Bills Committee, consisting, as has been described, of the Chairman of Ways and Means, and other Members of the House who are associated with him; and I know of no better tribunal to which to refer Bills of this kind than that presided over by the Chairman of Ways and Means. Objection has been raised that there was a petition presented which was informal, and was, therefore, unable to be lodged. Was that petition signed by a large number of the ratepayers of Marylebone? I doubt if it was signed by a single ratepayer of Marylebone; and let it not he forgotten this is a matter for the ratepayers of Marylebone. They wish to be relieved of a rate which has been imposed upon them upwards of a thousand years, and they say, "We are prepared to pay a certain sum of money in order to get rid of this perpetual encumbrance." The honourable Gentleman who moved this Motion stated that the inhabitants of Marylebone had had no opportunity of considering this question. I stated to the House on the occasion of the Second Reading, and I do 611 not wish to repeat the arguments which I used then—for I wish to be as brief as possible upon this question, which, after all, is a very small matter—that the inhabitants have had this matter before them for something like two years, and that the decision of the vestry was given on a Motion, "Yea" or "Nay." It was said that there have been no elections upon which the opinions of the inhabitants could be given. My honourable Friend is mistaken in that. An election was held in May last for a third of the vestry, and not one syllable was expressed upon the platforms upon this subject. That, I think, indicates whether there was any strong feeling upon this subject in the parish. We all know how easy it is to get up a strong feeling when people think they have a fair opportunity of attacking the Church, and the absence of any reference to this matter shows that there was no antagonistic feeling in Marylebone against the Bill. Again, I must correct the honourable Member upon a matter with regard to the vestry itself. This Bill has been promoted by the vestry, and I have already informed the House that the principle of the Bill was settled by the vestry after a long deliberation, and was passed nemine contradicente. It is not fair to say, therefore, that it was carried by a small majority. I do object that the ratepayers of Marylebone should be put to the large expense which they will be put to if this Bill goes before what may be called an opposed Committee, because that expense is not warranted. All sorts and conditions of men would be brought before this Committee—anybody might come in, not necessarily ratepayersi—and I think it would be extremely hard that the parish should be put to the expense of employing counsel, and going through the whole business of an opposed Bill when there is really no opposition whatever to the Bill from the parish of Marylebone itself. I will only allude to one more instance, in order that the House may reject the Motion of the honourable Gentleman opposite. There was a small Bill about Liverpool brought in last Session, which was practically on all fours with the Bill now before the House. A Motion for the rejection of the Bill was made on the Second Reading, which was rejected by a very large majority. A 612 Motion was subsequently made to refer the Bill to a hybrid Committee, and that also was defeated. I ask the House to follow the precedent which was set in the Liverpool case, and to refuse to send this Bill to a hybrid Committee. Let the Bill go before the Committee for unopposed Measures, and so relieve the inhabitants of Marylebone from, a charge they have no right to pay.
