COMMITTEE (ON RE-COMMITMENT).

HC Deb 17 June 1886 vol 306 cc1756-85

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee).

Clause 1 (Limitation of extraordinary charge).

MR. BERESFORD HOPE (Cambridge University)

I rise, Sir, to propose that you report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. I do not wish to enter into a discussion of the provisions of the Bill at this moment—some of them are very important, and yet there is a very strong feeling that the measure is being rushed through the House. The Bill has evoked considerable discontent. It is likely to lead to confusion; and for that reason, and also because of the want of consideration which is shown in the treatment of interests so vast as those it affects, it does not appear desirable to press it on at present. I am as ready as any one to confess the desirability of settling this question—indeed, I am most willing and anxious to enter into a fair and durable compromise on this question of extraordinary tithes; but a Bill like this, instead of being hurried through the House in the way it is sought to hurry it through, should be well considered and threshed out all round before being passed into law.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Beresford Hope.)

MR. T. H. BOLTON (St. Pancras, N.)

I hope the Committee will not consent to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. This question has not been rushed upon the country, or upon the House. The whole subject was very fully considered by a Committee of the House in 1881, and a considerable amount of evidence was taken upon it, and it has been very exhaustively discussed throughout the counties of Kent and Sussex—the two counties mainly interested—ever since. There has been considerable agitation and a great amount of feeling exhibited on the subject. Hon. Members representing Kent in the Conservative interest concur with hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House in their desire to deal with the question. The Select Committee which was appointed was not at all unfairly constituted, so far as regards the interest the right hon. Gentleman is supposed particularly to take care of in the House. Conservative Members for Kent and Sussex sat on it, and I am glad to say there was on all sides a disposition displayed to deal with it in a sensible and practical way. The whole question was considered by the Select Committee, and the result is the Bill which I hope the House will now deal with, so that it may be sent to "another place" to be passed into practical legislation.

MR. GREGORY (Sussex, East Grinstead)

As I have taken an interest in this subject for some years, I am bound to say that I differ from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Beresford Hope) who has moved to report Progress. I very much doubt whether he is well advised in the Motion he has made, and I say this though the political connection between the right hon. Gentleman and myself is very strong, he being my Representative in the University of Cambridge, and one of my constituents in the county I represent. The subject is not a new one by any means. I myself sat on a Select Committee with regard to it several years ago; and, as the result of my experience and information upon it, I must say it is desirable to deal with it in the interests of the Church itself. There are some Amendments which should be made in the Bill, and which I hope will be made; but, subject to those Amendments, I really do think that the Church itself would be well advised if it agreed to the reasonable compromise contained within the four corners of the measure. The subject the Bill deals with has given rise to ill feeling between the clergy and their parishioners, who ought to be their best friends, and it is desirable to set that ill feeling at rest. The Church may have to make some small sacrifice, I admit; but I cannot help thinking that it would be well advised in making that sacrifice in order to put itself on a stronger footing with those whom it has under its special charge. I think the Select Committee which sat to consider this subject has dealt with it in a fair practical and spirit. There is not much difference between this Bill and that which was proposed by the hon. Member for the Tunbridge Division of Kent (Mr. Norton), particularly since it has passed through the Select Committee. I think we should proceed with the Bill, and that it should be sent to "another place," where the Church is strongly represented, and where the details will, perhaps, be more fully discussed than they can be here. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press his Motion and further delay the progress of the Bill.

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. MELLOR) (Grantham)

I hope the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Beresford Hope) will not persist in his Motion to report Progress. I was Chairman of the Select Committee; and, as such, I beg to assure the right hon. Gentleman that we sat for several days; that the matter was fully considered; that numerous Amendments were made in the measure; and that, as a matter of fact, the Bill left the Committee as a fair and reasonable compromise for the solution of the existing difficulties. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gregory), who was a Member of the Committee, has pointed out the care it took in investigating the subject. The Committee was composed of Members of all sections of the House; and I think that at the close of their proceedings there was very little substantial difference between those Members. I hope, therefore, the Committee will be allowed to proceed with the clauses of the Bill.

MR. J. G. TALBOT (Oxford University)

Before this matter is finally disposed of I should like to make a few observations. We must all recognize the labours of the Select Committee over which the hon. Member opposite (Mr. T. H. Bolton) presided. The hon. Gentleman near me (Mr. Gregory) has stated that the Members of that Committee endeavoured, to the best of their ability, to arrive at a solution of the question. No doubt that was so; but I must say that the request of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) for delay is not an unreasonable one, though, probably, looking at the state of the Committee, he may not be well advised if he persists in it. There can be no doubt that this Bill affects a considerable amount of property, and that it will considerably reduce the incomes derived from many benefices in Kent and Sussex. I am not saying whether or not that reduction is equitable; but I would point out that at the fag end of a Session, prematurely brought to a close, to be asked to consider a Bill that interferes with the interests of a large number of Corporations is a very serious matter. I say "Corporations," because not only will individuals be affected, but the benefices of which the incumbents enjoy the benefits only for their lives. Under the circumstances, I do not think it is unreasonable to ask the Committee to delay the taking of such an important measure into its consideration. The evidence before us shows how undesirable it is to deal hurriedly with such a question as this. I am not saying whether or not it is desirable to take the extreme step which would be recommended by my right hon. Friend; but what I say is that a measure of this kind cannot be said to have been sufficiently debated and considered by the Committee as composed at the period at which we have arrived. It is not fair to ask the Committee to go on with the matter now, because the other House would have to consider it at the beginning of next week, when affairs will be still more critical and unsatisfactory than they are at present, and when it could hardly be expected that the House of Lords would have a proper opportunity of considering it. If the Bill goes up to the House of Lords under these circumstances, I do not think there would be any ground for complaint if they took a course which, under the circumstances, I should be sorry to see them take—namely, of placing themselves in opposition to this House. I would ask the hon. Member in charge of this Bill (Mr. T. H. Bolton) whether he thinks he is best discharging his duty towards those whom he represents here in pressing on the Bill at this particular period of the Session? The Bill is one of a contentious character, no doubt. No one can say that the matter is not highly contentious. It has been a subject of great contention. It is only because the Bill happens to be in the hands of a private Member that the assurance given by the Government as to not pressing forward contentious matter does not apply. But having said so much, I must submit to the Committee that while it is useless to divide unless there is a strong feeling in support of the Motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge, yet I maintain that this is not a fair way of dealing with the interests of which I have spoken.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON (Shropshire, Oswestry)

