Sitting of 11 March 1868

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Special and Common Juries nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Canongate Annuity Tax.*
First Reading—Canongate Annuity Tax* [60].
Second Reading—Artizans' and Laborers' Dwellings [1]; Lee River Conservancy* [38].
Referred to Select Committee—Lee River Conservancy* [38].
Committee—Compulsory Church Rates Abolition [13].
Report—Compulsory Church Rates Abolition [13–59.]

REPORT OF THE BOUNDARY COMMISSIONERS.—QUESTION.
MR. MONKsaid, he would beg to ask
1395-6
the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can inform the House on what day the separate portions of the Report of the Boundary Commissioners will be ready?
MR. GATHORNE HARDYreplied, that he had made inquiries and he had been informed that it would take some time to prepare the maps, in consequence of the extent and minuteness of the work to be performed; but that they would be got ready with as little delay as possible.

THE CAB FARES.—QUESTION.
MR. T. CHAMBERSsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the Book of Cab Fares issued by authority, and the plates affixed to the Cabs, both of which are calculated to mislead the public as to the alteration in Cab Fares made by an Act of last Session?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, it was quite true that there had been mistakes both in the Book of Fares and in the new plates affixed to the Cabs. He proposed shortly to bring in a Bill dealing with the whole subject of Cabs, with a view to consolidate the law and to re-arrange the fares, and he thought it better, under those circumstances, not to recall the recent issue of plates until it was seen how Parliament would proceed in the matter. There could be no doubt, however, that a mistake had been committed—but the cabmen generally knew it was a mistake, and also that they knew only one shilling should be charged when the distance was under two miles.

CHURCH RATES REGULATION BILL.
(Mr. Hubbard, Mr. Beresford Hope.)

[BILL 22.] SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. HUBBARD, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that the importance of that question was not to be estimated by the £250,000 which were paid annually in the form of church rates, and still less by the £20,000 which were contributed by persons who were not members of the Church of England. The demand for a change in the law of church rates arose from the objection made by Dissenters to pay for the maintenance of a church and for the performance of Church services from which they derived no advantage. No one would deny that there

1397-8
was on the face of the matter a hardship in that position; but the case of those persons had been taken up by others who made that grievance the pretext for an onslaught upon the Established Church. Those gentlemen denounced a Church Establishment as an institution utterly at variance with the liberty of the subject and as a great social and religious evil. Those extravagant declarations upon the one side had been met by declarations equally extreme upon the other; and the result had been the rise of an irritating and prolonged contest. There existed, however, between these two extremes a large and a growing party who saw not one side but both sides of the question, and who were anxious for its adjustment upon principles which would recognize at once the claims of civil and religious liberty and the rights and privileges of the Established Church. For many years attempts had been made to settle this object of contention, and men who had now attained eminent legal positions had introduced Bills for this object. He had himself, in conjunction with his noble Friend the Member for Stamford (Viscount Cranborne) introduced a Bill some years ago for the accomplishment of that latter object, and that Bill was to a great extent the same as the one which he was then submitting to the consideration of the House. The measure would give to those who dissented from the doctrines of the Established Church the most complete immunity from any burden or any annoyance in the form of a church rate, while it would at the same time provide for the convenience of the inhabitants of the many parishes—amounting, he believed, to four-fifths of the whole number in England—in which church rates were levied, not only without any contest, but with the most perfect unanimity of feeling. In those districts the imposition of a rate could not he thought, be open to any objection either in principle or in practice; but he readily admitted that in parishes in which Dissenters were compelled to contribute to such a tax there existed a real grievance; and that grievance he would remove by the present Bill. It was manifestly desirable, in dealing with the subject, to give relief to the few in a manner which would not prove a hindrance and inconvenience to the many; and he believed that the best mode of effecting that object was the adoption of the principle of exemption. It was accordingly upon that principle that the Bill was founded. The
1399-1400
view which he entertained of the question was that no one should contribute to a fund in the expenditure of which he had no interest; and the relief which in conformity with that principle he would apply to individuals would be extended to districts. There were many parishes in which new district churches had been established, and it would clearly be a hardship that Churchmen in those districts should be compelled to contribute to the maintenance not only of the churches which they frequented but also of the mother church. Both these objects were obtained by the Bill which he had introduced. Another provision of the measure met the case of those parishes which, under the Act of 1825, were enabled to raise loans and to repay them in twenty years by small instalments. That process was beneficial to the parties interested, and he should be glad to see it retained. The Bill contained a clause enabling that practice to be continued, and declaring that the Act of 1825 should not be repealed. Having now brought this measure before the House, he would leave the disposition of the matter in its hands. He trusted, however, that the Bill would be read a second time and committed to the same Committee as that to which the measure of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) would be committed. He thought it would then be found that there were matters contained in the present measure which might be engrafted upon the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Hubbard.)
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I hope and believe that the House has assembled on this occasion in order to deal with this difficult question in a practical and conciliatory manner. On that account I rise, not for the purpose of entering into any general discussion upon the question of church rates; but in order to support the proposal that has just been thrown out by the hon. Member for Buckingham as to the mode in which the House should proceed in the business of the day. During several years in which I have taken part in Church questions, I have always maintained, and am still ready to maintain, that the existing system of church rates is in theory a fair, equitable, and advantageous one. I believe it is one which is well calculated to provide for the maintenance of our parish churches, and, speaking