MR. BRYNMOR JONES (Swansea District)I do not desire upon this occasion to repeat any of the observations which I made on Thursday last when this Measure came before the House for Second Reading, but I do wish to urge upon the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House, the Bill is of so special a kind as to justify the request which is being made by my honourable Friend the Member for the Mansfield Division. The first ground upon which I would make that appeal to the right honourable Gentleman, who, after all, must bear the burden for the House, is this: I assert that it is unjust to apply our private Bill procedure to a Measure of this kind. You, Sir, have ruled that it can be, and having regard to the number of precedents which I see cited in Erskine May's "Parliamentary Practice," I cannot complain in the slightest degree of your ruling that this is a Bill which may, according to the Rules of the House, be introduced as a private Measure. But that being the case, what I respectfully urge for the consideration of the Leader of the House is this: that the question whether any particular Bill ought, or ought not, to be introduced and carried on as a public or private Measure, is one that has to be determined by the circumstances of the case. If the right honourable Gentleman will look at the large number of decisions of the House—and will look at the comments thereon—he will find that for many years past it has always been the practice to treat Metropolitan Bills in a somewhat different light from Bills dealing with other parts of the country, and that is because of the vastness of the population of any parish in London, and the number of interests involved in any Bill of this kind, and other general considerations. I therefore assert that it is unjust and inexpedient that a Bill of this kind, which 613 deals, first of all, with the rights of the parishioners of Marylebone, a very large and fluctuating parish, which deals with the rights and duties of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, which deals with the rights of the Crown, and the preamble of which declares that the right honourable Gentleman himself has had to consent to its provisions before it could be brought in, ought not to be dealt with as a mere matter of private Bill legislation. This private Bill takes away from no individual any property which belongs to him, except in regard to pew rents and rates. It affects no interests in the parish—no individual interest; but it does affect the interests of a very important class in that parish. They are not the classes who live in the highest-rated houses; they are not the great people of the parish; they are the poor people of the parish. This Bill affects the Roman Catholic voters, the Roman Catholic ratepayers who elect the vestry; it affects the Nonconformists of the Protestant denominations; it affects the Unitarians; and it affects those who are perfectly indifferent to matters of religion, and yet who pay their rates from day to day. Yet there is not one of them—there is nobody who can get a locus standi, so far as I can see, a necessary locus standi before the Court of Referees in regard to this matter. But, notwithstanding that, I say that the interests of these people are matters that ought to be investigated. The Member for East Marylebone said that the matter had been before us for some time, that it had passed through the House of Lords, and was now before us as an unopposed Bill. Very well, take it that it is so; and then I say that, having regard to the special character of the Bill, we ought to set aside in such a special case as this the Standing Orders relating to private Bills, or, at any rate, we ought to depart from the ordinary procedure, so as to allow the classes I have referred to, and who are very poor ratepayers, an opportunity of investigating the expediency of this bargain before a Select Committee of some kind of this House. That is my first reason. My second reason is this: that if it is perfectly true that the vestry brought this forward, I am able to state from my own knowledge of the circumstances, that no parish meeting has been held in regard 614 to this matter. I do not say that is necessary as a matter of law, for I am bound to admit that if you look at the matter from a merely technical point of view the vestry is right in promoting this Bill. My honourable Friend opposite said that the Resolution was properly carried. A Motion, I think, was carried as late as Tuesday last, as a mere matter of law, that the vestry have a right to promote this Bill; but even vestrymen are men elected by the rate-payers, and when a matter of this kind is sprung upon us the vestry should have given us some opportunity of discussing its details. The honourable Member opposite says it has been before the parish for two years—that it is two years ago since the bargain was first made. All I can, say is, that I have never heard about the preamble of this Bill till about three months ago, and then I could find no proper or authoritative source as to what he provisions of it were. Well, Sir, what ought the vestrymen to have done? The vestry ought to have convened a meeting of the parishioners. I know nothing of this proposal, and my honourable Friend the Member for Brecknock, who is a very large ratepayer in the parish, he knew nothing about it. I daresay they did let people like the Great Central Railway Company—the Metropolitan Railway Company—who are the biggest ratepayers in the parish, know all about it. But, as I say, I myself received no notice whatever of this proposal, and I do contend that the vestry should have taken Rome course of this kind, when important—not important from an Imperial point of view, but very important from the point of view of the parish of St. Marylebone—questions of this sort were coming