HOUSE OF LORDS, Friday, 2nd August, 1878. MINUTES.]-PUBLIC BILLS-First Reading- Second Reading-Duke of Connaught and of Their Lordships met ;-And having gone through the Business on the Paper, without debate House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, MR. PLIMSOLL said, he had placed upon the Paper an Amendment, That the Bill be taken into Consideration on that day three months. Instead of making that Motion, he intended to substitute another-"That the Bill be re-committed to a Select Committee." His reason for taking that course was this-the Committee which had already sat upon the Bill was a small Committee, the numbers were equally divided in regard to the merits of the Bill, and the Bill itself only passed by the casting vote of the Chairman. Perhaps the House would consider it necessary that he should say a few words to explain the circumstances of the case. The authorities of St. Bartholomew's Hospital were the lay impropriators of the tithes of the parish of Christchurch, Newgate Street, and their tithe was derived from a Charter of King Henry VIII., granted between 300 and 400 years ago. About 200 years ago, the sum payable under this grant or decree was commuted or settled for a fixed annual payment of £200, and this sum had continued to be paid to St. Bartholomew's Hospital by MINUTES.] PRIVATE BILL (by Order) the parish during all that time. ReConsidered as amended Christchurch, New-cently-in 1874-it was discovered that gate Street, London, Tithes Commutation. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Friday, 2nd August, 1878. - - PUBLIC BILLS-First Reading-Naval Discipline Committee Report Education (Scotland) the terms of the original grant gave to the hospital a title to a sum equal to 28. 9d. in the pound from the parish. This discovery disturbed the arrangement which had existed for 200 years, and the hospital actually sued some of the parishioners, who had bought pro Considered as amended-Third Reading-Loco-perty in the parish, for a rate of 28. 9d. motives on Highways (Scotland) [271], and passed. in the pound, which upon even the MR. SPEAKER: Does any hon. Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "be" to the end of the Question, in order to add the word "recommitted,"-(Mr. Plimsoll,) — instead thereof. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." SIR SYDNEY WATERLOW trusted that the House would not consent to disturb the decision already arrived at injustice of the demand, and said he | vote of the Chairman. It was not, would trace every principle of law which therefore, disrespectful to ask the House bore upon the subject, in order to ascer- to refer the measure to a larger Comtain if there were not means of defeating mittee, who would be better able to deal the claim. In the end, the Master of the with a Bill of this sort. He would, Rolls hung up the matter, in the hope therefore, move, as an Amendment, that that it might be settled upon some satis- the Bill be re-committed. factory terms of compromise. The action had been defended by two of the parishioners-Mr. Tyler, and the Board of Christchurch Hospital. Before the cause in Chancery was disposed of, a Bill was introduced into the House of Lords. Lord Redesdale refused to proceed with it, while a case was pending in the Courts of Law; so that nothing should be done by Parliament to deprive the persons interested of their legal remedy. But the promoters of the Bill settled privately with the opponents, and proceeded with the Bill as an unopposed Bill, forgetful of the fact that there were other owners of property in the parish who had not come forward, because they thought the claims of the first, of the Committee of the House whole body would be defended and of Lords; secondly, of the recommendafought for by the opponents, who had tion of the Master of the Rolls after since been got out of the way. The hearing the case for two days; and, terms of the compromise proposed in the thirdly, of the decision of the Select present Bill was that, instead of receiv- Committee of that House. His hon. ing £200 a-year, the hospital should Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. receive £1,100 a-year at once, £1,650 at Plimsoll) suggested now that the Bill the end of five years, and £2,200 a-year should go before another Committee. at the end of five years more. As Lord He (Sir Sydney Waterlow) saw no subRedesdale pertinently observed, if the stantial reason for adopting that course. promoters of the Bill were entitled to They had already referred it to a Select £2,200 a-year, why did they not take it Committee, who, after hearing evidence. at once? Why should they shirk their on both sides, had decided upon recomrights? It was evident that the autho- mending the House to read the Bill a rities of the hospital, under the name of third time. He thought his hon. Friend charity, were asking for as large a sum the Member for Derby had been very as they could get at present, with the much misinformed in regard to the stateintention of putting on the screw from ment which