I wish to say a word or two in support of the Motion of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Beresford Hope). I have several letters here bearing upon this question, and I will venture to quote one or two of them, because they show a sense of injustice on the part of those who write at the provisions of this Bill. The measure affects the pecuniary interests of the titheowners, lay and clerical, in Kent especially, and in that county alone the pecuniary amount involved is £40,000 a-year. That is a great deal of money in a county like Kent. Well, one of these gentlemen writes to me, and says— I forward you my protest on behalf of the clergy of the Deanery of Hastings, of which I am rural dean. Had time been allowed we should have been able to add a protest from the other Deanery in East Sussex. This gentleman protests against property being taken away from him and from other clergy without their having had an opportunity of going through the Bill and seeing what its effect would be. Other letters are from two rural Deaneries in Sussex, where hops are largely grown, protesting against the Bill. I do appeal to the sense of justice of the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Government whether he ought, in a matter of a most highly contentious character, to allow the Bill to be proceeded with; because he must know very well that even if we pass the Bill through Committee now, and pass the third reading stage to-morrow, there will hardly be time to carry it through all its stages in the House of Lords—certainly not without indecent haste. It seems to me that if we go on with the Bill now we are simply wasting the time of the House with legislation that cannot come to maturity, and that, at the same time, we are making an attack upon a large body of gentlemen whose incomes will be all but confiscated. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill not to proceed with it any further.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS) (Edinburgh, S.)

The state of the case is this. There has been for many years an internecine war between the owners of this particular form of tithe and the farmers who pay it. The dispute was first dealt with by the hon. and learned Member for Eye (Mr. Inderwick) in 1881, and this year three or four Bills have been introduced dealing with the question. Her Majesty's Government did not treat it as a Government question; but they agreed, through me, to the appointment of a Select Committee. We took care that the Committee should be appointed, and that it should be fairly constituted, all the different interests being represented upon it. [Mr. STANLEY LEIGHTON: Were the titheowners represented?] Yes; we took care that witnesses were examined on behalf of the titheowners, and that others were examined on the part of the tithepayers. This Bill is the result of the deliberations of the Committee—not the unanimous result, but practically unanimous. Considering the difficulty there has been in settling this question, and the disputes that have taken place, even in the course of the present year—some of which have come before me as Secretary of State—I think the best plan would be to attempt to settle the matter by passing this Bill. I should be extremely sorry if the Bill were defeated.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK (London University)

I am intimately acquainted with the district to which this Bill applies, and I should like to say a word in reply to the the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope). Having for many years taken an interest in this question, I can assure the Committee and the right hon. Gentleman that there is a very general desire in the county of Kent to see this matter settled, now that a chance has presented itself. The Bill is a very fair one, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be content with the protest he has made, and will withdraw further opposition to the progress of the measure.

MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS (Kent, St. Augustine's)

I was not in the House when this matter first came up; but I will avail myself of this opportunity of expressing a hope that the Bill will be proceeded with. In the county I represent there is a strong feeling in favour of something being done to settle the question. Great pains were taken to make the Select Committee of a representative character. As to the questions which came before it, the proceedings, if not of an absolutely unanimous character, were, as the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has pointed out, of a practically unanimous character. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill is, no doubt, perfectly open to receive Amendments which may be made from all parts of the House; but I may say that the constituencies of the counties chiefly affected by the Bill are perfectly satisfied with its proposals.

SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID (St. Pancras, S.)

In confirmation of what has fallen from the last speaker, I wish to say that both Liberals and Conservatives in that part of Kent where I live are strongly in favour of this question being settled. The Select Committee discussed the question with great fairness on both sides, and this Bill is the result of a compromise between the two parties. I think the time has come when this very burning question in the county of Kent should be satisfactorily settled.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Childers) declared that the titheowners were represented on the Select Committee. Well, I wish to state, most positively, that there was not a single titheowner represented. The Members of the Committee were, if not all, at any rate almost all, if not tithepayers themselves, representative of the tithepayers. The Committee consisted mostly of tithepayers from the hop-growing counties. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw what he has said as to the titheowners being represented, because I declare that we are now acting behind the backs of the titheowners, and that they have never had an opportunity of considering what it is now proposed to do. I assert that, if they had had such opportunity, the whole of them would have protested against it as strongly as the few who have seen and examined the Bill have done. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have a false idea that the Committee called witnessses. They did not call a single witness.