on, and that they should have brought the matter to the notice of the parishioners. A petition has been presented, signed by ratepayers in the parish, at the Private Bill Office, in accordance with law, but as I understand it, after the time that, according to the Standing Orders of the House, a petition ought to have been lodged in order to make this Bill an opposed instead of an unopposed Bill. In the next place—I am still appealing to the right honourable Gentleman, who, according to my view, occupies in this matter a judicial position, he is not promoting this Bill, it is 615 not a Government Bill—the promoters of the Bill are the vestry of the parish of St. Marylebone, who are represented by my honourable Friend the Member for East Marylebone. Seeing, then, the position of the right honourable Gentleman, I want to ask him this: has the right honourable Gentleman noticed this fact, that the Bill has been materially altered since it was introduced? I will not venture with my not very long experience to say whether this is an entirely unusual thing, but I have been informed by a very eminent Parliamentary agent that Bills do not, in the course of their passage in the two Houses, materially alter during that progress. What I find in regard to this case is this: that a very material alteration indeed has been made since the Bill was introduced to the House of Lords, and since the time it came down to the House of Commons. It was introduced to the House of Lords at a very early period of the Session, and there is not one word in the Bill as introduced in the House of Lords about the sum of £2,700 that we have got, according to the present Bill, to pay for the repair of the fabric of the churches, I should like to know, as a ratepayer of the parish of St. Marylebone, what has taken place between the time that the Bill was introduced to the House of Lords and the time when it came down from the House of Lords to justify the increase in the liability placed upon the ratepayers of this parish. According to the way in which the Bill was introduced, out of the £80,000 which it is proposed to raise by this Bill, £1,000 was to be paid under the Incorporated Church Building Society's Act. Since the Bill was introduced into the House of Commons there is a material alteration in that part, and our liabilities are increased by a sum of £2,700. Now, I ask the right honourable Gentleman, as occuping an impartial position in this matter, whether it is fair that this Bill should be passed as an unopposed Measure, and whether, seeing that the arrangements have been altered since the Bill was first introduced, we may not justly demand that the matter should be investigated by a Committee of this House. That is my second point. For my third point I must ask the serious attention of the Attorney General. The Bill as it stands infringes 616 the general law. I am afraid that I can not, without trespassing unduly upon the time of the House, explain the matter so clearly and so fully as I should like, but I think a very few words will put the House in possession of the point. The Bill as it stands infringes a general law, and therefore it ought to be sent to a Select Committee. It infringes the general law in this way, that it enables a rate to be made in respect of a matter—an ecclesiastical matter—under the Church Rates Abolition Act, 1868, which has been declared to be by a court of law illegal. I have got the Attorney General's opinion here, and now I must mention to the House this: that the rates which are dealt with by this Bill depend sub stantially upon the Act of Parliament of 1811, which deals with the parish church and the other smaller churches or chapels, and also the Act of 1820 or 1821, 1 and 2 George IV., which deals with four other very considerable churches in this parish. Now, the circumstances of the passing of these Acts were, of course, somewhat different. After the passing of the Church Rates Act, 1868, a point was taken in regard to the first Act, the Act of 1811, which dealt—
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! These matters were mentioned on the Debate upon the occasion of the Second Reading of the Bill. The honourable Member must confine his remarks to the Motion before the House.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESI am not discussing the merits, but the general law of the land, as regards a private Bill, because my second point is that, if it alters the general law of the land, it ought to go to a Select Committee. I am not going to argue the thing at length; I am only supporting that line of argument by saying that the opinion of the Attorney General, which was given by him with the then Mr. Jeune, now the President of the Divorce Court, was absolutely confirmed by the decision of the Court of Appeal to which I referred the other day. In substance, the effect of his opinion is this: that so far as any rate levied under the Act of 1811 is levied for ecclesiastical purposes it is not covered by the exemption in section 5 of the Church Rate Act of 1868. With 617 regard to the other four churches, both the Attorney General and Mr. Jeune were of a contrary opinion. They thought that the case of those four churches did come within the exemption in section 5 of that Act of 1868, and that, therefore, the rate was good, and the Court of Appeal supported it. That is quite in accordance with my expectations that the opinion of the Attorney General should be upheld by the Court of Appeal. That being so, any rate levied in Marylebone, so far as it is to be applied to the repair of the parish church, is, according to the opinion of the Attorney General, illegal. Under this Bill—the Bill that we are asked to-day to pass as an unopposed Bill—this money is to be applied to the repair of the parish church in respect of which no rate can be levied.
