Lords Sitting of 10 June 1887

MINUTES.
SAT FIRST IN PARLIAMENT—The Lord Hindlip, after the death of his father.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Municipal Corporations Acts (Ireland) Amendment (No. 2)* (116); Trusts (Scotland) Act (1867) Amendment * (117).
Second Reading—Dog Owners (91), negatived.
Report—Tithe Rent-Charge (110–115).
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Second Reading—Elementary Education (Christchurch) * (92); Elementary Education(Middleton St. George) * (93); Elementary Education (London) * (94); Pier and Harbour * (103).

DOG OWNERS BILL.—(No. 91.)
(The Lord Mount-Temple.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MOUNT-TEMPLE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the object of the Bill was to provide that the owner of a dog should be liable in damages for any personal injury done by such dog to any person, and it should not be necessary for any person suing for the recovery of damages for any such injury to show a previous mischievous propensity in such dog, or that the owner knew or had notice of such mischievous propensity, or that the injury complained of was attributable to any negligence on the part of the owner in the keeping or management of such dog. The sight of dogs with jaws tied up by iron muzzles had given to multitudes a new impression of the dangerous character of doers. Many, who used to think of them as tame and pleasant domestic creatures, were suspicious and alarmed at the sight of them, and some people had begun to wish that no dogs were to be seen in the street. It was for the interest of dogs and of dog-owners that the rising prejudice against the freedom of dogs should be allayed, for, though the cases in which dogs were savage and injured strangers were very rare, they did arise, and there ought to be an easy process for getting compensation in the form of damages. In this respect the law was absurdly inefficacious. The right of a person injured by the bite of a dog to maintain an action for damages against the owner of a dog depended on his ability to prove by evidence, not only that the dog was of a mischievous and ferocious disposition, but that this fact was known to the owner or person in charge of the dog. There had been many cases in which the ferocity of the dog and the knowledge in the owner of that ferocity were fully believed by the neighbourhood, and yet the injured party lost his damages from the want of the particular evidence required by law. This was one of the instances in which the law gave more protection to property than to individual human persons; for, by an Act of 1865, damages for injury inflicted by dogs on cattle and sheep could be obtained without proof of the previous ferocity of the

1563
dog, or previous knowledge in the person who was responsible for the dog, so that if a dog bit a calf in his pasture the law gave him easy redress, but if that dog preferred to bite the calf of his leg, the law gave him little more than a nominal redress. None of their Lordships would doubt that an alteration of the whole condition of the law was required, but there might be a question as to the form of that alteration. The ancient law seemed to have been founded on the assumption that dogs, like other domestic animals, must be considered too respectful towards men and women to presume to injure them until some evidence could be produced to prove an exception in the case of a particular dog. He believed that most lawyers agreed that it was not necessary at the present time to cling to the antiquated doctrine of scienter, and he had the result of an inquiry made for the opinions of the County Court Judges, who, with very few exceptions, considered it better to extend the principle of the Act of 1865 to injuries done to human beings than to adopt a new form of application of the old rule of scienter. The owner was free to have or not to have a dog. He got the pleasure and companionship of the animal, and upon him, and not upon anyone else, ought the risk to fall if the dog turned out to be worse than he expected. On these grounds, he hoped their Lordships would assent to the second reading of the Bill.
Moved "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Mount-Temple.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, he was very sorry he could not recommend their Lordships to adopt the proposed alteration of the law. No doubt, a person who chose to keep a mischievous dog ought to be responsible for any injury done by it. That was the law at present, and it applied not to dogs only, but to all other mischievous animals. If a man chose to keep a tiger, he was bound to keep it under such conditions that it could not kill or injure human beings. If a dog had become ferocious, and was likely to worry mankind, the law said that the owner who knowingly permitted such a dog to be at large was responsible in damages for any injury it might commit. So far the law seemed to him to be based upon an intelligible principle. But now
1564
it was suggested that the law should go further. The Bill would make persons liable for damages from accidental causes, as in the case of a dog being affected with rabies. He did not think the noble Lord could have contemplated the effect and the far-reaching consequences of the alteration he proposed. The keeping of a dog was not in itself a wrong, unless it were accompanied by negligence or some culpable omission to provide against the risk of injury to the public. He admitted that the noble Lord had some precedent for his Bill in the Act of 1865. He did not think their Lordships would approve this very serious alteration in the law, which, in his opinion, would open the door for numberless actions of a frivolous and mischievous character.
On Question? Resolved in the negative,

