SECOND BEADING. (Hansard, 8 June 1882)

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
said, that though the hour was very late (1.5 A.M.), he proposed to ask the House to read the Bill a second time, because he understood it to be the wish of hon. Members on both sides of the House who were interested in the subject that the preliminary stages should be taken with as little delay as possible, so that they 611 could go into Committee on the measure and have the details—upon which there was likely to be some difference of opinion—discussed. He would not trouble the House with any lengthened remarks, but would state, in as few words as possible, the object of the Bill. There had been some considerable agitation with regard to the settlement of tithe-rent charges, it having, in the first place, been objected, on behalf of the agriculturists, that the great settlement of 1836 was not a fair and satisfactory one, and ought to be amended. He had to point out that this was not a Bill to do any such thing as that. Any attempt to alter the Act of 1836 would be a serious matter, and could not be undertaken in a measure of this kind, or at this period of the Session. The Bill, therefore, would leave untouched the settlement of 1836; but it would deal with another objection of agriculturists, which was that the machinery for carrying out the Act of 1836, and by which corn averages were determined, was incorrect, and required to be amended. That objection he considered well founded, and the scope of the Bill was directed to its removal. The two principal clauses of the Bill were these. In the first place, there was one dealing with the towns where returns had to be made. The old Act fixed certain towns by name where these returns should be made; but, in the natural course of events, it had happened that towns that at one period were undoubtedly great market towns were now of no importance in that respect; and it, therefore, appeared desirable that the Board of Trade should have power to change the towns from time to time, and, if necessary, increase their number. The other provision was for converting corn sold by weight into corn sold by bushel. At the present time, there was a great deal of variation in the weighing of corn, and it was said that the system did not give a fair result. The Bill proposed that there should be a fixed scale of conversion; but the Government were not pledged to the scale, which had been settled after a conference with the parties interested in the matter. If it should turn out that it was unjust either way they would not insist on it.

§ MR. J. G. TALBOT
said, he did not rise for the purpose of opposing the Bill, because, as the right hon. Gentleman had very truly said, there was practically no difference of opinion between the two sides of the House as to its principle—that was to say, it was agreed that it was desirable that the proposed reform should be carried out. The Bill did not propose to raise the whole question of the tithe-rent charge settlement, and he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had expressed a decided opinion against any such disturbance, as that settlement had been arrived at after great and careful consideration, and should not be disturbed. The right hon. Gentleman had said the object of the Bill was rather to re-adjust the machinery by which the tithe-rent charge was collected; and if in any way by this Bill that machinery could be improved, and if any grievances which were alleged to exist could be rectified, he (Mr. J. G. Talbot) was sure the right hon. Gentleman would find hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House quite ready to co-operate with him in removing those grievances. He only rose on this occasion to make a suggestion which he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not object to. This Bill, or a similar Bill to this, was brought in during last Session of Parliament, and for a long time remained on the Paper and could not be brought forward, owing to a blocking Notice placed on the Paper with regard to it. He (Mr. J. G. Talbot) had a Notice down to refer it to a Select Committee after the second reading, because it had seemed to him that the matters it dealt with were technical, and somewhat of detail, which could be better discussed upstairs. The present Bill, he thought, was one which, if referred to a Select Committee, might be disposed of in a very few Sittings; and he could not, therefore, help hoping that the right hon. Gentleman would accede to his proposal to refer it to a Select Committee. He did not think that such a course would delay the measure. On the contrary, he believed it would tend very much to its expedition. He would, therefore, now give Notice that, after the second reading, and on the Order for going into Committee, he would move that the Order be discharged, and the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

§ COLONEL BARNE
said, he also had a Bill on this subject, and he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if he acceded to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman to refer his own Bill to a Select Committee, he would object to also including his (Colonel Barne's) measure in the reference? He might point out that the right hon. Gentleman's Bill did not go far enough, and would not satisfy the taxpayers. The right hon. Gentleman must know that his (Colonel Barne's) Bill was greatly preferred to his own by Chambers of Commerce throughout the country. ["No !"] Well, they had reported—or a great majority of them had reported—in favour of his Bill, and against that of the right hon. Gentleman. He thought he was correct in stating that the majority of the Chambers had reported in favour of his Bill. At all events, the Central Chamber of Agriculture in London had recommended that both Bills should be referred to a Select Committee. He would not now go into the objections he entertained to the shortcomings of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill. The hour was very late, and he would, therefore, do no more than urge the right hon. Gentleman to refer his (Colonel Barne's) Bill as well as his own to a Select Committee.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
said, that, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman behind him (Colonel Barne) very truly said, his Bill had some elements of popularity in it that could not be found in the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. At the same time, it contained a great deal of difficult and technical matter, and he should be sorry to see a chance of the passing of a much-needed reform prejudiced by their being required to enter upon large and deep considerations affecting tithe-rent charges. He was anxious that something should be done, and that speedily; and he believed the only chance of their having anything done was by enabling the Government to pass this Bill. After that, if anything could be done in the direction of the hon. and gallant Member's Bill, he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) should be very glad to take part in a discussion with that view. He should have no objection to the measure being referred to a Select Committee, if the right hon. Gentleman thought it right so to refer it; but he would not advocate such a course, as he considered that any Bill, to have a chance of pass- 614 ing this Session, should be in the hands of the Government.

§ MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON
said, that the two Bills were based on entirely different principles; therefore, he thought it would be impossible to refer them to the same Select Committee. Though the right hon. Gentleman had said that his measure did not affect the great settlement of tithe-rent charge arrived at in 1836, it dealt, however, with an important section of the Act. The bushel upon which the corn returns were based was a measure of capacity; the present Bill defined that measure by a certain weight. If, instead of 62 lbs. to the bushel, 60 lbs. were the weight required, it would make a difference of about £5 per cent. to the owners of tithe-rent charge. The true difficulty was to ascertain what was the usual weight which went to the bushel in the calculations of 1836. He was informed, on credible authority, that the weights defined in this Bill would, in fact, reduce tithe-rent charge £5 per cent. If this were the case, £200,000 would be taken from the pockets of the tithe-owners, and placed in the pockets of the landowners. ["Divide!"] Hon. Gentlemen were impatient; but it was important that the persons interested in this matter should know the point which, above all others, affected them.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
said, that all he could say was that, if it appeared to be the general sense of the House that the measure should be referred to a Select Committee, he would not offer opposition to the reference. At the same time, it should be pointed out that the end of the Session was approaching, and that the Bill could hardly be sent to a Select Committee without raising the great tithe question that he was anxious to avoid raising at this period of the Session. The Bill of the hon. and gallant Member would, undoubtedly, raise the question of the settlement of 1836 in a definite way. His (Mr. Chamberlain's) position was this. As far as he was concerned, he should recommend the House not to refer the measure to a Select Committee; but, if there was a general desire that that reference should take place on the part of the Government he would not offer opposition.

§ MR. DUCKHAM
said, as Vice Chairman of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, he had never heard any pre- 615 ference expressed for the Bill of the hon. and gallant Member opposite; on the contrary, when the subject was before that body, the general feeling was certainly strongly in favour of the Bill now before the House.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
said, he should move, on Monday next, that the Speaker leave the Chair.