Lords Sitting of 19 July 1836

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Arms (Ireland); Antigua Indemnity—Read a second time:—Cessio Bonorum.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of RICHMOND, from Southampton, for an Inquiry, and that some check may be given to the vice of Drunkenness; and from Enisworth, against Oyster Fisheries' Bill.—By Lord WYNFORD, from the Isle of Ely, for Repeal of Poor-Law Amendment Act.—By the Earl of ROSSLYN, from Kirkaldy, against Universities' (Scotland) Bill.

CHANCERY (IRELAND).
Lord Lyndhurstpresented a petition from Mr. David Daley, praying that the principle adopted in the English Chancery Bill, the 3rd and 4th William 4th., might be applied to the Irish Court of Chancery Officers' Abolition Bill.
Lord Plunkettstated, that the petitioner had obtained an ample compensation, and that he wanted to obtain a situation as assistant registrar, to which he was not entitled. He conceived that he was bound to abide by the provisions of the Act upon this subject, which he (Lord Plunkett) had had the honour to introduce. There would be a saving of nearly 3,000 l. per annum to the public by the new arrangement in that department.
Petition laid on the table.

PAROCHIAL ASSESSMENTS.
On the motion of the Duke of Richmond, the House went into Committee on the Bill for Regulating Parochial Assessments.
On the first clause (which provides, that from and after the 21st day of March next after the passing of this act no rate shall be allowed by any justice which shall not be made upon an estimate of the net annual value of the several hereditaments rated thereunto) being read,
The Marquess of Salisburyexpressed his determination to oppose the clause, as not likely to produce any real benefit, while the machinery which would be necessary for carrying the new valuation
308
into effect would be troublesome and ex-pensive.
The Duke of Richmondcontended, that the Bill would be extremely beneficial, inasmuch as it would put an end to those unequal and often fraudulent assessments which were complained of under the existing system.
The Marquess of Salisburybelieved, that fraudulent assessments could not easily be effected when the amount of rent was known.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, it was impossible that the poor-rates could be fairly levied on a parish unless some measure of this kind were adopted. At present, the overseers made the rate as they thought fit, and the magistrates signed it ministerially. If its correctness were disputed, justice could only be procured by a tedious process; whereas the Bill provided that the justices should assemble at least four times a-year in petty sessions, for the purpose of hearing complaints.
The Earl of Liverpoolopposed the clause. If the actual rent were known, the overseer would, of course, as the law now stood, apportion the rate accordingly.
The Duke of Richmondcontended, that the rate ought to be founded on the net annual value. The Bill, in fact, only compelled the overseers to do that which they ought to do at present—namely, to make a rate equally and fairly.
Lord Wynfordsupported the Bill, as calculated to remedy a great public grievance. The first clause contained the principle of the measure. That principle was admitted when the Bill was read a second time, and if the clause was now lost they would abandon the principle to which they had previously agreed.
Lord Ellenboroughapproved of the third clause which provided for appeal to the justices assembled in petty sessions; but the question was, whether it would be expedient, at the present moment, to pass the two first clauses, enacting that rates should be made on the net annual value of the property, and prescribing the form in which the rate shall be made. That they ought to come at last to the principle recognized by the first clause he admitted, for he believed that great irregularity prevailed in assessing the value of property in different parts of the country, the estimate being sometimes one-half and sometimes one-third of the real value. The country was, however, accustomed to the system, and it could not be altered