§ MR. BOULNOISI am sorry to interrupt the honourable Member, but no rate has been levied in the parish of Marylebone under the Act of 1811 since the opinion given by the Attorney General.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESI am quite aware of that. That is exactly the point, and the honourable Gentleman, having got the control of the vestry, and finding himself in a House in which there is a preponderance of Conservative and Unionist Members, wants to alter the situation which has been created by the decision of the Court of Appeal. I will read it—
And whereas the vestry, by resolutions passed at vestry meeting duly held for the purpose on the sixteenth day of June, One thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight, hare agreed, in addition to the said sum of eighty thousand pounds, to pay to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners a sum of two thousand seven hundred pounds, to be applied in, or towards effecting, such immediate repairs of the said churches and chapels, and of the residence of the minister of St. John's Chapel, or in or towards such other purposes as the Ecclesiastical Commissioners may, with the approval of the Lord Bishop of London, determine.Why, the sum of £2,700—and this part of the preamble has been inserted since the Bill was introduced—is to be applied to the repair of these very churches which the decision of the Court of Appeal has said no rate can be levied in respect of. Therefore I say it is a monstrous thing to treat this as a mere matter of private legislation. The right honourable 618 Gentleman ought not to allow it, because he is in an impartial position. I repeat that, notwithstanding that he has got certain rights, he ought not to allow this Bill to go as an unopposed private Bill, but ought to give us an opportunity of ranging this question before some Committee or other. If you are going to raise this £80,000, I should like to know why. If that £80,000 is to be raised on the basis of these old Acts and these old-fashioned principles it is only to be given to six churches. If you are going to raise £80,000 at the expense of all the people of the parish, why should not every Established church share in the benefits? There are many other anomalies in this Bill—anomalies of a most remarkable kind—but I will mention one, and one only. Why are the clergy to be ex-officio members of the vestry? If this Bill passes unopposed, there will be no opportunity of raising any contention with regard to this matter. I think, Sir, I have made my points. I do think that, as this is a matter of general public principle, and quite apart from any consideration of the merits of the particular proposal, I have a right to look upon the right honourable Gentleman, as the Leader of the House of Commons, that he will not lend himself to an intrigue such as is embodied in this Bill, and not to assist the honourable Member to dominate the electoral judgment in the way in which the honourable Member for East Marylebone has been doing in regard to this matter.
§ SIR J. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)I do not intend to inflict myself upon the House for a very long time, but I would ask permission to say a few words of comment upon what has fallen from the honourable Member for East Marylebone. He has described this Motion as a dilatory Motion, and has presented to the House a plea for its Vote on that account. But if the House can really realise what has been the course of this Bill to the Legislature, I think it will excuse us if even at this last moment we are unable to bring our arguments before a tribunal to get the Bill amended as we desire it. The Bill was brought first into the other House, and read a first time on the 15th of February. It received the examiner's certificate the day before it was read a second time on the 619 29th of March, and it got into Committee unopposed on the 30th of June. It was reported on that day, and was read a third time on the 4th of July. Now, Sir, I will ask the House to contrast that leisurely method with what has happened to the Bill since it came to us. The Bill was read a first time on the 4th of July; the examiner's report was dated on the 8th of July. It was read a second time on the 14th of July; so that, whereas the other branch of the Legislature has had from the 15th of February to the 4th of July to consider and determine upon the provisions of this Bill, this House has had 10 days between the first and practically last stage during which it appears before us. Mind, I do not blame the honourable Member for the delay at all. It may have been necessary, but surely this House is entitled to more than 10 days to consider a matter containing provisions so important as the provisions of this Bill. The honourable Member cited the case of the Liverpool Bill, and said that the House refused to accept the Motion, which would have defeated the Bill entirely—that is to say, the postponement of the Second Reading for six months. But there was an excellent reason for this refusal of the House. That Bill was not a Bill containing alone provisions with regard to the churches of Liverpool. It was an omnibus Bill of enormous importance to that great city. Perhaps it is presumptuous on my part to say that I think that, the House did right to grant the Second Reading in order to enable that Bill to go upstairs. But that Bill went before the Opposed Bills Committees—it was capable of being examined upstairs; it was exposed to the attacks of petitioners—whereas this Bill, which touches the interests of Marylebone, and which is being rushed through this House, will not go before an opposed Committee, but will be disposed in 10 minutes on technical grounds alone. Now, I am going to present to the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House of Commons a statement which I make in good faith. I asked him the other day whether, before he had given his consent to the Bill on behalf of the Crown, he had been made aware of the decision in the Court of Appeal. His answer was a reference to the learned Attorney General, and the Attorney 620 General, whose opinion, as far as my uninstructed knowledge of the law and intelligence permits me to form an opinion, I quite agree with, and that opinion given in 1889 was exactly on all fours with the decision in the Court of Appeal in 1895, which decision, I take it, was a declaration that the rate was bad. Now, I have to appeal to the right honourable Gentleman. I am credibly informed that the vestry of Marylebone has already acknowledged that this rate is bad in law, and, under those circumstances, I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he will not interfere to protect the honour of this House. It seems to me that, under the circumstances, the honour of the House demands that there shall be a reference to a Committee where the petitioners may be heard. I recommend the Members of the House to read this decision, and to study this Bill, and I am firmly of the opinion that those who like this kind of Bill will find it exactly the kind of Bill they like.