he had been induced to make time to time afterwards. When the to the House. His hon. Friend said Master of the Rolls was made acquainted that terms of compromise were settled with the nature of the compromise, he with the two opponents of the Bill in lifted up his hands in astonishment and the House of Lords; and, therefore, said "And such things are done in the that it was passed on the withdrawal name of charity!" It appeared to him of their opposition as an unopposed Bill. (Mr. Plimsoll) that the question was one The real fact was, that Lord Redesdale which a Select Committee of the House objected to the Bill being allowed to of Commons was eminently well fitted to go on, while a suit in the matter was decide. He did not impugn the decision proceeding in the Court of Chancery; of the Committee that had sat already; and part of the compromise agreed to but he thought he had stated a case afterwards, and assented to by the Massufficiently strong to justify him in ask-ter of the Rolls, was that all the other ing the House to re-commit the Bill. He had already pointed out that the Committee were equally divided, and that the Bill was passed by the casting inhabitants of the parish should be placed upon the same footing as the defendants in the Chancery suit. Therefore, in that respect, there could be no MR. ROBERTS said, he wished to say a word upon the subject, as he was one of the Committee appointed to consider the Bill. Although he thought it was desirable, in questions of this nature, to stop anything in the shape of litigation, he contended that the Preamble of the Bill, which was carried only by the casting vote of the Chairman, was not proved. The Master of the Rolls had clearly indicated his opinion upon the matter. He said that, although he might be compelled to give a decree in favour of the rate, yet he would take every opportunity of inquiring whether there were not some means of preventing him from doing what he regarded as an unjust act. Under these circumstances, he (Mr. Roberts) would be prepared, if the hon. Member for Derby went to a division, to give his vote in the same way as he had done before. complaint, because all the parishioners were placed upon the same footing. He asked the House to pass the Bill for this reason. They all disliked tithes. He disliked them himself as much as anyone could dislike them; and in this case, he thought it was to the interest of the parish to bring about a commutation of tithes, in order to prevent the tithes from increasing year after year with the increase of the assessment of the parish. The object of the present Bill was to fix a definite sum to be paid by the parish in future years, so as to prevent the charge from increasing with the assessment. A statement had been circulated that the property belonging to Christ's Hospital was to be exempted from tithes. That was altogether incorrect. The great bulk of the property belonging to Christ's Hospital had been exempted from tithes ever since it was a monastery. That part which was monastical MR. ALLCROFT said, that he also property was exempted from the pay- sat upon the Committee to whom the ment of tithes; but every other part had Bill was referred, and although it was to pay tithes, and every portion of the quite true that the Preamble of the Bill property that was liable to pay tithes was only carried by the casting vote of was taken into account. Under the the Chairman, the opponents of the compromise, effected by the present Bill, measure had every opportunity of giving Christ's Hospital would be required to all the evidence they could against the pay a sum of £200 a-year; whereas measure. It was shown to the Comwhat it would be called on to pay under mittee that the great majority of the an assessment would be about £300 ratepayers of the parish were in favour a-year more, none but the titheable pro- of the Bill. This he thought ought to perty being taken into account. He trusted be enough to induce the House to pass that the House would consent to the the measure. It was quite true that third reading of the Bill, because the the measure would very considerably matter had now been in dispute for a increase the sum derived by the hospital considerable number of years, and the from the parish in the shape of tithes. parish had already expended as much At present the sum paid was not very in the way of costs as it would have large. He believed the parish had been been required to pay in the shape of in the habit of paying £200 a-year in tithes. If the House objected to read the way of commutation of tithes; but the Bill a third time, the question must St. Bartholomew's Hospital had recently go back again in November to the Mas-been told that it was entitled to claim a ter of the Rolls, who was of opinion that he would have to make a decree for the payment of 28. 