1401-2
generally, it is the system which is best adapted to the wants of the Church. At the same time, I am aware that a very strong feeling is prevalent among the Nonconformist bodies, and even among Churchmen, upon the subject of this law—a feeling that it would be desirable, if possible, to put an end to discussions of an irritating and annoying character, which have so largely prevailed, and which have to some extent thrown discredit upon the Church itself. I have always felt that, as far as the maintenance of the churches is concerned, we have nothing to fear from an abolition of church rates. I do not think if such an event occurred that the Church of England would be found wanting in that voluntary liberality which has been so largely displayed by other bodies should she be reduced to the necessity of adopting the same system. But I would always maintain our system of church rates, on the ground that the parochial system is the best adapted for interesting the laity in the management and conduct of Church affairs. It is very undesirable, if we can avoid it, to break up that system which throughout a large part of the country is still acceptable to a great mass of the people. But in these discussions we have now had almost every possible argument presented to us, and have tolerably well threshed out and sifted them, and I suppose both sides have come to the conclusion that it is useless trying to convince each other on those points of the question on which we materially differ. Throughout the greater part of these discussions suggestions have been thrown out that some attempt should be made at a compromise. The principle of a compromise has been frequently admitted by those who support church rates. We have always said that if any fair and satisfactory compromise is proposed we shall give it a careful and candid consideration. This is not only so; but upon various occasions Members of the Conservative party, and on one occasion the Conservative Government themselves, have brought forward schemes for compromise. It has been generally found, however, when they came to be examined, that the Nonconformists and others hostile to church rates have not been satisfied with the terms proposed, and of course it is useless to propose compromises which we know will not be accepted. That is the reason why upon this occasion the Government have not come forward with a measure of their own. They felt that if they could have brought forward a
1403-4
Bill which in the spirit of compromise would have been acceptable to the Nonconformists, they would have felt themselves bound to do so. But they have seen nothing in the discussions of late years which is very encouraging in that direction. At the same time, we are very unwilling to discourage any attempt on either side to settle this question. Our feeling at present is that the House should take into consideration both plans now submitted—the one by the right hon. Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone), the other by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Hubbard)—with the view of seeing whether some arrangement cannot be come to by which a scheme may be devised that will be acceptable to the Nonconformists, and will work in with our existing system. Both these plans propose to preserve the parochial system, which would be destroyed by the abolition of church rates. It is very desirable to consider whether either of the two are likely to be acceptable to the House, and, if either, which would be preferred. I think the suggestion thrown out by the hon. Member for Buckingham is one of a satisfactory and practical character. It would work in this way—supposing the House supported the second reading of his measure the Motion will be made that it be committed this day. After the Speaker shall have left the Chair, as it is to be presumed he will presently do on the question of going into Committee upon the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, the Motion will be made that the Bill of the hon. Member for Buckingham shall be referred to the same Committee. That being agreed to, I apprehend the Chairman of Committees will first go over the clauses of the first of these Bills, and then go over the clauses of the second. In that case, if any of the clauses of the measure of the right hon. Member for South Lancashire are rejected, we shall without loss of time be enabled to consider the clauses of the alternative plan of the hon. Member for Buckingham. If either of the Bills is accepted it will be to the exclusion of the other; but if neither is accepted, then we shall just stand where we are. In that way a practical result may be arrived at, which it will be the desire of the Government to forward as far as possible. The hon. Member for Bury (Mr. Hardcastle), desiring, as I gather, to forward the plan of compromise proposed by the right hon. Member for South Lanca-

1405-6
shire, has consented to let his measure—one of a wholly different character, for the simple abolition of church rates—stand over till a future day, a proceeding which will meet the convenience of the House; and I would suggest that the hon. Member for North "Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), whose plan is also different from the two Bills now under consideration, which are cognate measures, should also allow his Bill to be postponed to a later day, in order that we may first consider the question of a compromise and see whether anything can be made of it. If nothing can be made of it, then will come the proper time for considering the other Church Rate Bills. I make this proposal, not for the purpose of delay, but, on the contrary, that we may not lose this day, but devote it to what may be a practical work, and perhaps conducive to the settlement of this very difficult question.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he would be happy to agree to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford North-cote), and would postpone his Bill till the same day as that on which the measure of the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. Hardcastle) was to be considered—namely, the 8th of April. He and the hon. Member for Bury practically agreed in the object sought to be attained. Both desired to give a universal exemption from all personal liability to the payment of church rates. They did not wish to pry by law into the particular religious opinions of any party whatever. He (Mr. Newdegate) adhered to the Resolution of the House in 1862—that it would be unwise and inexpedient to abolish church rates without some compensation, He objected to both the Bills that were now before the House because they would introduce the sectarian element, of singling out and separating members of the Church of England from the rest of their co-religionists. The Bills would, in fact, do what the late Sir James Graham always condemned—namely, ticket Dissenters. He objected to the fostering of any such sectarian spirit by means of law. He further objected to the measures because they would break up the parochial system in so far as the Church of England was concerned. He would not nail any man arbitrarily down to the religious belief of the day because he at a particular time objected to church rates. It appeared to him to be the very essence of sectarianism to do anything of the kind. Because he was too Catholic and too liberal to approve of any such procedure he should feel him-
1407-8
self constrained to vote against the second reading of these Bills.
MR. HARDCASTLEsaid, that, in postponing his Bill for a month, he did so not in the anticipation that that sitting would be employed in discussing the Bill of the hon. Member for Buckingham along with that of the right hon. Member for South Lancashire; but in the belief that the discussion of the last-named measure, in which he cordially concurred in its present shape, would occupy the time of the House that day. He could not agree that the Bills of the hon. Member for Buckingham and the right hon. Member for South Lancashire were cognate measures; they were, he believed, as opposite to each other as they could be, the one abolishing compulsory church rates, while the other did not. Although he might support the one, he must oppose the other. He suggested that the hon. Member for Buckingham should postpone his measure till the same day as those of his own and the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, and in order to give him an opportunity of doing so, he should move to leave out the word "now" in the Motion before the House, and insert the words "8th of April."
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon Wednesday the 8th day of April next."—(Mr. Hardcastle.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, it was with considerable regret that he found that the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. Hardcastle) did not assent to the proposal of the Secretary of State for India (Sir Stafford Northcote), a proposal that seemed to be based on a desire, which he hoped actuated every one present, to settle the long-vexed question of church rates in a manner equitable alike to Churchman and Dissenter. That desire, he was sure, inspired every word that had fallen from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Hubbard), and also from the Treasury Bench. They all, or at least most of them, wished, not that the question should again fall asleep, for the time for suffering it do so had gone by—not to let it be an irritating sore next year, when new men and new minds, and, perhaps, more bitter feelings—though he hoped it would be otherwise—would be brought to bear on all questions affecting the relations of