MR. CHILDERS

The hon. Gentleman himself represented the titheowners most thoroughly. They could not have been better represented, and I must protest against the hon. Member's depreciation of himself.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

I am afraid it is useless in this matter to contend against the feeling of the Committee; therefore, I will withdraw my Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

The first Amendment I have on the Paper is as to the date at which the extraordinary charge shall cease. The clause says no additional rent-charge by way of extraordinary charge shall be charged after the 1st October, 1886; but I propose to leave out 1886, in order to substitute 1887. The matter seems to me to be one affecting such large interests, that we ought not to impose an undue limitation in point of time. I trust the hon. Member in charge of the Bill will accept this Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 17, leave out the words "eighty-six," and insert the words "eighty-seven,"—(Mr. J. G. Talbot,)—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words 'eighty-six' stand part of the Clause."

MR. T. H. BOLTON

I hope the Committee will not assent to this Amendment. The object of the clause is to prevent the extension of this tax to fresh land, and the sooner this unjust extension is stopped the better. But, apart from that, the effect of altering the date would be to disarrange all the other dates of the Bill. At present, the clauses are symmetrical as they stand, and I hope their symmetry will not be interfered with. I trust the Committee will not assent to this alteration.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

The hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. H. Bolton) talks about an "unjust extension." I do not know what he means by that; it is begging the whole question. This tax is not more unjust than any other tax. The hon. Gentleman seems to forget that these extraordinary tithes exist, and that their origin is due to an arrangement made at the instance of the tithepayers.

MR. GREGORY

The hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. G. Talbot) wishes to extend the time at which this Bill shall come into operation to 1887. I think the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill may well assent to it, for the point in question has reference to hops, and I do not think it would make much difference if the date were changed, looking at the prospects of the crop. In the interest of the Church, I think it only reasonable that the Amendment should be adopted.

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. MELLOR)

The effect of the Amendment would be to postpone the action of the clause limiting the extraordinary charge for a year after 1st October, 1886. Well, I fail to see any reason for the proposed postponement. The Select Committee which Mr. Inderwick obtained, and of which he was Chairman, recommended that the clause should come into operation immediately, and all the clause proposes is that this principle should commence on the 1st October this year. The object of the clause is to put a stop to a very grievous state of things in these two counties, and it surely is not unreasonable to ask that it should come into operation this year.

MR. KIMBER (Wandsworth)

The effect of the 1st October being inserted as the time at which an extraordinary rent-charge in respect of fresh land brought under this exceptional cultivation should cease to be made will be this—that the arbitrators who will have to determine the value of the rent-charge will have a new state of circumstances brought before them by the arbitrary action of this House. The House first annihilates the rent-charge, and then gets the Land Commission to estimate the value of that annihilated charge. If the value is to be ascertained by arbitration, it ought to be ascertained upon the existing state of the property. The rent-charge ought to go on under the existing law, and its value under the existing law ascertained; but if you first annihilate the rent-charge, and then by subsequent clauses say the Commissioners must fix what its value is, it is obvious that the conclusion they will come to is that the value of the rent-charge is nothing.

MR. T. H. BOLTON

The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Kimber) cannot have road the clause, for, if he had, he would not have made that speech. This clause applies to "any hop ground, orchard, fruit plantation, or market garden, newly cultivated as such." It affects fresh land, and not the old land under exceptional cultivation.

MR. KIMBER

That is no answer to my observation. The existing law gives a right to tax the cultivators, in cases where land is brought under this exceptional cultivation. The titheowners were entitled to the tax, in prospect, at all events. That prospect you destroy, and then, in subsequent clauses, you inconsistently provide for the valuation of that prospect. You even use the word "prospect." In the 3rd clause, which deals with the manner in which the capital value is to be ascertained, you say the Commissioners shall take into consideration, amongst other things— The prospect of the continuance or discontinuance of the special cultivation in respect of which the said charge is imposed. I certainly think my argument holds good.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