EGYPT—THE ANGLO-TURKISH CONVENTION—FRANCE AND THE HEBRIDES—THE PAPERS.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: My Lords, I do not propose, as far as I am concerned, to raise any discussion in this House in reference to the Question of which I have given Notice. It is clear, from the reports which have appeared in the public Press, that the position, diplomatically, is one of a certain amount of tension at the present moment. I have no wish whatever to increase that tension. I am quite conscious that the position of Her Majesty's Government is a difficult one, and—giving them credit, as I fully and sincerely do, for an anxious regard for British interests in Egypt, and also giving them credit for taking into full consideration that duty which unquestionably we owe to Egypt, having undertaken a certain mission, so to say, not to leave it unfulfilled—I do not propose to raise any question of debate to-night. I shall not comment upon those reports which have appeared. I shall make no criticisms, however friendly, which might place my noble Friend in a difficult position for reply. I shall leave it entirely to him to say much or little, as he thinks best under the circumstances. One thing only I would say. It is stated, and apparently stated on solid grounds, that great pressure is being placed diplomatically upon Her Majesty's Government

  1565
  with regard to that Article which gives us, under certain circumstances, the right to the re-occupation of Egypt. I pronounce no opinion on the Convention be far as it has appeared; but I will venture to say this much—that I think the Government have gone to the extreme verge of that which was prudent and safe, and I sincerely trust that no amount of diplomatic or political pressure will induce them to go one single step further in the direction of that re-occupation—I mean, of course, one single step further towards giving up the claim for re-occupation. I adhere, therefore, to my resolution with which I started, and I will merely ask my noble Friend, "When he will be in a position to lay the Papers on this most important transaction on the Table of the House, without the reading of which it will be difficult for your Lordships to form any fair and impartial conclusion?
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I feel that both in this and in the other House very great consideration and forbearance have been shown to Her Majesty's Government in reference to this question, and that no stop has been taken in any way to embarrass us or create difficulties'. That circumstance makes me feel the more regretful that I cannot at once lay the Convention, and the Papers relating to the Convention, on the Table of the House; but the circumstances to which my noble Friend has referred must, I think, without dwelling upon them further, show that it would not be desirable to lay that Convention on the Table until it has been ratified. As soon as it has been ratified it shall be laid on the Table. I may just say shortly what the provisions are. Our position is not one of perfect freedom. We were not dealing with the matter as res integra. We had pledges of a very binding character which we inherited, and binding in two directions. It was not open to us to assume the protectorate of Egypt in the way that the French Government assumed the protectorate of Tunis, even supposing—a question upon which I desire to give no kind of opinion—that such a course, on other grounds, would be consistent with International Law and the interests of this country. It was not open to us to do so, because Her
  1566
  Majesty's Government had again and again pledged themselves that they would not do so. On the other hand, it was not open to us to abandon the task we had undertaken and leave the Egyptians without any protection from those evils to which undoubtedly, by the force of events, our intervention had tended more to expose them. We had no right to leave them at the mercy either of any kind of foreign invasion, such as they have had to deal with and repel, or exposed to the dangers of internal troubles which had brought their State within a very short distance of destruction. My noble Friend has dwelt upon that pledge, and he does us no more than justice when he expresses his conviction that it is a pledge which has been constantly present to our minds, and which we have done our utmost to fulfil. Hedged in on one side and the other by these two pledges, we had to find a solution of the question which should be agreeable to both of them, and we did not feel that it was a solution which could be indefinitely postponed. Not only was there considerable expense incurred by this country, for which Parliament would naturally desire to see some practical motive; but it was undoubtedly the fact that our presence in Egypt, unrecognized by any Convention, did inspire the Ottoman Court with considerable disquietude and gave the subjects of the Sultan cause for a suspicion which we did not deserve, but which it was very natural that they should entertain. We were very anxious to sustain the authority of the Sultan, and not to give any handle for the belief that we entertained designs in the slightest degree against his just rights. Guided by these motives, we have agreed to a Convention being signed. We have authorized the signing of a Convention which has been negotiated by my friend Sir Drummond Wolff, to whose skill, tact, and patience I am bound to pay a very high tribute; and the terms, without going into many details, may be briefly described as follows:—There is something in it about the Suez Canal and Protocols in reference to it; and there are other details. But what my noble Friend was most concerned to know was as to the presence and stay of our troops in Egypt. We have engaged, subject to certain conditions, which I shall state, to withdraw our troops from Egypt at the