1409
Church and State, but that the last legacy of the old Constitution of 1832—if he might call a Constitution of their own lifetime old—should be the olive branch on the subject of church rates. What was the proposal that emanated from the Treasury Bench? That that Bill should be committed, not to a Select Committee, but to a Committee of the Whole House. It gave the right hon. Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) the pas. He would come first; he might carry all his clauses, and then that Church Rates Regulation Bill was nowhere; for the clauses on that hypothesis already passed would he inconsistent with those that were to follow after. But if the recommendation of the hon. Member for Bury were taken, where would they stand? The 8th of April would, in all probability, fall within the Easter Recess, and to fix a Bill for that date would be practically the same thing as putting it off till the 1st of April, or some impossible day. To consent to such a proposal would be to consent, in a roundabout way, to the dropping altogether of the Bill, which bore the names of his hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and of himself. But if they took the two Bills together this afternoon they would have the whole case fairly before them. That case turned upon the one distinction of "ticketing." The one Bill proposed that the Dissenters should be relieved from payment of church rates by claiming exemption, the other that Churchmen should undertake to pay them under a voluntary assessment—one scheme ticketed Dissenters and the other Churchmen. Everything which had occurred in that House led him more and more to the conviction that the old traditionary position of the Church of England, in which she had conferred such inestimable benefits upon the nation, might have well entitled her, while respecting the conscientious scruples of those outside her pale, to expect that those who objected to pay church rates should be content to be relieved from them by means of exempting clauses. And, although that was but a point of detail, still it was one of sufficient importance to be taken into consideration in this final Session of the present system of Parliamentary government. What was it, after all, that was called "ticketing?" If they looked at it, not as a sentimental grievance, but with the eye of common sense, it was an epigrammatic phrase; it was one of the many instances of which the history of the
1410
world was full—an epigram accidentally obtained currency, being accepted by unthinking people in place of an argument. What, he repeated, was the grievance of being ticketed; they had always twenty-four Noblemen who were glad enough to be ticketed with a "star and garter;" they had 658 Gentlemen in that House who were glad enough to be ticketed with "M.P." on the covers of their letters. In fact, the whole world was a system of ticketing and counter-ticketing, and must be unless they were reduced to the condition of savages running in a wood. Why, therefore, men of strong and peculiar religious opinion should object so much to that special kind of ticketing he never could understand. From their point of view it ought to be the most honourable one, as it showed the strength of their religious convictions. Still, he repeated, the point was one of detail; and if the House refused to adopt the conciliatory proposal of the Secretary of State for India, he would be none the less willing on that account to enter upon the consideration of the right hon. Member for South Lancashire's Bill, with a view, if possible, to modify it, but, in any case, to make it a settlement of the question. No doubt, it was not a Church Rate Abolition Bill, or it would not have been regarded in as favourable light as it had been on that (the Ministerial) side of the House. Still, it bore on its face the unlucky word "abolition;" and why, he asked, should that word, which had become the party badge of the Nonconformists, be retained there? If, on his own side, ticketing, and many other things which were thought desirable were abandoned, was it asking too much of the other side that, while it obtained the relief it sought for conscientious scruples, it should at least divest the affair of the character of a party triumph, and make it a settlement, an arrangement, a compromise, and in so doing excise that invidious and unnecessary word "abolition?" He hoped the result of the Committee would at least be that the Bill might be so far altered and amended. He rejoiced that the ultimate settlement of church rates, whatever form it might assume, was not to take the form of a universal fabric rate. That would be a most fatal settlement; for a universal fabric rate would be a declaration that the fabrics of the Church belonged to the nation, and they would soon become buildings entirely at the disposal and under the control of

1411
the bureaucracy of the country. There would be that assumption on the part of the Government of the day—of some Government, he meant which might prevail, not now, but perhaps twenty or thirty years hence an assumption of the property in those fabrics which exists in many commonwealths abroad, which would be followed here, as it already had been in those countries, by consequences equally subversive of the religious freedom of Nonconformists and of Churchmen. With this great danger in view he was the more conciliated to the present measure. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Member for South Lancashire would see no difficulty in conceding the moderate request of the Secretary of State for India, and allow the Bill before them to be read the second time pro formâ, and considered in Committee.
MR. GLADSTONE: It appears to me, Sir, though I will not dwell upon the point, that a question of form might be raised with respect to the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. I cannot see how we can preserve due respect for the ground of the rule which directs that the second reading of a Bill shall be taken on one day and the Committee on another, if he is to propose now to read his Bill a second time, in order that it may be referred to the same Committee with the Bill which I have had the honour to introduce. It will be more material to go into the question of substance; but I am bound to say, in reference to the proposal of my hon. Friend, that notice should have been given of it, and that it should not have been introduced either by him or by the Secretary of State without notice to the House. Waiving however, that topic, I wish to explain the position in which I stand with regard to the matter, because I feel the force of the appeal which has been addressed to me from the other side, and I do not wish to deviate from the spirit which has thus been displayed. The meaning of the proposal is this: We are to assent to the second reading of the Bill of the hon. Member for Buckingham, and then refer it to the same Committee as the Bill which, for the sake of convenience, I have called mine. The measure might with equal propriety have been called that of the hon. Member for Hastings, that of the hon. Member for Birmingham, that of Mr. Fox (formerly Member for Oldham), or that of many other Gentleman, who have all made suggestions which are fundament-
1412
ally embodied in my Bill. Apart from that, however, we are asked, I say, to read the Bill of the hon. Member a second time, and thereby to assent to its principle. Now, I lay down, without fear of contradiction, this maxim, that it is not wise to refer to the same Committee, Bills that are founded upon opposite principles. If it happens that there are Bills of a similar character some of the provisions of one of which might usefully be embodied into the other, such a procedure would be quite expedient and proper. But it is neither wise nor useful to refer Bills of totally opposite principles to the same Committee. The object of referring the Bills under notice to the same Committee is that we may test the principle of my clauses first, and if it is disapproved of we may then proceed with the clauses of the other measure. That, I hold, is the very question which ought to be decided upon the second reading of the Bill. My hon. Friend must feel the force of my objection. Why read a measure a second time at all if the principle upon which it proceeds is to be decided upon in Committee? It would certainly be very undesirable that the second reading should be considered to be a mere formality, and that the two Bills should be jumbled together when they go into Committee. The House has four different plans of dealing with the church rate question before it, each of which is perfectly distinct. The hon. Member for Bury (Mr. Hardcastle) has in my estimation adopted the simplest course. He recognizes the fact that the Bill which he proposes is different to mine, and he assents to the judgment of the House being taken upon mine as an alternative. For the sake of peace he is contented to support mine, and has postponed his own until the fate of mine is decided. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire again has a plan which is totally different and distinct from the others. That hon. Member is very much in favour of the preservation of the parochial system, but his Bill is by far the most ruinous to that system. He gets rid of the class of paying people, and hands the matter over to the class of landlords.
MR. NEWDEGATE: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have read my Bill.
MR. GLADSTONE: That seems to me to be a remark which would be more appropriate in a reply than used as an ejaculation. My hon. Friend gets rid not only of the working but the spirit of the parochial system altogether. It seems, how-