The first division in the Select Committee took place on this clause, and it was a very close division—5 to 6, I think, or something like that; the hon. Gentleman opposite will correct me if I am wrong. It was opposed by an hon. Member with whom I do not often have much in common—an hon. Gentleman who represents the Liberation Society—the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Ulingworth), and by myself, representing the Church of England. The hon. Member for Bradford moved that this clause should be left out, for he said—"What right have you to take away from the people of England the national property which they possess and hand it over"—to whom? Why, "to the Kent landowners." This is a question of handing over £30,000 a-year from the pockets of the present titheowners—poor professional men—to the pockets of the landowners, who, according to the Doomsday Book, have £3,000,000 a-year in Kent alone. That is the long and the short of the proposal. It is not a proposal to make things easy for the occupier; on the contrary, it is a landlord's Bill. It is a proposal to take from these poor professional men property which, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford says, is public property—though I call it the property of the Church of England—and hand it over to the landowners. We divided on this clause; but by a narrow majority of Kent and Herefordshire landowners who filled the Committee—forming 8 out of 16 of a Committee which the right hon. Gentleman says was such an impartial Committee—the proposal to omit the clause was rejected. This Clause 1 repeals the Tithe Commutation Act of 1836, which went on the principle of estimating the value of the tithes, whether on hops or on other things, and striking an average of seven years, and then declaring—"That being the average which this tithe is likely to produce, that shall be the tithe-rent charge which the land shall pay in future." Certain Kent landowners, at the time of the commutation in 1836, induced the House of Commons, greatly against Lord John Russell's wish, to allow the tithe upon hops to be separated from other titheable property and be put in a separate category, if the landowners wished it. Some did wish it, and some did not. There is a large part of Kent where there is no division between ordinary and extraordinary tithes, and no difficulty or ill-feeling between the tithepayer and the titheowner. If we want to get rid of agitation and to settle this matter, the way to do it is to do away with the distinction between hop tithe and other tithe—in fact, to merge the hop tithe rent-charge into the ordinary tithe rent-charge. By this section we simply relieve land—not land in a new district, but any land not at the present moment under hop cultivation—from paying this hop to the rent-charge in future. Hop cultivation, as everyone who knows anything of the subject is aware, is a movable cultivation. It is moved from one area to another—from one part of the farm to another—in periods of 10 or 15 years. The life of a hop garden is about 16 years on the average all over England. A farm will always have a certain area under hop cultivation, but it will not always be the same area. If you pass this clause, and take away the right that now exists of the titheowners to receive tithe rent-charge in respect of new hop gardens substituted for old, you at one induce the hop grower to substitute for his present hop garden a new acreage where there is no tithe rent-charge. What will be the result of that? Why, you will transfer 90 per cent of the hop tithe rent-charge from the pockets of the clergy to the pockets of the landowners. Hops will go on being cultivated on a farm all the same, but by this section you will prevent their being taken into consideration in the valuation. How can the Commissioners form a standard or computation of what the hop tithe to the rent-charge ought in future to be, if they are only to take the life of the existing hop garden? The life of an existing hop garden in some cases will be only one year, and in other cases only four years, and in very few cases more than five years; and if you prevent the Commissioners from taking into consideration the fact that the hop gardens are moved from one part of a farm to another, by saying that no new acreage shall be subject to the tax, you will make it impossible for the Commissioners to take into consideration anything but the life of the existing hop garden, and the duration of that cultivation on the particular piece of land is to be the number of years' purchase at which the capital value is to be assessed. [Cries of "Divide!"] It is no use crying "Divide!" You have begun to consider this complex subject at this late hour of night. We told you it was a complex subject, and you should not have entered upon its discussion at this hour, in a dying Parliament. Hon. Members opposite will pardon me if I beg them not to interrupt whilst we are discussing a subject of which most of them know nothing. There is no necessity for hon. Members who take no interest in this subject to remain in the House. The result of the clause will be to put £40,000 a-year in Kent at five years' purchase, and then having capitalized that sum to allow 4 per cent on the capital amount, so that you "will reduce the amount the titheowners will receive to between £5,000 and £10,000. The whole of that difference is to be put in the pockets of the landowners of Kent. Where else is it to go to? It will not be lost. It will not go to the occupiers. It will go into the pockets of the landowners; and I ask what right have these rich men to put their hand into the pocket of the Church or into the national pocket? I am perfectly astounded when I find Radicals—Radicals of the Radicals—and Irish Members proposing to take away property from one set of individuals who represent Church property, and not private property, and to put it into the hands of landowners. I insist that the present Radical Government are handing over the property of the Church to the landowers. The landowners will be the gainers. I say that if the titheowner is to be robbed and his property confiscated, for Heaven's sake let the confiscated property go into the public purse, and not into the hands of the landowners. I thought the hon. Member for Bradford spoke very well on that point when the question was before the House on the second reading. He said that, as far as he was concerned, he would enter a caveat against the robbery or confiscation that the Bill proposed, because, although he was no friend of the Church, he did not think that the landlords ought to be the heirs of Church property. These are the general reasons why I think this section should be omitted; but I wish also to add that, for the purposes of the Bill, it is surplusage. Everything can be carried out with perfect ease by subsequent sections without this confiscatory preliminary section.

Amendment moved, in page 1, to leave out Clause 1.—(Mr. Stanley Leighton.)

Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."

MR. NORTON (Kent, Tunbridge)

The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley Leighton) has entirely misappehended the matter. If he had reserved his argument for the 2nd clause, which deals with the fixing of capital value of extraordinary charge, it would have been to the point. This clause is taken from the Bill of the Chairman of the Committee of 1880; but the real principle the hon. Member deals with is in the 2nd clause. I should like to refer also to the remark which has come from the other side—that the Select Committee was composed of Kent landlords. I am sorry to say that I cannot claim to be a Kent landlord myself. I farm my own land; and the only Kent landowner we have here, I think, is the hon. Member for St. Pancras. I think the hon. Member's (Mr. Stanley Leighton's) observations are somewhat misleading. He should be made aware of the exact position of the case; and if it is not taking up too much of the time of the Committee, I should like to say how this extraordinary tithe was originally fixed. When Lord Russell introduced the Commutation Act in 1836, he was led to deal with the tithe on fruit in the same way that he was dealing with other classes of tithe; but it was on the representation of the Kent Members that he agreed to this form of extraordinary charge that we are now dealing with. The course he then took has been found to work unsatisfactorily, and there is a general feeling throughout Kent and Sussex that the time has come when this rent-charge should be removed. I believe the Bill will deal with the matter in a satisfactory manner; and as time presses I hope it will receive consideration to-night.

SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE (Kent, Dartford)

This clause embodies part of the Report of the Select Committee of 1881, and as I was a Member of the Committee, and signed that Report, I cannot support the present Motion. The question was most thoroughly gone into by the Committee. I am inclined to take issue with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley Leighton) when he says that the Committee was a landlord's Committee. I am as much interested in this question as anyone, as I live in the midst of the district in which the agitation prevails. I know the difficulties of the question, and I may say that I support the clause not only in the interest of the tenant farmers but in the interest of the Church itself.

Question put—[Cries of "Aye, aye!"]

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

challenged a division.

MR. SPEAKER

Will the hon. Gentleman name a Teller?

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

Yes, Sir; the hon. Member for Cambridge Borough (Mr. Fitzgerald).

The Committee divided:—Ayes 112; Noes 5: Majority 107.—(Div. List, No. 134.)

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2 (Fixing of capital value of extraordinary charge).