9d. in the pound, notwithstanding the fact that he thought such a rate would be unjust. If the Bill failed to pass, there was very little doubt that the parish would have to pay that amount. He did not propose to go further into the merits of the case, because he thought those merits had been already thoroughly threshed out in the inquiries which had taken place in the House of Lords, and before a Select Committee of the House of Com mons. much larger amount than that-indeed, that it had a right to claim a rate amounting to 28. 9d. in the pound. A rate of 28. 9d. in the pound would amount to no less than £6,000 or £7,000 a-year, and the determination of the Hospital to increase the charge so largely would, no doubt, give rise to very considerable litigation within the parish. Litigation had already commenced, and when the case was brought before the Master of the Rolls, he said at once that the law was against the parish, and that if he was required to give a decision, his decision must be in favour of a rate of 28. 9d. in the pound. In that case the parish would be saddled with the full payment of an annual sum amounting to between £6,000 and £7,000 a-year. The Commissioners, not wishing to do that, had come to a compromise, of which the Bill now before the House was the result. Instead of paying £6,000 or £7,000 a-year, the parish would be required to pay £1,100 a-year for the first five years; £1,650 a-year for the next five years, and £2,200 a-year afterwards. His own opinion was that that was a very fair compromise, and that it was to the interest of the parish to accept it. Under these circumstances, he hoped the House would reject the Amendment of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll), and consent to read the Bill a third time. MR. GILES remarked that he had some personal interest in the matter. All the persons who had been hitherto opposed to the measure had, he believed, given way, and now, at the last moment, when the Bill had reached its final stage, the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) came forward with an objection to it. He (Mr. Giles) could not find that any of the parishioners entertained any real objection to the compromise which would be effected by the Bill. They had had full opportunity of being heard before the Committee, where they could have raised any objection they chose, but they had abstained from doing so; and now, at the last moment, an attempt was made to throw over the Bill on the third reading. He trusted that the House would not yield to such a demand. If it did, the only result would be that the parishioners would have to expend a still further sum in litigation, and in all probability in the end, the same advice would be given to them by the Master of the Rolls as that which he had already given-namely, that the parties should endeavour to arrange terms among themselves. The advice of the Master of the Rolls had been taken, and terms had been arranged. He hoped the House would do nothing to throw over the arrangement, and to land the parish in further litigation, and expense, and waste of time. MR. E. JENKINS thonght the case brought forward by his hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) was, to say the least of it, a strong case for further consideration, and for not pro ceeding hastily in the matter. What were the circumstances of the case? It appeared that the Commissioners of St. Bartholomew's Hospital had recently made a claim upon the parish of Christchurch for tithes, which enormously increased the sum the parish had been in the habit of paying. The parish resisted the claim, and two of the largest ratepayers had been put forward to fight the battle on behalf of the whole of the parish. While they were engaged in fighting the battle, a Bill was introduced into the House of Lords for the purpose of carrying through Parliament a compromise which would have the effect of defeating the results of the litigation. He would simply put it to the House of Commons whether that was a proper thing to do; whether, when litigation was going on, it was a proper thing for people who had the power and the money to introduce a Bill into that House for the purpose of overriding the results of the litigation? It was perfectly clear, from the statement of the case which had already been made to the House, even by the supporters of the Bill, that that was what had taken place, and that those who had been relied upon by the parishioners to fight their battle in the Courts of Law, and who ought to have carried their opposition into the House of Lords, had been successfully squared by those who were promoting the Bill. There was one fact which, he thought, ought to have considerable weight with the House. It wasthis-that Christchurch Hospital had been squared for the very small sum of £100 a-year upon the amount of property in the parish held by Christ's Hospital. He presumed that although there would be this small increase in the contribution of Christ's Hospital, the effect of the Bill would be to relieve the property of Christchurch of an enormous charge, which it might otherwise be called upon to pay, provided that it paid in due proportion to the rest of the parish. With such facts as this brought to the notice of the House, surely