309
immediately without great inconvenience. There would be very great difficulty in making the valuation according to the provisions of this Bill; for it was set forth, that the rate "shall be made upon an estimate of the net annual value of the several hereditaments—that is to say, of the rent at which the same might reasonably be expected to let from year to year, deducting there from the probable average annual cost of the repairs, insurance, and other expenses, if any, necessary to maintain them in a state to command such rent" He conceived that it would be almost impossible for an overseer to form an accurate judgment upon all these points. Now, though he was not opposed to the principle of the measure, yet it struck him that the mode proposed for carrying it into effect was not precisely the one that ought to be adopted. By the Tithe Bill, which stood for consideration this evening, it was provided that a new valuation should be made; and he thought that it would be better to wait until that provision was carried into effect. He was therefore of opinion, that the 3rd and 4th Clauses, should be passed, and the 1st and 2d (for he did not object to the principle) postponed until the valuation was taken under the Tithe Commutation Bill.
Lord Kenyonconceived that overseers ought to be compelled to make a fair return. That could be done under this Bill, with very little expense or trouble, and that injustice would be avoided which had hitherto been complained of. He hoped that they would not reject the principle of the measure by the omission of these two clauses.
The Earl of Ripon, was opposed to the clause.
Lord Wharncliffe, adverting to the mode in which it was proposed that overseers should frame the estimate, contended that it was so intricate that they would be incapable of making a correct estimate. It would, therefore, be necessary for them to call in other parties to their assistance, and thus a great expense would be incurred.
The Duke of Richmondrepeated, that the Bill only compelled overseers to do that which they ought to do at present—namely, to make a fair and just rate. Instead of the assessment being fairly levied, it varied in many places from one-fifth of the net value up to the full amount of rack-rent.
Their Lordships divided on the original
310
clause—Contents 31; Not-contents 28—Majority 3.

List of the CONTENTS.

Lord Chancellor

VISCOUNTS.

DUKES.

Hood

Argyll

Melbourne

Buccleuch

LORDS.

Richmond

Ashburton

MARQUESSES.

Duncannon

Conyngham

Dinorben

Lansdowne

Dacre

EARLS.

Hatherton

Albemarle

Kenyon

Brownlow

Lilford

Burlington

Plunkett

Chichester

Strafford

Granville

Seaford

Minto

Templemore

Morley

Wynford

Radnor

BISHOPS

Ripon

Bristol

Exeter

Clauses agreed to.
The House resumed; the report to be received.

TITHE COMMUTATION (ENGLAND).
The Marquess of Lansdowne, in moving the order of the day for bringing up the report of this Bill, said, considering that a great many amendments had been made in the Bill, with the general concurrence of the House, he thought it might be convenient to their Lordships if he very shortly adverted to the few points which were reserved for consideration. In the first clause, providing for the appointment of the Commissioners, their lordships would recollect an amendment was proposed by a Noble Baron to substitute the name of his Majesty for that of the Secretary of State, and subsequently another amendment was moved in the same clause by a right reverend Prelate, who proposed that the Commissioners should only be removeable jointly by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other power, viz. his Majesty. In this amendment their Lordships seemed disposed to agree were it not for the obvious objection that it would be indecorous that the Archbishop should be joined with his Majesty by name. The two amendments could not be adopted. That being the case, he proposed to restore the name of the Secretary of State, the nomination resting with the Government, who would be responsible for it, and that arrangement would admit of their adopting the suggestion, that the Secretary of State jointly, and only jointly, with the Archbishop, should