MR. T. H. BOLTON

The Amendment which stands in my name is merely a verbal Amendment suggested by the Land Commissioners. I have no doubt the alteration is desirable, for the Commissioners may not be able to inquire into the capital value of the extraordinary charge in each case before the date in the Bill—namely, 1st April, 1887.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 24 leave out "inquire into, and shall, on or before the first day of April, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-seven," and insert "ascertain in each parish in England and Wales, and."—(Mr. T. H. Bolton.)

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

I wish to move to leave out the word "capital," and insert the word "annual," in lieu thereof, in line 1 of page 2. The object of the Bill is to find out what the value of the hop tithe is. Why, then, should you estimate the "capital value?" We want to know what the annual value is, and then let those who know the fixed annual value redeem it, as they can, under the Tithe Acts. There are special Acts for redeeming tithe. Now, this Bill only settles what the annual value is by a roundabout process—that is to say, by first settling the capital value. If my Friends around me are determined to have a Land Court to deal with this matter, let them have it; but let them endeavour to place the Land Court in a position to deal not with the capital value, but with the annual value. I warn them that after a time they will find Land Courts dealing not with rent charges, but rents. This principle may be turned against them, so let them, for their own sakes, take heed. The titheowners have the oldest interest in the land in Kent; the present landowners in that county are but mere mushroom squatters, compared to them. Let them be careful not to place in the hands of a Land Court the power of capitalizing rent-charges, in order to reduce them. It will be quite easy to adopt the same principle with regard to rents. Capitalize present rents at 10 or 20 years' purchase, and declare the future rent to be 4 per cent on the capitalized amount, and you will ruin the landowners in the same way as this Bill will ruin the tithe rent-charge owners. I move, therefore, that "annual" be there inserted, in place of "capital."

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 1, to leave out the word "capital," in order to insert the word "annual,"—(Mr. Stanley Leighton,)—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the word 'capital,' stand part of the Clause."

MR. T. H. BOLTON

I cannot accept the Amendment of the hon. Member, which is altogether inconsistent with the whole scope of the Bill. I do not propose to trouble the House with any further statement upon that matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. T. H. BOLTON, the following Amendments made:—In page 2, line 2, after "farm," insert "on each;" and in line 3, leave out "said," and insert "the."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 (Manner in which capital value is to be ascertained).

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

I now desire, as an Amendment, to move to leave out "collection, rates," in page2, lines 7 and 8. It is proposed, in estimating the net annual value, to deduct from the gross annual value the cost of collection and cost of rates. Why, Sir, the commuted rent-charge will have to pay the cost of collection and the cost of rates. By the Tithe Commutation Act, the tithe rent-charge in lieu of tithe is liable to pay rates. How singularly absurd and unjust it is, first of all, to deduct that from the gross value you are about to capitalize, when the amount you intend to substitute for that amount is liable both to the cost of collection and the cost of rate. If what you are going to substitute for the present tithe rent-charge is to be subject to the cost of collection and the cost of rates, you should not in the first instance deduct from the gross value the cost of collection and the cost of rates. But supposing, by a subsequent clause, you declare the substituted charge shall not be liable to rates, then you take £40,000 a-year in that alone from the rateable value of the county.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, lines 7 and 8, to leave out the words "collection, rates."—(Mr. Stanley Leighton.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. T. H. BOLTON

It is very difficult to deal with the hon. Gentleman. All the Amendments he is proposing were proposed and fully considered in the Select Committee. He is now reopening the whole question. He is, so far as I can see, proposing Amendments for no other purpose than to embarrass the Committee. There is an Amendment to be proposed presently by the hon. Member for the Tunbridge Division of Kent (Mr. Norton), which I shall be prepared to accept, and, as the hon. Member (Mr. Stanley Leighton) will see, that will get rid of the difference between us.

MR. GREGORY

said, he also opposed the Amendment.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

You deduct the charge for collecting, as though the commuted rent-charge would come into the pockets of its owners without the difficulty of collection. It is said it is all provided for, because later on in the Bill it is proposed that this rent-charge shall not be liable to rate. This will then become a ratepayers' question, for £40,000 will be taken out of the rateable value of the county. If this rent-charge is to be no longer rateable, as the hon. Member proposes, I should like him to meet the ratepayers' argument as to this £40,000 a-year being taken out of the rates; but he has left wholly unanswered the question of "collection."

Question put, and negatived.

MR. GREGORY

I wish to move the omission of words requiring the Commissioners, in estimating the capital value of the charge, to take into consideration— The right of the cultivator to discontinue such special cultivation at any time, and thereby to cause the suspension of the said charge. The clause, when altered as I propose, will require the Commissioners to take into consideration, among other things, the prospect of the continuance or discontinuance of the special cultivation in respect of which the charge is imposed. The words I propose to strike out are either surplusage or are mischievous to the titheowners, and the matter which the clause deals with is sufficiently provided for by other clauses.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, lines 12, 13, and 14, to leave out the words— The right of the cultivator to discontinue such special cultivation at any time, and thereby to cause the suspension of the said charge."—(Mr. Gregory.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. T. H. BOLTON

The hon. Gentleman has dealt with me so fairly, that I should be anxious to meet any suggestion of his if I could possibly do so consistently with the interests of the Bill. But the hon. Gentleman is not quite correct in saying that the special fact which this clause deals with is sufficiently provided for by the other clause to which he has referred, directing the valuers to take into account the prospect of the continuance or discontinuance of this special qualification, That portion of the Bill applies not to the power of the payer to suspend the charge at his will and pleasure, but to the reasonable prospects of the continuance of the crop, having regard to competition and many other local or other circumstances; but in regard to this rent-charge the payer has the arbitrary right to suspend the payment by ceasing for the time being this particular cultivation. When he resumes the cultivation, the charge again arises; and this is a very important element that materially affects the value of the property, and it is right that that element should be taken into account. It is taken into account by prudent persons when they buy this kind of property, and it should be taken into account by the valuers in estimating the value of it. I regret that I cannot accede to the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman; but I may say that the Amendment the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Norton) has on the Paper, with special reference to the clause that the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Gregory) objects to, will be inserted, so that all the circumstances will be considered by the valuers.