1413
ever, that we are generally agreed that this Bill may be postponed until we have gone into Committee on the Bill I have had the honour to introduce. I come now to consider mine in conjunction with the Bill of the hon. Member for Buckingham, and to ask whether his principal clauses can, by any possible exercise of ingenuity, be reconciled with mine. Undoubtedly they cannot. Either my clauses must disappear and his clauses stand, or his must disappear and mine must stand. What, then, can be the use of referring that question to the consideration of a Committee of this House? Surely it is a question which ought to be considered now, and I venture to suggest to my hon. Friend that the course taken by him ought to be the same as that taken by the hon. Member for Bury. If he proposes his plan as an alternative, let us first see whether the House is disposed to accept of the plan embodied in my Bill. If not the House will pronounce upon the plan of the hon. Member for Buckingham, and he will able to submit his plan to the judgment of the House. My hon. Friend as well as myself gives up the question of church rates in the nature of a claim to levy from the whole community the charges for maintaining the fabric of the Church, on the ground that the services within the Church could be made available for the whole community. My discretion in the matter has become very narrow. My Bill was accepted on the second reading by many Gentlemen sitting on both sides of the House, and I am in the condition of a man who has virtually at least made a compact with my hon. Friends near me, and also with many Gentlemen sitting opposite, from neither of which do I feel myself at liberty to deviate. If I could adopt the clauses of my hon. Friend's Bill without deviating from the spirit of the compact, I should gladly do so, and so likewise I should adopt any suggestion made from this side of the House; but at any rate I consider myself bound to take the judgment of the House whether it is right to proceed with a measure which, on the one hand, entirely rejects from the church rate system every element of compulsion, whilst it retains, on the other hand, the form and material of church rates, and gives to the subscribers, whether Dissenters or not, the right of making inquiries as to the application of the funds thus raised. My hon. Friend does not proceed on this basis; he wishes to throw on the individuals who
1414
wish to exempt themselves from the payment of church rates the necessity of some special proceeding in order to attain that object. It would be a complete deviation from the compact made on the second reading of the Bill, if I understand him rightly, were I to accede to that principle. The distinct effect of my own measure is that the promises hereafter made as to the payment of church rates should be voluntary promises only, and not enforceable as church rates, or recoverable at law, except in circumstances under which any other promises would be enforceable. In the meantime, I think it impossible to accede to a plan which would throw on a Committee of this House the duty we ought to discharge on the second reading of the Bill.
MR. HUBBARDsaid, that upon the mere question of economy he thought his own proposition the better of the two. He believed that both himself and his right hon. Friend the Member for South Lancashire were agreed as to the principle of compulsion. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No.] He entirely abjured the principle of compulsion under his Bill, except in the case of assumed acquiescence to pay the rate. If the House accepted the second reading of his Bill, it could then be seen whether, consistently with the forms of the House, it could be considered with the Bill of his right hon. Friend. He now asked the House to assent to the second reading of his Bill.
MR. WALPOLEthought that, considering they had now arrived at that stage of this long controversy in which they were endeavouring to settle the question in a manner which both sides of the House would more or less approve of, as well as the country generally, it would be better to go into Committee on the right hon. Gentleman's Bill, in order to see whether the Bill could be so shaped, with any Amendments that might be suggested on it, as to offer a thoroughly satisfactory settlement before going into the question as to certificates raised by his hon. Friend's Bill. Therefore he thought they would not lose any ground by postponing the Bill of his hon. Friend to the same day to which the other Bills were postponed, in order that they might have an opportunity of considering it again, in case they could not frame the right hon. Gentleman's Bill into a satisfactory measure.
MR. HUBBARDsaid, he was prepared to follow the advice of his right hon.

1415
Friend, and would postpone the second reading.
Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday 8th April.

COMPULSORY CHURCH RATES ABOLITION BILL.
(Mr. Gladstone, Sir George Grey, Sir Roundell Palmer.)

[BILL 13.] COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1 (Compulsory Church Rates abolished).
MR. HENLEYsaid, he was glad that the hon. Member for Buckingham had postponed his Bill, for, with two Bills under the consideration of the Committee at the same time, no progress would have been made. Both the Bills proposed to do away with the principle of church rates in different ways, and if the hon. Member thought his machinery preferable, it would be easy for him to propose to strike out the 4th clause of the present Bill, and to substitute his own plan instead. With respect to the first clause now under consideration, he should oppose it, and thus give an opportunity to anyone who wished to vote against the total abolition of church rates to say "No" to the clause.
Motion, made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 167; Noes 30: Majority 137.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 (Saving where Money due on security of such Rates).
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he wished to explain why he did not vote in the division which had just taken place. The Government, as he had said, were very anxious to deal with the present measure, and all proposals on the same subject, in as practicable a manner as possible, and he considered that they had gone into Committee in order to put the plan of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Glad-
1416
stone) into the best shape it admitted of, to see whether the House could or could not accept it. He regarded the vote on the first clause as a vote on the principle of the Bill. Therefore, he did not consider it fair, after consenting to go into Committee, to vote against one of the main principles of the Bill; and, as he did not entertain any very sanguine hope of a satisfactory conclusion being come to, he abstained from voting altogether. He had been anxious to have a comparative discussion on the provisions of the present Bill and those of the hon. Member for Buckingham; but, as an opportunity for that purpose was not allowed, he thought it was their duty to pass the Bill in the best shape possible.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3 (Church Rate already made may be recovered).
MR. HUBBARD MR. HUBBARD moved the insertion in line 12, after the word "rate," of the words "or rate in the nature of church rate."
MR. NEWDEGATEasked, whether the object of the hon. Member was to extend the principle of the clause to those rates that were levied under local Acts not coming within the general provisions of the law? He thought it unjust and inexpedient to abolish compulsory church rates without giving some substitute to the parishes.
MR. HUBBARDsaid, that the Amendment was intended to meet the case of loans made to some hundreds of parishes by the Public Works Commissioners on the security, not of church rates, but of rates in the nature of church rates.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would agree in this definition.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 4 (Voluntary Assessments may be made).
MR. GLADSTONEproposed to leave out the word "assess" in line 18, and insert "agree upon." The Amendment was a verbal one, but it was made to meet apprehensions entertained in some quarter in consequence of the use of the word "assess."
MR. HENLEYsaid, that under the proposed change the question might arise, and probably would arise, whether the persons who "agree" would be liable to be made to pay. This clause proposed to assess ersons who could not be there,