  1567
  expiration of three years from the ratification of the Convention, and we shall cease at the end of five years to have the right secured to us up to that time to appoint the officers of the Egyptian Army. But, in the first place, that engagement is limited by the condition that if there is any danger, external or internal, to be apprehended at the time when this evacuation is due, it will be adjourned, and will not take place until that external or internal danger has passed by. After the evacuation has taken place we shall then have to deal with what may happen during the absence of our troops from Egypt. In three contingencies we retain the right of sending our troops back—namely, if there is danger of external invasion, if there is danger of internal disturbance of order, or if there is danger of the Government of Egypt not fulfilling its international obligations. But we are under the obligation, as soon as the danger is dispelled, to withdraw our troops again. The Sultan, it is recognized in the Convention—but it is a right not derived from the Convention—the Sultan has the same right of sending in his troops for the same causes. No other nation is to have any right to send troops into Egypt except for the purpose of transport, which is strictly regulated. These are the conditions which have been agreed upon between the Porte and ourselves. It is simply an agreement between the Porte and ourselves; and your Lordships will, therefore, observe that supplementary proceedings will be required to give it full force and effect. The assent of other Powers will be necessary to some of these stipulations; and unless that assent is given our engagements lose their validity, and we remain in the same position as we were in before. Our engagements are made to the Porte, and to the Porte alone. My Lords, I think that, on the whole, perhaps I had better follow the cue given to me by my noble Friend, and not dwell any further on considerations which I could not enter into at any great length without the risk of saying something which I had better not say. I will merely say that, the earliest possible time after the ratification, I propose to lay on the Table all the Papers connected with this Convention, except, of course, those connected
  1568
  with the negotiations with other Powers, which will be presented on a future occasion.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I rise to ask the noble Marquess one or two questions on this matter, although I do not wish to discuss now the terms of the Convention which has been signed. The noble Marquess said that in the Convention there was something about the Suez Canal. That is a matter of such high importance that it would be satisfactory if we could know in some general terms what that something is. Another question which I would ask is, whether we are to be the sole judges as to sending the troops back to Egypt in case of necessity, or whether the Porte will join in that determination? I would further ask whether there is any agreement with regard to the time for the evacuation of our troops after the restoration of order?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As to the first question in regard to the Suez Canal, I did not dwell upon it, because, as I thought, the noble Earl opposite would be fully informed, from his official experience, that all we have done is to carry out Lord Granville's engagements. Lord Granville engaged that the Canal should be open to all persons at all times, and to that engagement we have strictly adhered. The noble Earl next asks whether we are to be the judges, or the Porte is to be the judge, as to the necessity for the reentry of the troops? We are to act in full communication with the Porte; but we have declined to make the consent of the Porte a condition precedent to our going in, and that for the very obvious reason that the dangers which we wish to guard against might arise at any moment; and if it was necessary to have negotiations with Constantinople before action was taken, the danger might become much more formidable than if action were taken at once. There is a distinct engagement between the Porte and ourselves that the troops shall be withdrawn the moment the danger ceases.

TITHE RENT-CHARGE BILL.—(No. 110.)
(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
TITHE RENT-CHARGE BILL.—(No. 110.)

  REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Clause 2 (Liability of owner of lands for rent-charge).
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, he rose to move, in page 1, line 17, after ("cease,") to insert—
  ("Provided that if the owner of less than one hundred acres of land, without any proceedings under this Act, and within three months after any rent charge becomes payable, pays the same in the parish or parishes in which his land is situate, he shall be entitled to deduct there from five per cent in consideration of the personal liability imposed upon him by this Act.")
  He proposed to restore, with some little alteration, the Proviso at the end of Clause 2, which the noble Lord at the head of the Government introduced, but which was subsequently withdrawn. Their Lordships would bear in mind that there was this singular feature in the Bill, that whereas it was avowedly introduced on account of the difficulties which had arisen in connection with the incidence and mode of collection of tithes, there was not one clause, nor one line of a clause, which afforded the slightest relief to the tithepayers, whose complaints had brought those difficulties prominently before the public. He desired that the Bill should not go down to the other House without showing that their Lordships had at least some little consideration for the tithepayer, who was complaining so much. At present this was emphatically a titheowners' Bill. He observed that at a Diocesan Conference, held at Lambeth the previous day, under the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury, a number of earnest but, as he (Lord Brabourne) thought, short-sighted Churchmen had come to an unanimous resolution that, "in the interest of the titheowners, it was desirable that this Bill should at once become law without amendment." No doubt, this was the titheowners' view. The Bill was aimed at owners of land, and especially at the class of small owners, the number of whom they were all agreed it was desirable to increase; and he feared that the inevitable result of the Bill, if it passed in its present shape, would be to intensify and extend the agitation against tithes, and also to enroll among the supporters of that agitation men who, by a little wise and well-considered legislation, would have been kept in a different camp. The first blow would fall upon these small owners; but, to his mind,
  1570
  the eventual result of that Bill must be a great blow to the tenant farmers of England. He earnestly urged their Lordships to consider how this would be brought about. They were going to repeal the Law of Distraint in regard to tithe, whilst, in the same breath, the supporters of this proposal declared that tithe was more sacred than rent, and was a prior charge upon the land. If this was the case, how could they logically refuse the demand, which would infallibly follow, that they should repeal the Law of Distraint in regard to rents? The moment they did that they would create an entire revolution in the management of the whole of the landed property of England. Landowners would no longer be able to grant to their tenants the indulgence now constantly granted of holding their rents in hand during that portion of the year in which no returns came from farming, and of clearing up their rents several months after they had become actually due. The repeal of the Law of Distraint would compel landowners to require rents to be paid at less intervals of time, and would oblige them to enforce more exactness and punctuality, and to see that rent was paid, or adequate security given, within a limited time. All this would in its working inflict great inconvenience upon the body of tenant farmers. But at the present moment he was dealing only with the small owners of land. Had they or had they not reason to complain? The other day his noble Friend at the head of the Government taunted him with not having shown the shadow of a case for the revaluation of tithe. He (Lord Brabourne) always bore the taunts and jeers of his noble Friend with great equanimity, because they showed that he was in good health and spirits, which no one more devoutly than he wished for his noble Friend. But the taunt was misplaced in this instance, because he had not been attempting to make out a case for the re-valuation of tithes, but had only incidentally remarked that if his noble Friend had. found himself able to propose any such measure, he would have done more to meet the public feeling than by the present Bill. The tithe payers had a good deal to complain of on account of the amount of the tithe rent charge, its inequality, the manner in which it had been commuted, and the principle in re-

