HL Deb 24 April 1888 vol 325 cc300-8

(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

SECOND READING.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.

Moved,"That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

EARL DE LA WARR

said, he had a Petition to present from owners of land and other agriculturists praying for a re-adjustment of tithe rent-charge, and inviting attention to the opinions of a conference lately held at Reading, which was attended by representative agriculturists from 11 counties—namely, Berks, Oxon, Hants, Wilts, Surrey, Kent, Essex, Middlesex, Bucks, Bedfordshire, and Devonshire. The resolutions carried unanimously were to the effect that a re-valuation was necessary where tithe rent-charge bore an unfair ratio to the annual value of the land, and that no settlement of the tithe question would be satisfactory which did not free the land from a portion of the burden which was placed upon it in the days of Protection. He believed that this, to a great extent, represented the opinion of a large portion of the landowners and agriculturists, who desired to see the tithe question settled upon a fair basis, such as the altered circumstances of agriculture required. But the Bills of which the noble Marquess had moved the second reading did not touch this part of the question, save only as regarded the alteration of taking the corn averages of three years instead of seven, which seemed to him to be a change of doubtful operation. The real grievance would in no way be removed by these Bills. The grievance of the agriculturists was that while the value of the produce of the land, which was the basis of the rent-charge assessment, had decreased 30 per cent or more, no corresponding diminution had been made in the tithe rent-charge. It was true it varied slightly with the price of corn, but the basis upon which the tithe commutation was made—namely, the price of corn in 1836, remained unaltered. The price then was about 7s. a-bushel, whereas it was now about 4s. It was a re-adjustment of this and adaptation of the rent-charge to the present prices of agricultural produce which was required. The Bills before them, if they passed, would leave things much as they were. He could not see that relief would be afforded to any class, or that it would be in any way a settlement of a question which was becoming more and more a very serious one. The small occupier of his own land—and this was a very numerous class—would in no way be relieved. The tenant farmer would have to pay in additional rent what he before paid in tithe rent-charge, and the landowner, instead of being relieved, would have the unwelcome task imposed upon him of raising his rent to pay the tithe- owner. He believed the only course which would be a real and lasting remedy for a question which was one of increasing difficulty would be that Her Majesty's Government should offer such a mode of redeeming the tithe rent-charge as would enable the tithe-owner and the tithe-payer to make a reasonable and satisfactory arrangement.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he would remind the noble Earl that the object of the Bill was to provide, not for a re-adjustment of tithes, but a more expedient and speedy mode of recovering them than that which at present existed. Upon the whole, he preferred the method of last year as being more practicable, inasmuch as it substituted the owner for the occupier. Although the present Bill appeared to relieve the tithe-owner of the necessity of going to the tenant, the tenant was the person to whom application would have to be made after all. The tenant would find that the change which made the tithe part of the rent was not a practical relief from the state of things of which he now complained. It was true there would not still be the power to proceed by distress. There was one thing in the Bill which was distinctly unfair to the owners of property, and that was that the charge recovered under the order of the Court was to be thrown not only upon the land in question) but upon any other lands which might be held by the same occupier under the same landlord, or any land that he might hold in the same parish. Observe the effect of this. It would have the effect of charging lands with tithes which were not liable to tithes. That was a distinct violation of the rights of property, as it seemed to him, for there was no right whatever to levy tithe directly or indirectly on such lands, and to that part of the Bill he altogether objected. He greatly feared that the Bill would not succeed in its objects, but he should be glad if his objections were met. He did not desire, however, to offer any serious opposition to the Bill.

LORD ADDINGTON

said, there had been a great deal of false argument raised upon the inevitable position which the tenant occupied with reference to this matter; but it was plain that the landlord could only discharge his obligation through an agent, and where could he find an agent more ready to his hand than the tenant, for this reason, that the tenant received the produce which paid the tithe? The more he examined and considered this question, the more thoroughly it appeared that the Act of 1836 was an exceedingly wise Act, and it never would have been found fault with but for the fanatical movement which had mixed up with the question of agricultural depression a number of other more irritating subjects. If they broke up the present system and took into account the present state of prices, they would have to consider the variations in the price of produce in different districts. The tenant farmers had nothing to do with the incidence of tithe. No doubt he now suffered, and suffered severely, as all connected with agriculture had suffered, from the fall of prices; but there was no way of benefiting either the tenant or the tithe-owner by any change in the law as to the collection of tithe. There was no stronger claim than that of the tithe-owner; it was also the most ancient, and took precedence of the land tax and all other charges. Such a claim the Government was bound to support. To do anything to impair it simply because it was inconvenient or unpleasant appeared to him to be a lowering of the dignity of the Government, and a shirking of the duties which the Government ought to discharge. It was not to be endured that because debtors did not like to pay, therefore creditors must take a commutation. If the Bill went into Committee he would take the opportunity of suggesting what, in his opinion, would be certain improvements in the Bill. In the meantime he submitted that the right and title of the tithe-owner were clear and unquestionable, and he deprecated any change which would inflict upon him a loss of income, which in the circumstances would be most serious and perfectly uncalled for.