SIB RICHARD WEBSTER (Isle of Wight)

I think there is a good deal in the contention of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Gregory). If this clause remains as it is, the prospect of the cultivation will be a subject-matter distinct from The right of the cultivator to discontinue such special cultivation at any time, and thereby to cause the suspension of the said charge. The view of the hon. Member who moves the Amendment is that, in valuing, the prospect of continuance or discontinunace should be taken into consideration, and in that there must be involved the question whether the cultivator is likely to discontinue it. If the valuer should be of opinion that, in the ordinary course, a particular mode of cultivation will be continued for, say, three or four years, it will be scarcely fair that the value should be further cut down, became of the abstract right of the cultivator to discontinue the special cultivation at any time. I think the Committee should assent to the Motion, and omit the words objected to by the hon. Member.

SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE

I do not agree with the hon. Member who moved this Amendment (Mr. Gregory), that these words are surplusage. As to what was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Bolton), he stated that if the cultivation were discontinued, the charge would cease, and when resumed the charge would resume. Well, Clause 1 of the Bill destroys that position altogether.

MR. T. H. BOLTON

No; it does not destroy the right with reference to land actually in the special cultivation. It only destroys the potential charge with reference to land not in that cultivation. The grower can terminate the liability at his will, and that is a most vital and material element. I can instance a case that occurred near Sittingbourne, in which the tithepayer chose, by his own will and pleasure, though it inflicted on him a heavy loss, to grub up valuable hop gardens, and suspend the existence of the charge. Surely, in assessing the value of the land, the valuers should take that especially into account. All the evidence taken by Mr. Inderwick's Committee especially referred to that as a material element in ascertaining the value of extraordinary tithe, and to exclude that would be to induce an exaggerated and unfair value to be put on the property. The object is to put a fair value upon the tithe, having regard to its character and incidence and uncertainty—to fix the capital value, and put that value as a charge on the land, giving fixed interest thereon, as a rent-charge to the tithe receiver in lieu of the uncertain rent-charge that he at present receives. Unless that material element is particularly taken into account, I say that an unfair rate of compensation might be given that would be unfair to the tithe-payer and leave the grievance that we are endeavouring to redress more intense than it is at present. I consider this vital to the Bill. If it is surplusage, it cannot do any very great harm. If, as the hon. Member says, this is to be taken into account in another clause, surely it can do no harm to make the fact that it is to be taken into account clear and apparent. When the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir Richard Webster) appeals to me to know whether these words have a special meaning, I admit that they have, and I say the special meaning ought to be clear in the section. This material incident connected with the value of this property ought to be taken into account.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

Whether or not these words— The right of the cultivator to discontinue such special cultivation at any time, and thereby to cause the suspension of the said charge, are really included elsewhere, I put it to the Committee that it would be wise to adopt the special standard without calling attention to the abstract right.

MR. NORTON

It seems to me that the words of the clause requiring the prospect of the continuance or discontinuance of the special cultivation to be taken into account cover the whole ground. I think if the hon. Gentleman the Member for North St. Pancras will be satisfied with them, all the requirements of the case will be met.

MR. KIMBER

The spirit and scope of the Bill is a very fair one, the endeavour being to arrive at a mode of determining what is the value of the extraordinary rent-charge as between the titheowner and landowner, or other person interested. We erect a tribunal called a Commission. Surely it would be sufficient to direct that Commission to take into consideration all the circumstances that it would be fair to have considered. But what is the animus of the machinery of the Bill? It starts with a one-sided consideration altogether. It directs the Commissioners to take into consideration a series of circumstances all on one side, and so excludes the consideration of other circumstances unless they can be brought forward under the general words—"and any other special circumstances applicable to the farm or parcel of land under consideration." The words, the excision of which the hon. Member for the East Grinstead Division of Sussex (Mr. Gregory) has moved, I agree, cover an important circumstance—that is, that the cultivator has the right to discontinue the cultivation that subjects him to the extraordinary rent-charge. No doubt, that is right; but the Commissioner can consider that circumstance without his attention being especially drawn to it. What is the Commissioner to think the meaning of an Act of Parliament drawing his special attention to a circumstance that is already the law of the land in the Act of 1836? He will think he has to give special weight to that circumstance, but is not to give weight to the right the titheowner would have had, had it not been for the confiscatory Clause 1, as against the right to charge extraordinary tithe on any land that might be brought under hop cultivation. This is a forcible illustration of the injustice I pointed out when speaking on Clause 1. If the Commissioners are to have, by solemn Act of Parliament, their special attention drawn to what is, in fact, an argument in favour of one side, they ought at least to have their attention drawn to the argument on the other side. That is only justice. We are not sitting here to look solely after the interests of those—to use the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. T. H. Bolton's) words—"in whose behalf he has brought forward this Bill," but to look after the interests of all those who are entitled to justice at the hands of the Committee in the matter. I ask the Committee whether they think it fair that they should, on the one side, tell the Commissioners to take into consideration the fact that the tenant may cease his cultivation, and not to bear in mind that he has lands which might be taken into cultivation to the benefit of the titheowner? If the one set of circumstances is taken into consideration and not the other, I cannot conceive a greater instance of onesided justice. We ought to leave the Commissioners free in the matter to consider both sides.

