[BILL 132.] SECOND READING. (Hansard, 5 July 1871)

§ MR. HERON
, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its main object was to get rid of the expensive process by which landlords in Ireland at present were enabled to relieve themselves from their tithe rent-charges. The said tithe rentcharges had been, by the 1 & 2 Vict. c. 109, substituted for certificates of tithe heretofore granted by Commissioners appointed under the Act of 4 Geo. IV. c. 99, and the provisions of which said certificates, as to duration and amount of certain values therein set out, had been further modified and amended by 5 Geo. IV., c. 62, 7 & 8 Geo. IV., c. 60, and 2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 119; and it being found that the said tithe rentcharges are not uniform, and that in consequence of the forms and proceedings required to be taken under the several Acts herein recited, very few applications had been made to substitute rentcharges in lieu of the certificates required under the said recited Acts; and it also being requisite that the rentcharges should be made subject to certain variations, as ruled by the price of corn, the 1st section of the Act provided that from and after the passing of the Act, all rentcharges in lieu of tithe should increase and decrease, and be subject to variations in a degree corresponding to certain averages of the value of corn, to be computed as hereinafter provided. Provided always that any landowner charged with said rentcharge may, if not desirous of taking any advantage of the said Act, purchase such rentcharge from the said Commissioners. The 2nd section enacted that such rentcharges might be varied by the Irish Church Commissioners upon application to be made by said landowner, if made within three years after the 1195 passing of the Act, such variation to be based upon the average price of corn as advertised in The Dublin Gazette, for the seven years immediately preceding the application: all tithe rentcharges, whether varied or not under the provisions of this. Act, after the expiration of the said three years, not to be liable to any future variation. By the 3rd section poor rates might be deducted from tithe rentcharge in all cases of purchase under 32nd section of Irish Church Act, the Commissioners of which were, by the 4th section, empowered to make general orders, and settle forms of procedure for the more effectual carrying out of the Act. The 5th section provided that it should be lawful for any landowner to purchase the tithe rentcharge charged on his land for the space of five years after the passing of the Act; and that during said five years it should not be lawful for said Commissioners to sell such tithe rentcharge to the public, unless after due notice the said owner refuses to purchase the same. The 6th section declared that it should be lawful to make such variation apply to the lands of all other owners in the same parish who might have applied to have such variations fixed, for which purpose the said Commissioners were to be empowered to keep a book, in which a record of all such variations were to be entered, such book to be open to the inspection of the public at a fee of 1s. for each inspection. In conclusion, the 7th section merely limited the application of the Act to Ireland.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)
opposed, on behalf of the Government, the second reading of a Bill which was exceedingly one-sided, and interfered in a manner which it would be difficult to justify with the settlement lately arrived at. It proposed also to impose upon the Church Commissioners duties which they had not expressed their willingness to undertake; and, further, it would reduce the surplus of the Church funds by at least £200,000. This was admitted—he himself thought £500,000 would be a more likely estimate. A question might, no doubt, arise, whether some change should not be made in the manner of dealing with the tithe rent-charge; but certainly 1196 this Bill did not satisfactorily or fairly meet the difficulties of the case; besides, the subject was one to be dealt with, if any alteration was to be made, by the Government, and not by a private Member.

§ DR. BALL
also opposed the Bill, which, although there were grounds of complaint about the tithe rentcharge as it at present existed in Ireland, would introduce a great deal of confusion and difficulty in matters now settled.

§ SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATE
, though an opponent of the Irish Church Act, regarded that measure as a settlement of the questions to which it referred, and objected to their being reopened in a manner proposed by this Bill.