§ *SIR J. FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.)I think that some words ought to be said from this side of the House as to the grounds which have been advanced for departing from the regular procedure of this House. On the occasion of the Second Reading, the opponents met the Bill by a direct negative, and now we have a suggestion of another kind to delay the Bill by indulging in the irregular proceedings of referring this unopposed Bill to a hybrid Committee. The honourable and learned Gentleman who spoke last but one acknowledged that there was no right or obligation whatever to depart from the usual proceedings. He referred, it is true, to certain bodies, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and others, who were interested in the matter, but those are people who have a locus standi in this House, and they had no objections whatever to the terms of a Bill which concerned their interest. But no one who has any locus standi against this private Bill has appeared against it or petitioned against it, and therefore the ordinary procedure that this Bill should go through is that of the unopposed procedure of this House, and it should not go before a Select Committee. The 621 vestry are the best and proper guardians of the interests of the ratepayers. They have, after full consideration, resolved that it is a good thing for the parish of Marylebone that this old rate should be commuted and the parish relieved of the burden, and now two honourable Members come forward representing nobody in the parish of Marylebone—
§ *SIR J. FERGUSSONNot parishioners of very old standing; or representative in authority. The honourable Members have no locus standi of a representative character, and they wish by a new procedure to set up a tribunal which has no regular position in the case according to the constituted rules of the House. If this is not a matter for the ordinary private Bill procedure of the House I do not know what can be. It has only a reference to a single parish and to a particular business connected with the parish and the promoters of the Bill having fulfilled every legal obligation, the Bill having been examined by the proper constituted authorities, and there having been no opposition by anybody who has a locus standi, it will be most unfortunate if this Bill is to be sent to a hybrid Committee. A hybrid Committee, as has been said before, is a partisan tribunal. Matters are brought before it, not by those who have the right to do so, but by those who are opposed to the Measure. This is simply an opposition to this Bill intended to delay the interests of the Church in an important parish of this metropolis, and I trust that the House will not lend itself to the sending of such a Bill as this to such a tribunal.