THE LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir EDWARD REED) (Cardiff)

I am surprised at the contention on the other side of the House in favour of this Amendment. I happen myself to be a fruit grower in Kent, and I can inform the Committee that the nuisance to which I have been subjected through this extraordinary tithe has been absolutely intolerable. I have actually put land out of cultivation to save myself the endless correspondence, worry, and trouble connected with this tithe. It is now said that, under this clause, the Commissioners shall not have their attention directed to my right to discontinue this special cultivation. The Bill has a right to provide for a distinct recognition of my absolute right over and above all other circumstances that the Commissioners may take into consideration—my absolute right to withdraw my land from cultivation and escape the trouble of this charge.

MR. KIMBER

The Bill provides for it in the words— The prospect of the continuance or discontinuance of the special cultivation in respect of which the said charge is imposed.

SIR EDWARD REED

If these words are left out of the Bill, a consideration of most vital importance will be lost sight of.

SIR E. ASSHETON CROSS (Lancashire, S.W., Newton)

I am sorry to hear what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman. I sincerely trust he has spoken as a Member of the House who happens to own some of these grounds, and not on behalf of the Government. No one can deny that there is, on the part of both sides of the House, an anxious desire to settle this question, and that without recrimination, so that when the Bill is passed everyone shall think that justice has been done. It has been pointed out, on the other side, that these words, "continuance or discontinuance," will cover everything that is possible; and I think that in the interests of peace, and to settle the matter without bitterness, it would be well to leave the words pointed to in the Amendment out of the Bill. You have the words "continuance or discontinuance," and they are all you want.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

As soon as the land of the hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward Reed) goes out of hop or fruit cultivation, there is no more tithe on it; but if you pass this Bill in its present form you will always have a tithe on it. That is what the Bill does—it confirms the extraordinary tithe on lands which may never again grow hops. As to what is said with regard to the right of the planter to transplant hops, the titheowners are willing to accept the chance of the farmers grubbing up their hop grounds. With regard to the alleged objectionable nature of this tithe, all experience proves that, notwithstanding the complaints made on the score of worry and trouble and hindrance, there has been of late years a considerable increase in the area of land under hop cultivation.

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. MELLOR) (Grantham)

The clause seta out a number of things which it says are to be taken into consideration. The clause does not deal with the "continuance or discontinuance of the special cultivation," but with the "prospect of the continuance or discontinuance of the special cultivation." What is the meaning of that? Why, that the Commissioner will have to look at the crops, examine the land, and consider, from the competition in the neighbourhood and all the facts before him, the possibility or impossibility of the continuance of this special form of cultivation, and will have to consider whether it is likely to continue for a year, two years, or three years. From the look of the crops and the circumstances of the case, he will be able to say whether it is likely to be discontinued. What are the other words? They refer to a totally different thing—to the right possessed by the cultivator, of his own will, at any moment to discontinue this cultivation. These words, "the prospect of the continuance or discontinuance," do not include that right, because the prospect there set forth is that prospect which the Commissioner can see for himself and form an opinion on from the condition of the land and the circumstances of the case. The right of the cultivator is a thing the cultivator can prove. He can come to the Commissioner and tell him what his right is; and if he can show that the Commissioner ought to take it into account, it is obviously an additional element. I submit that this right of the cultivator to discontinue the cultivation is not included in the words "prospect of the continuance or discontinuance of such cultivation."

MR. GREGORY

We must consider what would be the position of the parties before an arbitrator. I venture to say that, with these words in the clause, the party claiming the tithe would be placed at great disadvantage. The payer would say to the arbitrator—"You have not only to take into consideration the prospect of the continuance or discontinuance of the cultivation, which involves every consideration of the right of continuance, but you have to take into consideration the right of the cultivator to discontinue if he chooses; you are especially directed in this Act to take that into consideration; that is immediately put before you by statute; that must be the basis of your award; you must find on that." That would be a strong argument. I should be very sorry to have to make a claim against a client of the hon. and learned Attorney General if the hon. and learned Gentleman had such a weapon as that in his hand.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL) (Hackney)

If this matter be reconsidered, I think the simpler plan would be to have a definite consideration of value for property at large. I would suggest, as a compromise, that the words should be left in, and that the word "including" should be inserted after the word "imposed," in line 12.

MR. T. H. BOLTON

I am quite willing to accept that suggestion.

THE CHAIRMAN

Will the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gregory) withdraw his Amendment?

MR. GREGORY

Yes. It is difficult to see the scope of the Amendment at present; but it seems to be the opinion of the Committee that this should be done.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 12, after the word "imposed," to insert the word "including."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

Question proposed, "That that word be there inserted."

MR. GREGORY

I do not object to this Amendment; but, if it stands, it should be followed up by something else.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

I understand that my hon. Friend accepts the Amendment.

MR. T. H. BOLTON

I submit to the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 14, after the word "charge," to insert the words "the prospect of the substitution of other land on the same farm for such cultivation."—(Mr. Norton.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. KIMBER

I beg to move, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 16, after the word "advised," the insertion of the words "or requested." The object of the Amendment is to provide that if any of the three parties—the landowner, the tithepayer, or the titheowner—desire to be heard, they ought to be heard; and it shall not be left to the Commissioners to decide, behind their backs, upon such advice as they have received, it does not matter from whom.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 16, to insert, after the word "advised," the words "or requested."—(Mr. Kimber.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. T. H. BOLTON

I think there are objections to this proposal. I do not see any necessity for it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 (Interest on capitalized value of extraordinary charge to be until redemption a first charge on land).