there was sufficient to justify the opposition which had been raised to the Bill, or, at any rate, in making out a case for delaying the confirmation of the decision of the Committee upon the question. He hoped the House would assist his hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) in the endeavour he was making to have the question referred back again | nion, it would be an inconvenient course to the Committee. for the House to take upon itself, in the present case, to set aside what was really the legitimate expression of the views of the parish, especially when an Act of Parliament passed in 1864 had made a special provision for such a case. He was unable to see that sufficient grounds had been stated by the hon. Member for Derby to induce the House to take a course which was not only unusual, but which would be opposed to the wishes of the parish and of those most interested in the question, and would be contrary to the express stipulations of an Act of Parliament, by which an arrangement of this sort was contemplated. There was no allegation of improper influence having been brought to bear at the time of the passing of the Act, and it certainly appeared to have been in the minds of the framers of the Act that some such arrangement as that now proposed was likely to be made and sanctioned. Under these circumstances, it seemed to him that the House would probably make a mistake, if they sent back the Bill to the Select Committee. He quite admitted that there might be a hardship in indi MR. RAIKES observed, that if this were merely a matter of abstract right, he should be of opinion that the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) had made out a fairly strong case. He was entirely of opinion that the claim put forward on behalf of St. Bartholomew's Hospital was one which fully deserved the expressions used with regard to it by the Master of the Rolls when the case was brought under his notice. For a long series of years the Hospital had been content to compound with the parish for a fixed sum in lieu of tithes; and it was only now, after the lapse of a great number of years, that the Commissioners put forward another claim, which very largely increased the sum hitherto payable. But, at the same time, there were other considerations which must weigh upon the House, as well as those which had been put forward by the hon. Member for Derby; and he would advert for a moment to a matter mentioned in one of the clauses of the City Tithes Act of 1864, which appeared to him to bear upon the subject, and which he thought would have consider-vidual cases. He quite agreed that a able weight with the House. In the 19th section of the London City Tithes Act, there was this provision "With respect to the parish of Christchurch, Newgate Street, it shall be lawful for the parishioners of the said parish assembled in vestry, of which and of the special object thereof notice shall have been given, in the accustomed manner, to agree with the lay impropriators of the tithes of the said parish for the commutation of the said tithes or sums of money, instead of tithes arising or growing due therein, under the provisions of the said Act and decree, into an annual fixed tithe or sum to be paid by the said parish, and to be raised by tithe rates to be assessed therein." smaller sum might have been fixed, and that the promoters of the Bill seemed to have gone upon their legal right, and had shown that they were fully alive to the nature of their claim. At the same time, the Commissioners had a perfect right to make what they deemed to be a fair compromise with the parish, and that compromise had been accepted by the persons who were parties to the suit before the Master of the Rolls. All the persons interested in the matter had, he understood, been before the Select Committee, and the Committee, after a full hearing, had decided against the oppoThat was the mode in which the parish nents of the Bill. Under these circumhad endeavoured to meet the case. A stances, he thought it would be undesuit, as they were told, had now been sirable, upon the whole, to send the Bill proceeding for some years. Consider- back to the Select Committee. able costs had been incurred on both sides, and the parties to the suit had now been willing to effect a compromise. That compromise would be carried out by the present Bill; and, under those circumstances, the House was asked by two or three Gentlemen, who declined to assent to the compromise, to reject the decision of the Select Committee, and to send the Bill back to them for further consideration. He was bound to say that, in his opi MR. WATKIN WILLIAMS hoped the House would consent to the proposal made by his hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) for the re-committal of the Bill. He had paid some attention to the course of litigation in regard to this matter; and he was bound to say that it appeared to him this was one of the most monstrous attempts he had ever heard of on the part of the owners of a tithe to take advantage of |