311
have the power of removal. He would recommend their Lordships to prefer this course, because he believed the effect of it would be, to raise the Commissioners in the estimation of the public. The noble Marquess concluded by moving the amendment.
The Archbishop of Canterburyconcurred in the amendment moved by the noble Marquess. He thought the Commissioners would appear to the public more independent if they were only removeable by the joint act of the Archbishop and of the Secretary of State.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, he would postpone the clause, in order that it might have some further consideration, till the third reading, when it might be moved by way of rider.
Several verbal amendments were agreed to.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, he had no further amendment to suggest until Clause 16, for which, as it at present stood, he should propose the substitution of another, which would more clearly and accurately define the authority of persons who might act as agents. It was to the effect that any landowners or titheowners be allowed to appoint agents, in order to carry into execution the provisions of this Act; that anything which by this Act, is directed to be done, by or with relation to any person, may be lawfully done by, or with relation to the agent of such person; that such agent be allowed to vote on any question upon which the principal of such agent might have voted; and that the powers of attorney under which such agents acted be appended to every agreement entered into by them."
The clause agreed to.
The Archbishop of Canterburyrose to propose an additional clause to the Bill. He could see no reason why tithe-owners should be deprived of any prospective right which they would enjoy under the present law. With respect to waste lands, he had already expressed his opinion, that when they were brought into cultivation they should not be subject to tithes, because that would act as an impediment to the expenditure of capital, which it was the object of the Bill to encourage, but that a portion of them should be set apart as the property of the titheowner; and he now proposed the introduction of a clause, after Clause 38, to enable the Commissioners to set apart from all common lands brought into cultivation such a portion of land as would now of right belong to the tithe-owner.
Lord Ellenboroughdecidedly objected to the clause. It might come into operation 100 years hence; and then they must refer back to the valuation under this Bill, and must strike off the rent-charge. At the present moment, if any enclosure were to be made, many persons, for the purpose of conciliating the titheowner to consent to such enclosure, might be willing to give a portion of the land; but when, instead of tithes, they paid a rent charge, there would no longer be the same inducement for them to give a portion of their land in order to obtain that consent. At the present, the value of such tithes would be infinitely small; but when portions of the land were given they were always given according to what might be the future value of the tithes. Now, there was nothing prospective in this Bill; but if they introduced the present clause, then it would become prospective to any extent.
The Marquess of Lansdownefelt compelled, and he did it with great reluctance, upon the grounds stated by the noble Lord (Ellenborough), to oppose the clause of the right rev. Prelate. He opposed it upon the general principle. The Bill at present afforded security to the titheowners for a rent-charge according to the value of tithes which they had hitherto received; and at the same time relieved the landowner from all eventual burdens, and all obstacles arising out of the tithe-law.
Lord Ashburtonsaid, there were very few parishes in England in which there were any commons worth enclosing which were not already enclosed, and he felt that it was a much greater hardship upon the landowners to be called upon to pay tithes for lands which might go out of cultivation, than for the titheowner to be deprived of tithes for lands which might hereafter be enclosed. The Bill, upon the whole, was, he thought, favourable to the titheowner; and, as his greatest objection to this Bill was with respect to the manner in which it dealt with lands that might go out of cultivation—he should most decidedly oppose the clause of the right rev. Prelate, which would inflict an additional hardship upon the landowner. He knew in many cases, particularly if there should be any alteration in the corn-laws, that it would be the interest of the owners of land to give up the land altogether to the tithe-owner rather than pay tithes for it.
The clause negatived without a division.
The Marquess of Lansdownewished to propose a clause after Clause 28; it was a

313
clause of some importance, and one which he thought would meet with general concurrence. It had been suggested, that it would be expedient that rent-charges should be convertible into land, provided that land did not exceed a certain amount. The right rev. Prelate had proposed twenty acres. His object was to carry that into effect with respect to clerical owners, and with regard to lay owners to convert rent charges into land without any restriction as to extent.
Lord Ellenboroughwas not prepared to offer any opposition to the principle of the clauses; but he certainly did think that they should form the subject of a separate measure.
The Bishop of Exeterbegged to express his gratitude, as a Bishop, for the introduction of the clauses which were now proposed. He was sure they would be considered a great boon by the country. As to the number of acres, he, however, thought that regard should be had to the quality of the land.
The Archbishop of Canterburysaid, that, with regard to the number of twenty acres, he thought twenty acres of the richest land not too much; and even twenty acres of poor land was a very considerable accommodation in the conversion of a rent-charge into land. Those reasons, with the advantage of having some definite number, had induced him to make the suggestion which he had done.
Lord Wynfordapproved of the clauses.
The Earl of Devondid not think it prudent to introduce a clause of this nature into the Bill.
The Marquess of Lansdowneobserved, that so much doubt existed as to the propriety of converting the rent-charge into land in the case of lay titheowners, that he thought it better to postpone the clause for further consideration to a future stage of the Bill.
Clause accordingly postponed.
The remaining clauses agreed to. House resumed; Bill to be reported.