COMMITTEE. [Progress 10th June.] (Hansard, 11 June 1886)

§ MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON (Shropshire, Oswestry)
Mr. Courtney—Sir, I 1574 beg to move that you do report Progress and ask leave to sit again. I do so on the ground that this Bill only came to the hands of Members a very few hours ago. It was not sent round this morning, and I do not suppose there are more than three or four Members of the House who have a copy in their hands. There are also a large number of—no less than 35—Amendments on the Paper, and each one of them is out of Order, because they were put down according to the numbering and paging of the clauses of the Bill as it was, not as it is now. If we proceed with the consideration of the Bill now, the Amendments will have to be put in a form different to that in which they appear on the Paper. I am quite prepared to go on with my Amendments; but I have a strong objection to do so, for I believe it will take two, or three, or even four, hours to get through the Amendments. I trust we shall not be asked to proceed with a Bill of this character at this time of the night (11.25). The Bill has been carried through a Select Committee; but the Report of that Committee has not been made to the House. The consequence is that we are entirely in the dark as to what that Committee has reported. We only have the Bill; and even that the persons who are chiefly interested in it—namely, the tithe-owners—have not had an opportunity of seeing. The titheowners are very deeply interested in this measure, because, even upon the lowest calculation, it will take away 40 per cent of their incomes. According to other calculations it will take away 60 per cent. and on the calculation which I make it will deprive them of as much as 90 per-cent of their income. It is a very serious matter for the titheowners to be deprived of £90 in every £100 of their income, and that, too, behind their backs, without their having had an opportunity of seeing the Bill, and making representations regarding it to their Members in the House of Commons. This is really a very drastic measure, and I consider it to be wholly unjustifiable for the House of Commons to rush it through, just before a General Election. Only this evening I have received a letter from the Secretary to the Parliamentary Committee of the Diocesan Conference of Rochester, in which the writer said that the persons 1575 in whose name he wrote had been awaiting the Report of the Select Committee appointed to consider the Bill. I have also received several communications on the matter from persons interested, and I am frequently asked when the Report of the Select Committee is to be presented, so that the parties affected may have it before them and be able to make suggestions as to any Amendments which they may consider necessary, in order to make the Bill a just and workable measure. They say they have been anxiously watching for the Report, but they have never got it yet; and, as far as I can see, they are not likely to get it, if the Bill is rushed through the House in the hasty manner now proposed. Moreover, the Members of the Select Committee of which I was a Member are by no means agreed as to the effect of the clauses of the Bill; they did not call a single witness, nor ask for the aid of a single expert; and one hon. Gentleman who was also on the Committee (Mr. Gregory), whom the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir William Harcourt) has so happily eulogized to-night, told us the other day that we had better get a legal opinion upon the Bill, because he was not able to say what it amounted to. There is the utmost difference of opinion amongst the Members of the Committee as to the effect of the Bill. If that is so, is it not advisable that some delay should be allowed, so that the parties interested may have an opportunity of seeing the Report of the Committee, and of offering their opinions and suggestions thereon? For these reasons I hope the Committee will postpone the further consideration of the Bill, and that we shall be able to carry it through on some other occasion and under much better auspices.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT) (Derby)
I venture to suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton) that he should agree to postpone this Bill till Thursday. The argument the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Leighton) has used—namely, that 1576 there should be time afforded for the people interested to see the Bill, is a reasonable one. If my hon. Friend agrees to adjourn the further consideration of the Bill till Thursday he may, as I hope he will, still get the Bill through.

§ MR. T. H. BOLTON (St. Pancras, N.)
I accept the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman. At the same time, I wish the Committee to understand, that I do not at all admit the accuracy of the statement of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Leighton) who made the Motion to report Progress. With reference to the alleged irregularity of the Amendments on the Paper, if he will compare the Amendments with the revised Bill in the hands of Members he will find that the Amendments which stand in my name are not irregular. The Amendments which stand in his name, I admit, are irregular, inasmuch as they do refer correctly to the lines in the printed copy of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman has spoken of the proceedings of the Committee. The hon. Gentleman himself was a Member of the Committee. He did not call any witnesses. It is true there was a difference of opinion; but it existed between the hon. Gentleman himself and the rest of the Committee. I believe that describes the position the hon. Gentleman occupied in a former Committee which dealt with this question; he was in the singular minority of one. The whole question was fully considered by a Select Committee of the House, presided over by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Inderwick) who represented Eye in the last Parliament. That Committee took evidence and went very fully into the question. The Select Committee, which was presided over by the Judge Advocate General (Mr. Mellor), considered that there was such an exhaustive inquiry by the former Committee that it would be quite safe.

§ THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY) (Cornwall, Bodmin)
The hon. Gentleman is departing from the Question to report Progress.

§ MR. GATHORNE-HARDY (Kent, Medway)
I very much regret that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. H. Bolton) has accepted the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I think if the right hon. Gentleman had known the state of the case he would hardly have 1577 made it. Practically speaking, the Committee were unanimous in approving of this Bill. There were, no doubt, certain differences of opinion, and this Bill is really a compromise between the two sides on the question. The Amendments of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Stanley Leighton) are out of Order, because they are Amendments which would carry out his views; and those views are totally incompatible with the Bill, and, indeed, have no bearing upon it. The other Amendments on the Paper might be passed with the greatest possible ease. The hon. Gentleman says we ought to take legal opinion as to the effect of the Bill. The reason why the great majority of the Amendments are being moved is that the Land Commissioners who have to carry the Bill out have suggested that these Amendments should be made in order to make the Bill work more smoothly. The Amendments are purely verbal, and their consideration would not occupy any appreciable length of time. The Members for the county of Kent are most anxious that this question should be set at rest. We believe this is a Bill which would set it at rest, and we shall be very disappointed if it is not passed through in the course of the present Session.

§ MR. GREGORY (Sussex, East Grinstead)
I was not only a Member of the Committee to which this Bill was referred, but a Member of the Committee which sat under the Presidency of Mr. Inderwick some years ago. The tithe question is one of considerable interest in the constituency I have the honour to represent, and I have given some attention to it.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Gentleman must address himself to the Question of reporting Progress.

§ MR. GREGORY
I was coming to that most distinctly. I was about to say that I, as a legal Member of the Committee, felt considerable difficulty in settling the details of the Bill. It is a matter of a complex character; it is not easy to convert an extraordinary tithe, or to provide for its recovery. What I suggest is that the Bill should be referred to some acknowledged authority—to some gentleman who is thoroughly conversant with the details of the tithe question. Let such a gentleman examine the Bill and see whether 1578 it is workable. Between this and Thursday the examination I suggest might be made. I should not like this House to send out a bad piece of workmanship; and, therefore, I trust the Government will adopt some such course as I have suggested.

§ MR. T. H. BOLTON
I do not think it can be said that the right hon. Gentleman who presided over the Committee is unskilled, or unfitted to deal with a Bill of this kind. Other Members of the Committee had some practical experience of the subject of the Bill. The Bill is a practical measure to deal with a very difficult subject. It deals with the subject to the satisfaction, I believe, of a large number, if not the principal portion, of the people interested——

§ THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order!

§ MR. T. H. BOLTON
I will not persevere in my remarks.

§ MR. J. G. TALBOT (Oxford University)
I cannot help thinking that the course suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire (Mr. Leighton) is the right one under the circum stances. I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the Med way Division of Kent (Mr. Gathorne-Hardy) that a great deal of trouble has been taken with this matter; that the Committee has gone into it very thoroughly; and that we owe the Committee a debt of gratitude for the labours they have be stowed upon the question. But we are in this remarkable position—we are asked to deal with a Bill which has only just been printed, and which, speaking broadly, has not yet been delivered. The Bill is in my hands; but it is not in the hands of Members outside the House, and it is not in the hands of those people who are affected by it. If ever there was a case for adjourning the discussion, this surely is the case. The only argument against the adjournment is——[Cries of "Agreed!"] Yes; I know some are agreed; but Members like my hon. Friend (Mr. Gathorne-Hardy)—

§ MR. GATHORNE-HARDY
I do not oppose the adjournment at all. I said I regretted that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. H. Bolton) had accepted the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.