1417
and the question was how far it was likely that persons so assessed would be likely to pay. He thought it was very probable that such persons might say that they would pay nothing. Where it was a voluntary affair he thought it was more likely that people would like to measure their gifts in their own way. If church rates were swept away he believed they would get more money a thousand times told without such a machinery as this. It seemed to him that the Bill was a delusion; the House might deceive itself, but it would not deceive people out of doors.
MR. POWELLsaid, he thought there was considerable difference between the word "assess" and "agree upon," and that the difference was against the alteration suggested.
SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, that the Amendment made no difference whatever with regard to the substance of the clause; it was merely an alteration in phraseology. With respect to the objection of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley), it was a sufficient answer that the Bill left the alternative of voluntary contribution without the form of a rate open wherever it might be preferred. On the other hand, there might be many places in which the object might be better accomplished by adherence to the accustomed mode of procedure; and no harm could be done by submitting the question to the parish, when those only would be bound who consented to bind themselves, and when even those who did consent would not be irrevocably bound till some expenditure had been made, or liability incurred, upon the faith of their agreement. It was well known as a legal principle that a voluntary promise founded on no consideration did not bind.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he was acquainted with one parish where the rates were collected every year, but they were not collected by law, because the whole amount of the rate imposed in the previous year not having been duly paid up they could not strictly impose another rate. But what had been done there was that which the Bill would enable all parishes to do in future—namely, to employ the existing parochial machinery for the making of the rate and to leave the inhabitants to pay or not as they pleased. A large sum was collected in that way and also by voluntary contributions, and though he should have been better satisfied to see the church rate question settled in another manner,
1418
he believed that in a great number of parishes the parochial machinery would still be kept up, from an earnest desire to maintain the fabric of the church, and that a very large sum would be collected by its means in a way which would not be galling to Dissenters. The word "assess" should therefore be retained in the clause.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he doubted whether there was any instance under the voluntary system of contributions in which owners had been assessed as contra-distinguished from occupiers.
MR. HUBBARDsaid, he hoped the wording of the clause would not be altered as proposed, because the word "assess" implied an equitable apportionment.
MR. AYRTONsuggested that it would be well to insert a clause which should permit of the assessment of either owners or occupiers, in order that the owners of property, who—as they were frequently told by the representatives of counties—desired to see the church maintained in all its integrity, might have the fullest possible opportunity of contributing in a proper legal form towards such maintenance. To deprive them of that power would not only be a hardship upon them, but it would also be a great national misfortune.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsuggested several difficulties that, to his thinking, stood in the way of this being done in a proper legal and binding form.
SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he should be willing to insert a clause which would, he thought, meet the case, and would also meet a difficulty suggested by the hon. Member for Lincolnshire North (Mr. Banks Stanhope), who wanted provision against the occupiers of property meeting and determining to tax the owners.
MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, it appeared to him that the word "assess" was preferable. How could any one agree to pay a rate when they did not know to whom it was to be paid? They had passed the first clause; they had abolished church rates, and the best thing now that could be done would be to tear up the Bill. A select vestry could not know who would contribute, and therefore could not agree upon the rate that was necessary. The better course would be for the parishioners to be called upon to put down on paper how much they would contribute. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) would divide on every one of these clauses, and

1419
he should have great pleasure in supporting him.
MR. HIBBERTsuggested that the Amendment should be adopted, but that after the word rate they should insert, "to be assessed"
SIR ROUNDELL PALMERaccepted the suggestion, and the clause was altered accordingly.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHwas disposed to move that the word "owners" should be omitted.
SIR ROUNDELL PALMERhoped the word "owners" would not be left out.
MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIEsuggested that the word "or" should be substituted for "and," so that the clause should run "owners or occupiers."
SIR ROUNDELL PALMERobserved that the clause did not authorize a separate assessment in each case. The assessment was alternative.
MR. BANKS STANHOPEthought they were much more likely to raise a large sum if the assessment was upon occupiers only, and therefore proposed the omission of the word "owner."
SIR ROUNDELL PALMERexplained that the only object in inserting the words was to enable the owner to pay the rate for the occupier.
MR. AYRTONsuggested the insertion of a clause to the effect that where the owner paid the rate he should be deemed a parishioner within the meaning of this Act. It would be a great pity to leave out the word "owner," seeing it had always been asserted by those who represented counties that the owners of property were so anxious to maintain the church in all its integrity. Why, then, deprive them of the opportunity of giving effect to their opinion?
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, it was impossible to separate altogether the 4th and 5th clauses, and he wanted to know what would be the effect of the 5th clause in the case of an assessment being made by the parishioners in vestry upon the owners who were not otherwise members of the vestry; would they or would they not have a right to give their votes if a poll were demanded?
SIR ROUNDELL PALMERundertook to bring up a clause to carry out the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton). As to the question just put to him, the 4th clause, as it now stood, did not authorize the vestry to make a rate upon the owner
1420
and not upon the occupier, but it provided that the rate when made should be upon the owner or occupier.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Suppose they both wish to have the option, which is to have the opportunity of going to the poll?
MR. AYRTONsaid, he did not think there would be any difficulty in the matter. If the owner arranged with the occupier that he would take the burden upon himself, he might do so at the very commencement, and take part in the vestry.
MR. BANKS STANHOPEsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment upon an undertaking by the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) to provide against owners of property being assessed instead of assessing themselves.
MR. HUBBARDproposed to add at the end of the clause the words—
"And nothing herein contained shall prejudice or affect the provisions of the Act of the fifth year of George the Fourth, chapter thirty-six, except that the consent of the entirety of the persons in vestry assembled shall be substituted for the consent by the said Act required."
He explained that the object of the abolition was to enable money still to be borrowed on the rates for re-building, repairing, and enlarging churches; and his proposition was that money should be borrowed only upon the consent of all those at the vestry, instead of by a majority, as the law now was.
MR. LEEMANthought the adoption of such words would altogether stultify the Committee, and give a few energetic Churchmen the power of passing a resolution for the re-building of churches, whereby rates would continue to be levied for twenty years.
MR. HODGKINSONappealed to those who had charge of the Bill to deal with the question of giving people liberty to assess themselves.
MR. HUBBARDsaid, his proposal would only come into operation with the consent of the entire parish.
MR. ACLANDsaid, he was unwilling to embarrass those who for so many years had been endeavouring to effect a settlement by abolishing the compulsory rate; he thought, however, it might be expedient to adopt in this Bill a clause he had brought forward last year, enabling the owners of property to charge their estates to a certain extent for the maintenance of churches.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he wished to