§ SIR W. HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)I think there is a very simple question for the House to consider. Is this a Bill which, on the circumstances which have been stated, requires further examination? As an unopposed Bill, there may be very good grounds of complaint by the parties affected that there ought to be further inquiry. What is the allegation? This is a question of the commutation of a rate for a large sum of money—namely, £80,000. The allega- 622 tion is that that charge in itself is either an illegal or a disputable charge, and part of that rate, at all events, was held by the court of appeal to be an illegal charge under the operation of the Church Rating Act. That, I think, is the position; at all events, as regards the principle involved I understand that to be the case. We wish them to hear an. explanation on that point, and I am confirmed in that impression by what the honourable Member has said, that since the opinion of the Attorney General was given, and since the decision of the court of appeal confirming that decision, the parish has not levied a rate affected by that decision. The allegation of my Friend behind me is that this Bill does cover that rate, which has not been levied hitherto, but which, under this Bill, will be commuted as if it were a legal rate. That is the allegation which is made, and we wish to hear the answer of the Attorney General to it. If that is the case I feel quite confident that if the Bill in any shape covers a rate which has been declared to be illegal and the commutation of which rate would be equally illegal, this is a Bill that the House ought not to authorise, and if there is any doubt upon the matter it seems to me that there should be an inquiry into it. As for the right honourable Gentleman who has just sat down, saying that this is a manœuvre on the part of the ratepayers of Marylebone to complain of such a transaction, because they happen to be recent ratepayers, I may point out that it is the recent ratepayers who will have to pay the commutation; therefore, the more recent they are the more they will have to pay. Suppose there is a particular kind of fish which has for a long time been accustomed to be skinned and does not mind it; but if you apply that process to a new kind of fish it might perhaps feel it. Therefore, I do not think that the right honourable Gentleman's argument is of an effective character. The probability is that it is the introduction of the Bill which has led to the inquiry into the validity of that rate in consequence of the magnitude of the sum which is to be raised to commute it. All that I venture to say—and I do not pretend to pronounce ex cathedra on the subject—is, that if these allegations are in any way true, if the 623 Attorney General is doubtful whether or not the moneys raised under this Bill do cover rates which can be fairly questioned, then I think there ought to be a proper inquiry; otherwise there may be a very gross injustice done, and that will be simply because, under the rules of the House, the parties who object to it have no locus standi. I may say those rules are frequently in such cases as these relaxed, so as to give others a right to appear and to state their case in order that, at all events, no reasonable grievance may be constituted. A Bill of the description we are now discussing which deals with a very large sum of public money seems to me to be a very proper question for the House to consider, and I shall be very glad to hear from the Attorney General that the Bill does not permit any grievance or hardship to the ratepayers of the parish of Marylebone.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,) Isle of WightI should have risen earlier, but I desired to see whether there was any real ground for the Motion that my honourable Friend has made, and I can quite satisfy the House from facts with which I am intimately acquainted that the honourable Gentlemen opposite are under a misapprehension as to this Bill. It is perfectly true that I advised that, if any part of the 4d. rate levied under the Act of 1811 was for ecclesiastical purposes, that rate was bad; and if this Bill was going to set up that 4d. rate at all, or commute the 4d. rate at all, I should quite agree that this was a question which ought to be considered. But it does not do anything of the kind, and I will state the facts, which are not at present known to the honourable Gentlemen who have spoken, and I can assure the House that the difficulties which they have raised do not exist. There are two Acts of Parliament to be considered. The first, the Act of 1811, allows a 4d. rate; and the second, the Act of 1821, allows a 2d. rate. I advised, and the Court of Appeal subsequently confirmed my advice, that, whereas the 4d. rate was bad, or might be bad under certain circumstances, the 2d. rate was perfectly good. That view the Court of Appeal upheld. In addition to that there was raised a sum for burial fees which 624 was leviable upon the poor rates, and it is in respect of these two charges, these two particular items, that the Bill was brought in. The 2d. rate nobody has ever questioned in any proceedings whatever, and the burial fees, which amount to £1,273, have been held by the Court of Appeal to be absolutely legal. The 2d. rate, "leviable upon the poor rate and to be handed over to the ecclesiastical authorities," produced £2,777, which, together with the £1,273 for burial fees, make a total of nearly £4,000 a year, and these two perfectly legal charges, which have been decided by the Court of Appeal to be legal, involve a liability of £4,000 a year, and this Bill commutes that amount at 20 years' purchase; or, in other words, all that this Bill proposes to do is to sanction a legal scheme for the commutation of two legal payments that are now made—one a 2d. rate, and the other the burial fees. Inasmuch as there are still purposes for which the 4d. rate might still be lawfully levied, but which never have been levied, it is desirable to get rid of that rate once and for all, and the clause in which reference is made to that rate is for the purpose of discharging any liability under that Act of 1811. That which the honourable Member has objected to is a protective clause, and for the purpose of freeing liability to the rate under any Act of Parliament. I hope that I have made my meaning clear. I have endeavoured to answer the question of the right honourable Gentleman, and, as I have told the honourable Member, he is perfectly willing to see my opinions upon these subjects. The 2d. rate is a legal rate, and the 1d. rate has not been levied since 1889. I say without fear of contradiction that, notwithstanding the zeal of the newborn ratepayers, those gentlemen do not represent the ratepayers. They represent themselves; they are not the Parliamentary representatives of the ratepayers of Marylebone. Their newborn zeal discovered, or thought it had discovered, that the 4d. rate was to be reestablished, but that is not so. This schema will save the parish many thousands a year. It is a scheme to commute two perfectly legal payments which have been pronounced perfectly valid, and there is not the slightest ground for raising any constitutional 625 question, and I hope the House will not consent to this Motion.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 96; Noes 193.—(Division List No. 234.)