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

I will merely move the Amendment, of which I have given Notice, because I think it is a proper way to deal with the matter. The tithe rent-charge on hops ought now to be merged in the ordinary tithe rent-charge, as was done in all those parishes where the landowners did not insist on a distinction being made at the time of the commutation. I beg to move my Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 30, after the word "charges," to insert the words "the rent-charge in lieu of Extraordinary Tithe Rent-Charge as settled by the said Land Commissioners shall be apportioned by them over the land in every parish suitable to hop cultivation and merged in the Ordinary Tithe Kent-Charge."—(Mr. Stanley Leighton.)

SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID

This proposal was discussed over and over again in Committee, and the hon. Member is aware that it was, as with many other matters that he brought before the Committee, absolutely impossible to do what he proposed. One of the most experienced lawyers in the House, the hon. Member for the East Grinstead Division of Sussex (Mr. Gregory), pointed out the difficulties which would arise. You would have to go on a rambling commission over a large area to find out what other land would be fitted for the cultivation of hops, and you would be landed in a very great difficulty. Some farms are situated in several parishes, so the consequence would be that you would confer the tithes belonging to one clergyman in one parish on two or three other clergymen who have nothing whatever to do with them. The hon. Member (Mr. Stanley Leighton) seems to think it his duty to fire off all the speeches in this House which he delivered in the Committee. Happily, however, I can tell the House that this is the last of them.

SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE

I have always objected strongly to what is termed the extraordinary tithe. I believe that if this Bill becomes the law of the land, the term will disappear altogether.

MR. NORTON

We have already passed Clause 2, and it is quite impossible to go back now.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. T. H. BOLTON

My next Amendment is a mere verbal alteration. The particular land is quite covered by the other words of the clause, as will be seen by reference to the ordinary language of an Act of Parliament.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 36, to leave out the words "parcel of."—(Mr. T. H. Bolton.)

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

MR. GREGORY

I have to propose an addition to the clause in respect to the mode of recovering the rent-charge. I beg to move my Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 19, after the word "conditions," to insert the words "or by entry upon a perception of the rents and profits of the land subject to such rent-charge."—(Mr. Gregory.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. NORTON

I beg to move the insertion of my sub-section as an Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, after line 19, to insert—"6. The said rent-charge shall not be subject to any Parliamentary, parochial, county, or other rate-charge or assessment."—(Mr. Norton.)

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS) (Edinburgh, S.)

That Amendment will hardly do. It would be better to leave out the word "Parliamentary."

MR. NORTON

The word "Parliamentary" was put in by the Land Commissioners.

Amendment proposed, to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "Parliamentary."—(Mr. Childers.)

Question, "That the word 'Parliamentary' stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.

Question, "That the words proposed, as amended, be added to the Clause," put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 (Redemption of charge).

MR. T. H. BOLTON

I propose my next Amendment, which is merely verbal.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 41, to leave out the words "ex parte the persons paying it," in order to insert the words "in the matter of the landowner and the titheowner,"—(Mr. T. H. Bolton,) —instead thereof.

Question, "That the words 'ex parte the persons paying it' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. T. H. BOLTON, the following Amendment made:—In page 3, line 42, leave out "him," and insert "them."

MR. T. H. BOLTON

I will now move my next Amendment, which is made at the suggestion of the Land Commissioners.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 2, leave out from "section" to end of line 4, and insert "the Tithe Commutation Acts."—(Mr. T. H. Bolton.)

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 (Redemption in case of settled land); and Clause 7 (Charge to be borne by landlord) separately agreed to.

Clause 8 (Expenses of Land Commissioners).

MR. T. H. BOLTON

The Amendments which I propose to this clause, at the suggestion of the Land Commissioners, would make the clause read thus— The Commissioners, in carrying out the provisions of this Act, may require the overseers of any parish to supply such information as to the extraordinary charge (if any) in such parish as they the said Commissioners may consider necessary.

On the Motion of Mr. T. H. BOLTON, the following Amendments made:—In page 5, line 11, leave out "expenses of the;" and in line 12, leave out from "be paid out of any money applicable to the," and insert— Require the overseers of any parish to supply such information as to the extraordinary charge (if any) in such parish as they the said Commissioners may consider necessary.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 (Expenses of valuers).

MR. T. H. BOLTON

I propose that this clause should be amended in two particulars, at the suggestion of the Secretary to the Treasury. The Amendments fall into two portions. The omission of the word "land" is merely a verbal Amendment. The term "Commissioners" is used throughout the Bill in reference to the Land Commissioners. The first Amendment is the omission of the word "land."

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 14, to leave out the word "land."—(Mr. T. H. Bolton.)

Question, "That the word 'land' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

MR. T. H. BOLTON

The next Amendments are to provide for the expenses under the Act, so as to relieve the Treasury from any liability, and I move them at the request of my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury.

Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 14, after "may," insert "employ valuers and other persons to assist them in carrying out this Act, and may, with the approval of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, provide for all expenses incurred by the Land Commissioners in carrying out the provisions of this Act, and shall, with the approval of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, fix."—(Mr. T. H. Bolton.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

Has the hon. Member considered whether "shall" is the right word to use? Will not "may" be sufficient?

MR. T. H. BOLTON

The word has been selected by the Secretary to the Treasury, who impressed it on me that I should try and get the clause so amended.

Question put, and agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. T. H. BOLTON, the following Amendments made:—In page 5, line 18, leave out "between," and insert "by;" and in line 19, after "landowner," insert— And shall be recoverable in like manner as the expenses of and relating to an apportionment under 'The Tithe Commutation Acts.'

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10 (Filing of certificates of Commissioners); Clause 11 (Definitions); and Clause 12 (Short title) separately agreed to.

Preamble agreed, to.

House resumed.

Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.