1421
explain the principle on which he had proceeded. His hon. Friend proposed that there should be, under certain circumstances, a power of voluntary charge upon property, to be executed by owners individually, and without any parochial machinery, for purposes to which church rates had been heretofore applicable. That might be a very proper subject for legislation; but he would say to the hon. Gentleman, and to the promoters of other propositions, that it would not be convenient to make this Bill a comprehensive measure on the subject of church rates. The object of the Bill was to remove that which had been an element of contention in reference to most questions connected with the Church. He confessed that there were several matters connected with the law of church rates which required further consideration. There were the questions as to the mode of providing for old rates made under an Act which had been referred to; as to ecclesiastical districts in reference to this Bill; as to voting at select vestries; and as to the compulsory payment of visitation fees, which heretofore had been charged upon church rates. But he repeated that the matter would be greatly perplexed if it were attempted to make this Bill a comprehensive measure upon church rates.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that the existing provision, which enabled money to be borrowed on the security of the rates for the repair or restoration of a parish church, was of the greatest value. Without it in many cases it would be impossible to carry out repairs amounting virtually to re-building the church. Under this Bill, the power now possessed by vestries to so borrow money would be necessarily terminated; and to that extent the measure was certainly objectionable. He therefore hoped the House would pause before finally giving its assent to the Bill.
SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, it would be quite possible on some future occasion to provide a substitute for the borrowing powers of vestries on the security of the rates, without in any way infringing upon the principle of this Bill. He agreed, however, with the right hon. Member for South Lancashire that it would be wrong to complicate this Bill, which was intended to effect a particular purpose, by introducing into it clauses to carry into effect all those consequential measures which, on a future occasion, it might be right and expedient to take.
MR. HUBBARDsaid, he hoped that the right hon. Member for South Lancashire would introduce a Bill to effect this object.
MR. BAINESsaid, he thought the fear expressed by the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) was visionary and groundless. He knew the cases of comparatively poor Dissenting congregations, who had by voluntary contributions raised sums amounting to £2,000, £5,000, £10,000. £15,000, and even £25,000, in order to build chapels and carry out other similar objects. If this was so, there ought not to be very great difficulties in the way of rich Church of England congregations.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he was aware that it was perfectly easy for rich Dissenting communities to raise the necessary sums for building and repairing their chapels; but the case was very different in small rural districts, where the churches—many of which required repairs almost amounting to re-building—had been built 400, 500, 600, or 700 years ago. In cases of that kind, it was not mere repair that was wanted every now and again, but an almost complete re-building of the church. In order to show that the provision to which the hon. Member (Mr. Hubbard) had referred had been of great value to the Church, he might say that the last Return showed the amount which had been borrowed for Church purposes on security of the rates, and now remained outstanding, was £170,000, no less a sum than between £14,000 and £15,000 having been borrowed for that purpose last year. He thought the House ought to consider very carefully before it finally committed itself to the approval of a Bill, one of whose provisions was the doing away with a power so important and useful as the one to which he had referred.
Amendment negatived.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5 (If at any Vestry for assessing such voluntary Rate Poll demanded, Names of Voters to be entered in a Book).
MR. GLADSTONEexplained that the object of this clause was to prevent those who did not intend to be bound by the decision of the majority from obstructing those who really intended to contribute to the rate. He proposed to insert words which should limit the operation of this clause to the first time of a meeting being called for the purpose of assessing such a voluntary rate, since the 8th clause pro-

1423
vided for all subsequent meetings for that purpose.
MR. BERESFORD HOPEthought, before adopting the Amendment, they ought to know more clearly from the right hon. Gentleman, or from the hon. and learned Member for Richmond, how far the provisions of the Bill would go in enforcing an equitable promise; and, also, whether a ratepayer might signify, by letter addressed to the churchwardens, his desire to have his name placed among the number of the voluntary subscribers.
SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, that the object of the 5th clause was to exclude the possibility of obstruction being offered, in the first instance, to the use of the power to make a voluntary rate by persons who, if a rate were made, would not be willing to pay it; whilst the 8th clause said that where a rate was in operation no one who refused to pay the last rate should be at liberty to take part in voting in respect to the application of the money, or to the making a further rate. With regard to what the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) said, he (Sir Roundell Palmer) did not understand that the provision referred to had for its object to bind any persons who agreed to pay the voluntary rates by contract. He apprehended no mere promise of the kind contemplated would be in itself, without some subsequent consideration arising out of expenditure made, or liability incurred, upon the faith of it, a contract enforceable either at law or equity. It was not the object of the clause to control or interfere with the operation of the ordinary rules of law as to contracts, but to secure the system against the obstruction of persons who were not bonâ fide willing to accept the measure. He apprehended that there would be no obstacle to any person wishing to subscribe signifying his desire by writing.
MR. DENTthought it would be better to omit this clause altogether, as the class of small farmers, who would be principally affected by this Bill, were notoriously averse to putting their names to anything which they thought might subject them to unknown liabilities. He was opposed to the provision in question.
MR. HENLEYremarked that the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) had, by his explanations, made the matter less easy to understand than it was before. It appeared to him (Mr. Henley) that these things ought to
1424
be made as plain as possible. When it was considered the difficulties of proving what was or what was not a contract, it was not unreasonable to urge objections to such machinery as that proposed. The introduction of the words "the first time" made the meaning of that part of the clause somewhat dubious.
MR. GOLDNEYsuggested that the meaning of the words "first time" was made intelligible by a reference to the 8th clause.
MR. GLADSTONEproposed the insertion of the words "for the first time after the passing of the Act," to make the provision intelligible, and to meet the objections of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire.
Amendment agreed to.
Words inserted.
On Motion, "That the Clause, as amended, be agreed to,"
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEexpressed his opinion that it would be likely to prove an encumbrance rather than of value to the rest of the Bill. People would be afraid to put their pen to a declaration which might commit them to a liability they knew nothing of. The whole scope of the Bill was to get rid of the compulsory enforcement of church rates, and this clause appeared to him calculated to operate in the exact opposite direction. By Clause 8 no person was to be entitled to vote upon any question as to making any voluntary assessment who had not paid the amount of his share of the previous voluntary assessment, and he did not see why that clause was not sufficient for the purposes for which the 5th clause was proposed.
SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, that unless the 5th clause was retained there would be no security, in the first instance, corresponding with that given at a subsequent stage by the 8th clause, against obstruction being offered to those who were willing to pay the rate.
MR. KENDALLsaid, it was obvious that persons would not sign such a declaration as that proposed by the clause, unless they were distinctly informed what liabilities would be incurred by their so doing. He thought that the tendency of the clause would be to prevent those who were anxious to support the Church from endeavouring to do so.
MR. DENTsaid, he could not see that any useful object would be attained by re-