627| AYES. | ||
| Asher, Alexander | Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale- | Pickard, Benjamin |
| Balfour,Rt.Hon.J.B.(Clackm.) | Hazell, Walter | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Birrell, Augustine | Hedderwick, T. C. H. | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H. | Price, Robert John |
| Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson | Holburn, J. G. | Rasch, Major Frederic Carne |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Horniman, Frederick John | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Jacoby, James Alfred | Robertson, E. (Dundee) |
| Burt, Thomas | Jameson, Major J. Eustace | Robson, William Snowdon |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Jones, W (Carnarvonshire) | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Caldwell, James | Kay-Shuttleworth,RtHnSirU. | Schwann, Charles E. |
| Carew, James Laurence | Kearley, Hudson E. | Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford) |
| Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson- | Labouchere, Henry | Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.) |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Langley, Batty | Spicer, Albert |
| Cawley, Frederick | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland) | Stevenson, Francis S. |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Lewis, John Herbert | Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) |
| Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.) | Lloyd-George, David | Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Cozens-Hardy, H. Hardy | Lough, Thomas | Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Crombie, John William | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh) |
| Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) | McCartan, Michael | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Daly, James | McEwan, William | Warner, T. C. T. |
| Davies,M.Vaughan-(Cardigan) | Maddison, Fred. | Wayman, Thomas |
| Davitt, Michael | Maden, John Henry | Wills, Sir William Henry |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand | Wilson, H. J. (York, W.R.) |
| Dillon, John | Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel) | Wilson, John (Govan) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Morley, Charles (Breconshire) | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro') |
| Doogan, P. C. | Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport) | Woodall, William |
| Duckworth, James | Norton, Captain C. William | Woodhouse, SirJT (Hudd'rsf'ld) |
| Dunn, Sir William | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton) | O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W) | |
| Farquharson, Dr. Robert | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Oldroyd, Mark | Mr. Carvell Williams and |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | Palmer, Sir Charles M. | Mr. Brynmor Jones. |
| Gourley, Sir E. Temperley | Paulton, James Mellor | |
| Harwood, George | Pease, A. E. (Cleveland) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Aird, John | Carlile, William Walter | Davenport, W. Bromley- |
| Ambrose, W. (Middlesex) | Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs) | Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon |
| Anstruther, H. T. | Cavendish. V.C.W. (Derbysh.) | Dorington, Sir John Edward |
| Arrol, Sir William | Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.) | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich) | Drage, Geoffrey |
| Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness) | Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) | Drucker, A. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. |
| Baldwin, Alfred | Chelsea, Viscount | Edwards, Gen. Sir J. B. |
| Balfour, Rt.Hon.A.J. (Manc'r) | Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth) | Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas |
| Balfour, Rt.Hon.G.W. (Leeds) | Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. | Fardell, Sir T. George |
| Barnes, Frederic Gorell | Coghill, Douglas Harry | Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward |
| Barry,RtHnAHSmith-(Hunts) | Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Fergusson,Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc.) |
| Bartley, George C. T. | Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne |
| Barton, Dunbar Plunket | Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready | Fisher, William Hayes |
| Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin | Cook, C. W. R. (Hereford) | FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose- |
| Beach, Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Brist'l) | Cornwallis, F. S. W. | Fry, Lewis |
| Beach, W. W. B. (Hants) | Cotton-Jodrell, Col E. T. D. | Garfit, William |
| Beresford, Lord Charles | Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H. | Gibbons, J. Lloyd |
| Bethell, Commander | Cox, Robert | Gilliat, John Saunders |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Cranborne, Viscount | Godson, Sir A. F. |