  1571
  spect to tithe lately avowed by the Head of the Government. His noble Friend of other day said that he had not brought forward any figures; but he could have quite overwhelmed their Lordships with figures, if he had desired to do so, as regarded the amount. Anyone who had inquired into the subject must be well aware that in many instances that amount was excessive, exceeding, as it did, the rent, and pressing hardly upon the land. As to the inequality, that also was beyond doubt. In his own case he had, at that moment, on his hands a large field situate in two parishes. In the one parish the tithe was commuted at 10 s., in the other at 7s. per acre, and, as a matter of fact, the latter was the best part of the field. In another case the rent was 19 s. per acre, of which 10 s. went to the landowner and 9s. to the titheowner. These instances could be indefinitely multiplied. The fact was that the manner in which tithe was commuted in 1836 caused great inequality. The average of the receipts of the seven previous years was taken at the time of commutation. Consequently, if the tithe-owner had been exacting, a heavy tithe was put upon the land; if he had been careless or liberal, the tithe was lighter; or, take it another way, the man who had farmed well up to the mark and had his land in good condition paid a heavy tithe, while the man who farmed badly and neglected his land paid a light tithe. All these things tended to show that, after 50 years, there was justice in the demand for re-valuation. But, above all, the principle lately avowed by the noble Marquess made it very desirable that we should know the ground on which we were standing. The noble Marquess at the head of the Government said tithe was the tenth of the produce of the land, totally irrespective of the cost of production. That was the ancient Law of Tithe, at a time when the cultivation of the land cost little; but now, when the cost of cultivation was so great that, according to fair calculation, the value of £7 per acre for wheat, as stated by the noble Marquess, was only obtained by an expenditure of £6 per acre, to abstract a tenth from the value of £7 so obtained, was a doctrine which he believed would not be accepted by the people of England. If such a principle was to be acted upon, their Lordships would witness a revolution against
  1572
  tithe which would shake the fabric of the Establishment. He thought it would be a wise thing, at this moment, to consider whether they could not sweeten to the tithepayers, in some small measure, the Bill, before sending it down to the other House. It appeared to him that there was a great case for reduction with regard to those poor owners, because they were the men who had suffered largely by the legislation of the last 50 years. Seeing that their Lordships were landowners themselves, he wished to avoid the possibility of their being charged with selfishness in this matter, and, therefore, he asked them to extend this relief only to those small owners who were most in need of it. It might be asked, however, why he chose the figure 100? It was obvious that they must take some figure, just as £2 was taken in Clause 10 as the amount to which compulsory redemption under that clause should be applicable, and he believed that 100 acres would cover the bulk of the small owners throughout the country. In any case, their Lordships were going to impose a personal liability where none now existed. They ought to give some compensation, and the compensation which he asked for was a small one. In his own opinion it was too small. He believed that if their Lordships consented to the restoration of this Proviso they would be showing their sympathy with a class who emphatically deserved it, affording an inducement to the speedy payment of tithes, and making, at the same time, a concession in the direction at once of justice and of wisdom.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 1, line 17, after ("cease,") insert—("Provided that if the owner of less than one hundred acres of land, without any proceedings under this Act, and within three months after any rent charge becomes payable, pays the same in the parish or parishes in which his land is situate, he shall be entitled to deduct there from five per cent, in consideration of the personal liability imposed upon him by this Act.")—(The Lord Brabourne.)
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he considered the proposition of the noble Lord a very moderate one.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he must express his surprise at the speech of the noble Lord who moved the Amendment. In his judgment, the great reason for this Bill was the difficulty of making the occupier of the land understand that the