1425
quiring the names of an unsuccessful minority to be attached to the schedule, as was contemplated by this clause.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he did not believe that practically any majority would be inclined to abuse its power; but having heard from the Secretary of State his opinion that the clause was not necessary, he should certainly not feel justified in pressing it upon the House.
Clause negatived.
Clause 6 (Voluntary Payments and Agreements for Contribution may be made).
THE SOLICITOR GENERALthought that an addition was required. He was not sure that any action at law could be sustained against a subscribing parishioner, unless the whole of the subscribers were made plaintiff. He suggested that words should be added providing that the churchwarden, chapelwarden, or treasurer should be the nominal plaintiff in any action brought for the recovery of the rate.
SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he had no objection to offer to the proposed Amendment.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKobjected to the words proposed, on the ground that the rate being placed upon the voluntary principle there should be no legal proceedings for its recovery.
MR. GLADSTONEreminded the House that voluntary promises were binding under the present law, where third parties had been induced to incur certain expenses under them. In the event of parishioners agreeing to a rate for repairs, and the repairs being consequently executed, it was clear that there was a legal as well as moral obligation to pay for them; and all that the present clause did was to place the voluntary promises in the same position as those who by the present law were liable, and not that there should be a special and separate law on the question. If he were to abandon this clause he should be breaking, substantially infringing, the contract or understanding on which he had brought forward the measure. He had no objection whatever to the adoption of the judicious Amendment of the Solicitor General.
MR. SERJEANT GASELEEobjected to the Amendment of the Solicitor General, as it might give rise to much confusion. Counsels' opinion would have to be taken who was the right party to sue. He did not agree with what the right hon.
1426
Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) said of the hon. Member for Finsbury because he believed that his hon. Friend was as capable of understanding the subjects upon which he spoke as any other hon. Member of that House. He objected to all proceedings for enforcing payment in Courts of Law or in Equity. He was a supporter of the Church, and he preferred that it should be done voluntarily. This Bill was a sham, and he objected to the introduction of the proposed words on the ground that they would not be intelligible to the farmers. In such a measure it was out of place to make provision for an action being brought as the clause provided "in a Court of Law or Equity." If any Court was to be resorted to why should it not be the County Court, where "expenses were small?" Fancy the idea of a man who promised to pay £1 being drawn into a Chancery suit, and having to pay large costs. He had some experience of Courts of Law, and he advised everybody to keep out of them. And as to the Court of Chancery, he once had some money left him, about £1,500, to obtain which it was necessary to have what was called an amicable suit. All parties were friendly, and there was nothing hostile in any of the proceedings, but it actually cost him £300 before the affair could be settled. For that reason he was very anxious that people should keep out of Chancery. He trusted that the latter part of the clause would be altogether omitted.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 (Application of Funds).
MR. GLADSTONE MR. GLADSTONE moved, that, at the end of the clause, the following words be added:—
"Provided also, That nothing in this Act contained shall authorize any alteration of the Fabric, or Ornaments, or Services of any Church, which would not be lawful if this Act had not passed."
He moved the addition of these words for the purpose of removing any apprehensions that might have existed that the funds raised under the Bill might be the means indirectly of weakening or altering the present law. He thought, however, it would be well to add the words now proposed.
MR. HUBBARDasked, if any case could by possibility arise under the Act for which the Amendment was proposed to provide?
SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, that in his opinion the Amendment was not in