| Biddulph, Michael | Cripps, Charles Alfred | Gordon, Hon. John Edward |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) | Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E. |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Cruddas, William Donaldson | Goschen, George J. Sussex) |
| Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn) | Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Graham, Henry Robert |
| Brassey, Albert | Curzon,Rt.HnG.N.(Lanc,SW) | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) |
| Brodnick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Curzon, Viscount (Bucks) | Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs) |
| Brown, Alexander H. | Dalbiac, Col. Philip Hugh | Gretton, John |
| Brymer, William Ernest | Dalkeith, Earl of | Greville, Captain |
| Gull, Sir Cameron | McKillop, James | Shaw-Stewart,M.H.(Renfrew) |
| Hall, Sir Charles | Malcolm, Ian | Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire) |
| Halsey, Thomas Frederick | Manners, Lord E. W. J. | Sidebottom, W. (Derbyshire) |
| Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W. | Maple, Sir John Blundell | Simeon, Sir Barrington |
| Hardy, Laurence | Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E. | Smith, J. P. (Lanark) |
| Haslett, Sir James Horner | Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) | Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Helder, Augustus | Milbank, Sir P. C. J. | Stanley, Lord (Lancs) |
| Henderson, Alexander | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Stanley, E. J. (Somerset) |
| Hermon-Hodge, Robert T. | Milner, Sir Frederick George | Stock, James Henry |
| Hickman, Sir Alfred | Monk, Charles James | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Hill, Rt. Hon. A. S. (Staffs) | More, Robert Jasper | Start, Hon. Humphrey N. |
| Hill, Sir E. S. (Bristol) | Morrell, George Herbert | Talbot, RtHn.J.G.(Oxf'dUny.) |
| Hoare, Samuel (Norwich) | Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) | Thorburn, Walter |
| Hobhouse, Henry | Muntz, Philip A. | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Howard, Joseph | Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) | Tollemache, Henry James |
| Howell, William Tudor | Murray, C. J. (Coventry) | Tomlinson, W. E. Murray |
| Johnston, William (Belfast) | Myers, William Henry | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| Kenyon, James | Newdigate, Francis Alexander | Usborne, Thomas |
| Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William | Nicol, Donald Ninian | Valentia, Viscount |
| King, Sir Henry Seymour | Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S. | Verney, Hon. R. G. |
| Lafone, Alfred | Pease, Arthur (Darlington) | Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. |
| Laurie, Lieut.-General | Phillpotts, Captain Arthur | Walrond, Sir William Hood |
| Lawson, John Grant (Yorks) | Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C. | Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe) |
| Lees, Sir E. (Birkenhead) | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras) |
| Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs) | Pretyman, Ernest George | Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.) |
| Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset) | Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.) | Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E. |
| Llewelyn,SirDillwyn-(Sw'ns'a) | Renshaw, Charles Bine | Williams, J. Powell (Birm.) |
| Loder, G. W. E. | Richards, Henry Charles | Willox, Sir John Archibald |
| Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham) | Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l) | Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks) |
| Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l) | Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W. | Wodehouse,Rt.Hn. E.R. (Bath) |
| Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller | Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T. | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Lowles, John | Robertson, H. (Hackney) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. S. |
| Lowther,Rt.Hn.J.W.(Cumb.) | Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry) | Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H. |
| Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John | Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) | |
| Lucas-Shadwell, William | Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Macaleese, Daniel | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | Mr. Boulnois and Mr. |
| Macartney, W. G. Ellison | Seton-Karr, Henry | Knowles. |
| Maclure, Sir John William | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
Resolution agreed to.
§ The Motions standing in the names of Sir John Branner and Mr. Brynmor Jones were ruled out of order, whilst those of Mr. Harwood and Mr. Lloyd George were ordered to stand over till Monday next.