LORD BRAMWELL

said, he was of opinion that the Bill in various of its clauses, particularly Section 3 and Subsection 2 of Clause 4, would require to be amended in Committee, in order to guard against its operating in an inequitable manner. With reference to the noble Marquess's other Bill, which he pointed out only applied to new tenancies, and therefore, as it stood, would have but a scanty operation indeed, he was of opinion that it would not be difficult by proper adjustment to provide for its application to existing tenancies.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY (Dr. BENSON)

said, he should be ungrateful if he did not, on the part of the clergy, express their sense of the pains and personal labour and the desire to do justice to them which the noble Marquess had throughout shown in relation to this subject. The clergy had felt keenly the temporary hindrances to their spiritual work, and they were told that in order to remove these difficulties, and in order better to secure the incomes which would be left to them, they must make some concession, and that concession was understood to be one to the tithe-payer who was in difficulties. He thought that he need scarcely call the attention of their Lordships to the facts of the present position of the clergy. Many of them were already suffering very severely. It had been necessary to raise a very large fund, to be distributed with caution and delicacy, so as to avoid wounding the natural susceptibilities of a suddenly-formed class of sufferers from agricultural distress, and especially from the non-payment of tithe in those cases where the farmers and landowners were quite willing but unable to pay the tithe. The fund was not used for the purpose of rendering assistance in. cases where debtors were quite able to pay tithe, and where there was simply a refusal to pay it. This fund was still being administered. Private help had also been given to clergymen, many of whom would not make their wants known; and still others were suffering who found it intolerable to apply to anyone. The suffering was very considerable from this one matter of tithe, and this Bill would inflict a further loss, which might be reckoned for two years at 8 per cent per annum, if present prices continued, by the substitution of triennial for septennial averages. Their Lordships, then, would hardly expect that the clergy could gladly welcome this Bill as a relief from their difficulties. They might accept it, but it was impossible that they should rejoice in a measure which, in coming to their assistance, nevertheless required that they should sacrifice 8 per cent at once. Strong representations had been made to him on the subject, and the Lower House of Convocation had just passed a resolution in general approval and acceptance of the Bill, but suggesting a hope that some means might be found by which the loss under Clause 10 should not be so immediate and so high. But still the clergy accepted this proposed concession as an alternative to the concession of 5 per cent for ever, which was proposed in the Bill of last year. He understood that it was a necessary alternative, one which those who had most anxiously considered the question thought that it was fair to propose and to accept. The concession of 5 per cent proposed last year would have been most unfair upon a very large number of clergymen who bad never had any difficulty in collecting their tithes, would have been most irregular in its operation, and also a lasting sacrifice of the property of the Church. Consequently they preserved the permanent interest of the Church in accepting this immediate loss, great as it was, instead of the perpetual loss of 5 per cent for ever. Looking at the Church as a permanent body with a continuous life, it was, of course, to the interest of the Church to accept this great immediate loss, and to try to do their best to lighten the blow it would inflict on individuals rather than transmit a loss which would be perpetual. With regard to this alteration from seven years' average to three years', it was only fair and candid to admit that if an improvement took place in the prices of agricultural produce the rise would be sooner felt. He only hoped that this might not hereafter be made the occasion of fresh alterations. This measure was felt to be an immediate relief to the landowners, or other tithe-payers, and the clergy desired to show their sympathy with the landowners as they expected sympathy to be shown to themselves. From the resolutions passed by the Lower House of Convocation, and as the result of a largo number of conferences, it was evident that the clergy approved of the substitution, for the sake of the future interests of the Church, of the shorter for the longer average, although at much cost to themselves. They only wished to find some means of breaking the immediateness of the fall. A concession had been made by the clerical tithe-owners, and he hoped that it would be considered as the contribution of the clergy towards meeting the general depression of this particular time.

THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)

I shall follow the example set in this debate in not making any observations with respect to the speech of the noble Earl (Earl De La Warr) who opened the debate, not from any want of respect to the noble Earl, but because the question of the re-adjustment of tithes is one of a very large and complicated character, which cannot be dealt with in a few sentences in which it would be very easy to give a false impression. My own view is that at present there is no ground for such a re-adjustment of tithes, nor are the Government prepared to undertake it. It is better, therefore, that we should not now discuss the question. With reference to the criticisms passed on the Bill, of which I cannot complain personally, I think they are to some extent due to a misunderstanding of the objects we have in view. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) seeks to raise two main objections. One of them was that it was a great injustice to the rights of property to levy tithes, not only on the land from which it was due, but also on other land in the same parish held by the same owners and occupier; but that is the existings law. In Chapter 85 of the Act of 18361 the noble Earl will find it laid down that when any rent-charge shall be arrear, land situated in that parish which shall be occupied by the same person, holding under the same land lord, shall be liable to be distrained upon. It is a very stringent provision, but we have not altered it. The noble Earl also objected that, after all, we came to the tenant as the man who must pay tithe. But consider what the situation is. The tenant, contrary to the policy of the Act of 1836, has promised in numberless instances to pay the tithe. We have just passed a Bill to make such promises impossible for the future; but promises have been made and fulfilled, and money has been collected from the tenant. There can be no question of discharging the tenant from his obligation; the only question is how you obtain the fulfilment of that obligation if he does not discharge it spontaneously. At present the clergyman can distrain, but we say that that is an objectionable method, causing great waste in costs and difficulty in the hands of the clergyman, and still more on account of the relations which exist between the clergyman and his flock, which were being seriously endangered. Our object is not to discharge the tenant from obligations voluntarily incurred, but to provide another means of enforcing it without putting the clergyman into this invidious and objectionable position. There are three persons who can obtain the tithe—the clergyman, the landowner, and the County Court Judge. The Bill of this year goes to work more directly than that of last year; and while the County Court Judge will have to be invoked at last, and although when the tenant is forced to pay it is only by execution that it could be forced, the Government place the duty of obtaining the tithe upon the landowner instead of on the clergyman. We say that no rent should be paid until this debt has been discharged, and the landlord will therefore, in his own interest, pay the debt and add it to the rent. It is not possible in the nature of things, unless you are going grossly to violate the sacredness of contract, to relieve the tenant from the promises he has made. All we do is to make the means of enforcing that obligation as little injurious to the peace and harmony of the parish and the effectiveness of the clergyman's administration as we can. That is the main principle of the Bill which I introduced. I understood that the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell) was rather indignant with us because we had not broken existing contracts, and said that from henceforth the landlord must pay, whatever the contract might have been. I confess I heard that opinion with great surprise; the noble and learned Lord is not the teacher from whom we expect such a doctrine. No doubt we should be very glad if we could, by one clause in an Act of Parliament, bring back that state of things in which the landlords should undertake the payment, but we cannot. The only other matter, I think, of importance which has been dealt with in the criticisms to which I have to reply is the 10th clause, changing the term of years over which the average is taken from seven years to three. That provision met with the most indignant remonstrance from the noble Lord below the Gangway. I do not admit that this clause does any injustice to anyone. No doubt the change from the use of the seven years' average to a three years' average may be injurious to the landlords on the one side, or to the tithe owners on the other; but we cannot positively know to which side it will be injurious until we have experience of the prices of the next three or four years. All I can say is that the Government, in bringing forward this measure, are not consciously acting in favour of one side or of the other. Of course, it will be for your Lordships to consider whether or not it is expedient to adopt the proposed alteration. For my own part, I have no very strong opinion on the matter; but upon the whole I think that it would be expedient to sanction it, for the reason that a seven years' average is more likely to impose a high tithe upon the landowner when there is a fall in prices, and when, therefore, he is least able to pay it, than would be the case with a shorter average. Upon the whole, the provision appears to me to be a just one. I wish, however, to state frankly that I should not have put forward this proposal unless I had received from a very high quarter an intimation that it would be satisfactory to the clergy, and if they wish it to be withdrawn I will reconsider the subject. Upon the whole I think the proposed alteration a wise one, and one which is likely to be advantageous to all parties. Most of the other objections which have been made to the Bill are for discussion in Committee rather than upon the Motion for the second reading of the Bill.

Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday the 8th of May next.