1427
the least degree necessary. The words were unnecessary, but their addition would do no harm.
Words added.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 (No one to vote who has not paid).
MR. HENLEYasked, for how long a person would be liable who had declined to pay his contribution?
SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he would only be liable to the exclusion for non-payment of the last preceding assessment only, whether made in the current or in any preceding year.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 9 (Short Title).
MR. HUBBARDproposed to amend the short title of the Bill from Compulsory Church Rates Abolition Bill to the Compulsory Payment of Church Rates Abolition Bill.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Mr. CANDLISHthen moved the following new Clause:—
"Definition of 'Church Rate'—The expression 'Church Rate' in this Act shall extend to and include every rate or part of a rate levied in any parish, under any local Act or otherwise, for any purpose to which Church Rates may now legally be applied."
He mentioned the case of a parish in Sutherland, a local Act for which provided for the levying of a church rate for the payment of the stipends of the parson and the clerk, and for the repairs of the church. That Act was not repealed by the present, and as similar Acts might exist for many other parishes, church rates would subsist in their full force in those cases. In order to produce uniformity he proposed his clause.
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion; the clause involved a large question, and would be unjust to many. It happened that the Church in many places had possessed lands which she had given up on being empowered by a special Act to levy church rates. Moreover, the clause was too broad in its wording. It would in some cases prevent the collection of rates for ordinary parish purposes, such as mending roads.
MR. THOMSON HANKEYconcurred in the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goldney), and stated that the parish of Marylebone would be
1428
injuriously affected by the clause as it stood.
MR. PEASEsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) would take the sense of the House on the question, for without the proposed clause the church rate of Stockton would be levied as before, whereas if it passed no injustice would be done to any person, and no vested interest would be depreciated.
SIR ROUNDELL PALMERthought the principle of the proposition clearly right, although the wording of the clause might require revision, and perhaps some provisos would be wanted to meet the case suggested by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney). If, by particular Acts, powers were given to levy, under the name of church rates, rates for purposes substantially different from those to which church rates were by common law applicable, in consideration of some pecuniary or other equivalents, it would clearly not be right to interfere with those powers. But it would be impossible to work upon any provisions which might be contained in those Acts, as to raising money by church rates for purposes to which they were previously applicable by common law, as more sacred than ordinary church rates. The power to make rates for these purposes existed before any such Acts were passed; and therefore could not have formed any part of the consideration for any relinquishment of other proprietary rights. Since the clause had been upon the Paper he had received communications from Marylebone, which had a local Act of the nature referred to, showing that considerable alarm existed there for fear that the proposal would disturb the local arrangements of the parish. If the hon. Gentleman who had proposed it would consent to its withdrawal, he (Sir Roundell Palmer) would, between the present time and the Report, consider the subject, and put the clause into such a shape as, he hoped, would meet the object of its mover, and at the same time obviate the objection just mentioned.
MR. CANDLISHsaid, after the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman he would for the present, with, the leave of the House, withdraw the clause.
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would also take into consideration the cases he had suggested.
Clause withdrawn.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITH MR. DARBY GRIFFITH moved the following clause:—
"Every person who shall be tenant or lessee of any property of house or land, or either or both, who shall have heretofore paid Church Rates as part of the legal and customary outgoings of his tenancy, if he shall not give notice of his intention to continue to pay such Church Rates in future, shall pay to his landlord or lessor a sum equal to the average amount of Church Rate which he may have paid during the previous seven years, if his tenancy shall have lasted so long, and if not, then the average amount he may have paid during the time of such tenancy, to be paid by him to his lessor or landlord in addition to his rent, and as part of the same, and to be recoverable at law or in equity by the same legal means as his actual rent."
The clause, he said, was not opposed to the principle of the Bill, but he thought the tenant-farmer ought not to derive any incidental advantage from it. Church rates, of course, belonged to the land, for where they were imposed there was a corresponding deduction from the rent; and if the tenant held by a lease, he would without this clause obtain an advantage to which he was not otherwise entitled.
MR. READsaid, if this clause were added to the Bill he hoped a proviso would be added to the clause that the landlord should not put the money so obtained into his own pocket, but hand it over to the churchwarden.
MR. NEATEsupported the clause in the interest of the tenant-farmer, who, he believed, would be a grievous sufferer by this Bill. At present there were many Nonconformist tenant-farmers, and the landlords, as a rule, did not object to them; but under this Bill, if a dissenting tenant farmer did not pay the church rate he would become a marked man. It would be the same with the village grocer. The Bill, in fact, would prove in effect, though not in intention, a Bill for the eviction of rural dissent. He must add that religious intolerance was not all on one side, for very lately a Dissenter having come into some property evicted a very excellent tenant because he was a Churchman. Properly entitled, the measure would be called an Act for the Extermination of the Rural Dissenter, and the House might expect that after it had been in operation for some time a wail of lamentation would be raised in the country, and petitions would pour in praying that the Church be thrown on the Consolidated Fund, and that a law be passed to prohibit the pernicious practice of eviction, the fruits of religious intolerance.
SIR MATTHEW RIDLEYtrusted the hon. Gentleman would not persevere with his Motion. They had now disposed of compulsory payments, and this was an attempt to introduce them again by a side wind. These matters ought to be left to private adjustment between landlord and tenant, and he was confident that in the main such an adjustment would be made. He had always been a strenuous supporter of the church rate, and had voted against the first clause of this Bill. But he had been left in a minority, and now he hoped the question would be settled.
MR. HENLEYsaid, his opinion was that the Bill was not a good Bill; but this clause, with all due deference to his hon. Friend, was a great deal worse than the Bill. The Bill was something like a proposition to rob the Church, and now this clause would not allow the tenant-farmers for the few years of their lease to come in for their share of the spoil. That was something like consenting to a theft, and was much worse than the Bill. He did not think any landlords would be found to take the money—they would feel it burn in their hands.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought the objections taken to this clause by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire, in whose opinion he fully concurred, with the reservation of course of his opinion as to the general scope and aim of the Bill, and the objections of the hon. Baronet the Member for Northumberland, in whose opinions he fully concurred, saved him the trouble of going into his objections in detail. The broad objection to the clause was that these matters between landlord and tenant were beyond the discretion and useful scope of legislative interference, and he therefore hoped the hon. Gentleman who had proposed the clause would not press it further seeing that the sense of the Committee was evidently opposed to it.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would withdraw the Clause.
Clause withdrawn.
House resumed.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 59.]

ARTIZANS' AND LABOURERS' DWELLINGS BILL— [BILL 1.]
(Mr. M'Cullagh Torrens, Mr. Kinnaird, Mr. Locke.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, he would not oppose the Bill, as it would go to a Select Committee; but he reminded the House that the question of metropolitan taxation had lately been brought before them by the right hon. Member for the City (Mr. Goschen), and it was generally admitted that it had reached its limits. Yet power was taken by this Bill to levy an additional tax of 3d. in the pound, and the machinery of the Bill was very expensive. Of course everybody was anxious to see the dwellings of the poor improved and rendered more comfortable; but whether that object ought to be accomplished by taxing the ratepayers to carry out the works of a building society was a question for the House to decide.
MR. POWELLconcurred with the hon. Gentleman opposite in the objections he had raised to certain provisions of the Bill, and added that, in addition to the points just pointed out, it was to be noticed that the Bill, while giving powers of purchase, did not give the seller the ordinary advantages of a forced sale; that property in a ruinous or dangerous state might be held by the lessee against the wish of the owner until the expiration of the lease; and that the Bill contained a provision subversive of the ordinary law affecting rights of property which forbids perpetuities, inasmuch as it proposed to enact that no plot of land acquired under its operation should be, for all time to come, built upon except with the consent of the local authority. He expressed a hope that the whole system of local legislation and taxation would speedily be taken into consideration—the necessity of such a course having been forcibly pointed out a few days ago in the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for Wednesday 1st April.

CANONGATE ANNUITY TAX BILL.
On Motion of Mr. M'LAREN, Bill to abolish the Annuity Tax or Ministers Money, in the parish of Canongate within Edinburgh, and to make provision in regard to the stipend of the Ministers in the parish and city, ordered to be brought in by Mr. M'LAREN, Mr. DUNLOP, and Mr. BAXTER.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 60].
House adjourned at a quarter after Five o'clock.