  1573
  question was not one between him and the titheowner, but one between the owner of the land and the titheowner. The noble Lord's case was founded on the idea that the landowner incurred some additional responsibility. He did nothing of the sort. The landowner was the person liable for the tithe. The Tithe Commutation Act expressly said so. It was true that he could not be directly got at for non - payment of tithe by the occupier, but he could be indirectly got at in this way—that if the landowner appointed his tenant to pay he received less rent from his tenant than he otherwise would, and if the landowner did not agree with his tenant that the latter should pay, the landowner was liable, if he did not pay, to the tenant if distrained on. The landowner was at present as much liable to the tithe as he would be by this Bill. By it it was proposed that he should be got at directly by a suit to be brought against him for the recovery of tithe; but it was a mistake to suppose that he incurred a pennyworth of liability more than he was subject to at the present time. In these circumstances, the foundation of the noble Lord's case seemed to fail. It was urged by the noble Lord that they should sweeten the Bill for the acceptance of the other House. Let their Lords sweeten it if they chose; but he asked them not to sweeten it by a sort of plunder of the titheowner.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell) complained that there was no distinction in substance between this Bill and the law as it present stood. But the noble and learned Lord had stated the distinction himself with admirable clearness. No doubt, it was a question between the titheowner and the landowner. At present the relationship was an indirect one, but this Bill proposed to make it a question of direct relationship; and surely the noble and learned Lord would not say that this was not a difference.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOE FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, that the only thing which the occupiers would suffer from by the passing of this Bill would be that they would no longer be liable to have their goods distrained upon—a process to which they were subject now. He doubted whether the occupier would conceive that to
  1574
  be a hostile act on the part of Parliament. It was said that a great change had taken place in regard to this matter, but he confessed that he was unable to see it. It seemed to him that that which was liable for tithe now, as in the past, would be the land. Those people who were owners of 100 acres of land were, if not invariably, certainly in the large majority of instances, the occupiers of their own land, and they had been paid tithes all along without any change whatever in their position. They were the last persons in the world who had any relief to claim, because their position was in no way changed. There were some parishes where there were a great many owners as compared with occupiers, and in those parishes, where, no doubt, there would be many owners of less than 100 acres, the clergyman would not be in the least relieved by the passage of this Bill from the trouble he incurred, and he would have nearly as many persons to deal with as before. Therefore, the reason for deducting the 5 per cent commission to him would disappear. On the whole, it seemed to him that the proposal was not one that the House ought to accept; and he must object to the idea of making the Bill sweet for the consumption of the other House. The other House was perfectly capable of taking care of itself, and whatever it thought necessary it would probably insert and send back to this House in the Bill. But he thought their Lordships had better send the Bill down in the shape they thought it ought to be, and leave the other House to suit its own palate.
  LORD BRABOURNEexplained, that he had not expressed a wish to sweeten the Bill to the other House, but to the tithepayers.
  On Question? Resolved in the negative.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Attachment of rent).
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he rose to move the insertion of words to the effect that the County Court Judge, before making an order for the attachment of rent due to the landowner for the payment of tithe rent-charge, must be satisfied that recovery could not be had with reasonable despatch in any other way. He had had some hesitation in determining how to meet the objections which had originally been brought

  1575
  against this clause. But, on the whole, he thought the best way would be to limit it, and not to permit the titheowner to seek the remedy given by it unless he could satisfy the Court that he could not get his money with reasonable despatch in any other way. There was the danger that the section providing summary execution might produce the very evils which it was desired to guard against, and he thought that they had done enough for the titheowner in putting it into the Act that he had the right to attach the rent.
  Amendment moved, in page 4, line 9, after ("unsatisfied,") insert ("and that recovery cannot be had with reasonable despatch in any other way.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he agreed entirely with what had fallen from the noble Marquess. There had been ground for apprehending that the effect of the clause as it stood would have been to do away with much of the benefit to be derived from the operation of this measure.
  On Question? Resolved in the affirmative.
  On the Motion of The Marquess of SALISBURY, Sub-sections (2) (3) and (4) were struck out.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Effect on existing contracts of tenancy).
  On the Motion of The Marquess of SALISBURY, Amendment made, in page 6, line 12, at end of Clause 3, inserting as a fresh paragraph:—
  ("Where, by reason of the redemption of the tithe rent-charge on any lands, the tenant or other person holding such lands under the owner by virtue of any contract existing prior to such redemption is liable to pay any increased sum on account of rates, he shall, during the continuance of such contracts, be entitled to deduct such increase from his rent.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Provision for redemption of rent-charge).
  On the Motion of The Bishop of LONDON, Amendment made, in page 8. line 13, by adding at the end of Sub-section 1—
  ("Provided that in the case of disagreement, where the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are themselves the payers of the tithe rent charge,
  1576
  the amount and term of the annuity shall be referred to the Lord Commissioners, who shall hear both parties and shall also take the opinion of the bishop as required by the preceding clause of this Act, and whose decision shall be final.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  On the Motion of The Marquess of SALISBURY, the following new Clause was inserted, after Clause 10:—
  (Redemption of tithe rent charge on lands divided into plots for building.)
  ("Whore lands charged with tithe rent charge are, after the passing of this Act, about to be divided for building or other purposes into numerous plots, it shall be the duty of the owner of such land to redeem the tithe rent charge on such land before such division, and, if he fails so to do, he, his heirs and assigns, shall be liable to pay the costs incurred in any subsequent redemption of such tithe rent charge. Where lands charged with any tithe rent charge have been or are about to be divided for building or other purposes into numerous plots, whether houses have or have not been built upon such plots, the provisions of this Act with respect to the redemption of tithe rent charge to an amount not exceeding two pounds shall apply to the said tithe rent charge, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, on the application of any person interested either in the tithe rent charge or in any part of such lands, may require the owner of the lands to redeem the same in accordance with those provisions, and where the lands have been divided the tithe rent charge may be apportioned among the divisions in such manner as may be just, either by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or by the Land Commissioners on the request of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and for that purpose the Land Commissioners shall have the same powers of apportionment as they have under the Tithe Rent-charge Acts specified in the First Schedule to this Act.")
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to insert the following new Clause, after Clause 10:—
  (Money applicable for redemption of tithe rent charge.)
  ("Any money which may by law be applied in the redemption of tithe rent charge charged on any lands may be applied in payment of a capital sum for the determination of any annuity charged under this Act on such lands by way of redemption of such tithe rent charge.")
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, that it did not appear to him that it had been sufficiently taken into account that a titheowner who received a capital sum by way of redemption would escape rates which he (Lord Brabourne) found in his own experience to amount to about 12 per cent on his assessment. This burden would be transferred to the owner who redeemed the tithe. He had not,

  1577
  however, taken part in the discussion, because he was convinced that the terms offered for redemption were so one-sided that no sane landowner would be likely to redeem.
  Clause agreed to.
  Schedule 1.
  LORD BRABOURNEcalled attention to the proceedings of the first inquiries instituted under the Extraordinary Act as reported in local papers. It appeared that a claim had been advanced on behalf of the tithe owners to inquire into the value, not only of the hop or fruit gardens in cultivation as such at the time of the passing of the Act, but into the whole farm of which such gardens formed a part, as to its capability for being converted into such gardens. If this were so, and the request of the tithe payers for a general re-valuation of tithes was at the same time refused, there would be a manifest injustice. He had understood that the inquiry and charge to be placed on the land was limited to existing gardens, and he begged to call the attention of the noble Marquess to the facts reported.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Remaining Schedules agreed to.
  Bill to be read 3a on Thursday the 30th instant; and to be printed as amended. (No. 115.)

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—THE CENTRAL HALL—POSITION OF THE STATUE OF THE LATE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD MOUNT-TEMPLE, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether it was intended to give permission to the subscribers to the statue of the late Earl of Iddesleigh, to place the statue in the Central Hall of the Palace of Westminster, or on one of the pedestals prepared for statues in the Lobby of the House of Commons? said, their Lordships and the Government had a responsibility for preventing interference with the architectural character and harmony of the building. A statue of the late Earl of Iddesleigh they would all be glad to see in a proper place; but if it were placed in the Central Hall it would detract from the architectural features of that Hall for which it was so much admired. There were in
  1578
  the Hall 48 pedestals, and on them 48 statues in proper form, dignified by crowns and surrounded by mediaeval decorations. The statue of Earl Russell seemed to have dropped down accidentally into a place not intended to receive it. The son of Sir Charles Barry had written a letter in which he said that his father would have objected to the statue of Earl Russell in its present position as out of character with the Hall and a blot upon that part of the building. In the Commons Lobby there were eight pedestals which Sir Charles Barry left to be occupied by statues. Why should not the statue of the Earl of Iddesleigh be placed upon one of those pedestals where it would be in harmony with the surroundings? The only reason he had heard for placing the statue in the Central Hall was that that Hall was more open to the public than the Commons Lobby. Many of the great works of art in that building were not open ordinarily to the public. A matter of this kind ought not to be left to an official like the Lord Chamberlain, but it was a matter upon which the Government and Parliament ought to express an opinion.
  LORD HENNIKERsaid he could not give the noble Lord an answer to his Question, because if he did so he should be exceeding his duty as representing the Office of Works in that House. The question was one that rested entirely in the hands of the Lord Great Chamberlain; and, therefore, it would not be right on his part to discuss whether it should remain in his hands or in the hands of the Board of Works, or any other authority, although it was undoubtedly one of great interest, and they were indebted to the noble Lord for bringing it before them.
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.