TITHE RENT-CHARGE RECOVERY BILL. (No. 272.) (Hansard, 13 August 1889)

§ * MR. SPEAKER
Two instructions have been placed upon the Paper, one standing in the name of the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Cossham), and the other in the name of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) both of which are, in my opinion, out of order. The first is an instruction to the Committee that they shall have power to insert a provision that all tithe rent-charge payable under the Bill shall vary in proportion to rent payable on the land subject to such charge. But the House decided yesterday that it would not re-open the settlement made by the Act of 1836 for the commutation of tithes. If the Instruction which was rejected yesterday, had been accepted by the House, Amendments might have been proposed that the charge should be varied in proportion to the rent, as desired by the 1147 hon. Member. But the House negatived that Instruction, and thus disposed of his proposition. With regard to the second Instruction, which proposes that it be an Instruction to the Committee to make provision for the application of tithe rent-charge recoverable under the Act in Wales to purposes generally acceptable to the Welsh people, I am of opinion that a Bill for the recovery of tithe rent-charge in a particular way cannot be extended in such a way as to cover the whole question of the application of tithe. That is beyond the scope of the Bill, and so far beyond it that it cannot properly be brought within the scope of the Bill through the machinery of an Instruction.

MR. A. S. HILL (Staffordshire, Kingswinford)
moved to leave out the word "a" before "person," and insert "any."

THE CHAIRMAN
I think that the word "a" is sufficient and is quite as good as the word "any."

MR. A. S. HILL
I venture to think that that is not so, and that "a" person entitled to money is not "any" person entitled to money.

§ MR. T. ELLIS (Merionethshire)
I beg to move in Clause 1, line 5, to leave out "person" and insert "parochial incumbent." I hope the Government will accept the Amendment without much discussion, because it is simply intended to carry out the policy which they themselves declared on the Second Reading of the Bill. The only pretext put forward for bringing in the Bill at all was that there are a certain number of worthy parochial clergymen in Wales, who are unable to obtain their tithe, and the Government therefore desired to make it easy for them to recover it. Her Majesty's Ministers themselves declared that this is not a question of the large tithe owners but the case of starving clergymen dealing with refractory tenants and parishioners. Whatever may be said in regard to giving to the parochial incumbent the power of recovering his tithes, there is no reason why a large powerful and wealthy body like the Ecclesiastical 1148 Commissioners should be put upon this new basis. Lay impropriators again should be satisfied with the same remedy as a landowner, whose only remedy is by distress; the only persons to whom this power should be given are the parochial clergy.

§ MR. S. LEIGHTON (Shropshire, Oswestry)
I oppose the Amendment, and hope the Government will not accept it, on the ground that this is not a Bill for the protection of the clergy, but a Bill for the purpose of making a certain property more easily recoverable. It is also a Bill which is to the advantage of the farmer in enabling him to get rid of a disagreeable question. It is only fair that it should apply all round to those who are owners of tithe rent-charge, some of whom are Nonconformists themselves, and undenominational bodies such as schools. I have received a letter from a correspondent, who states:— I am unfortunately one of the lay owners of tithes and I am afraid that no one seems to think of us. The present condition of things presses very hardly upon those who, like myself, have a large family and a limited income.',

§ SIR W. HARCOURT (Derby)
The Amendment of the hon. Member behind me has been of use in this respect, if in no other—it has pricked the bladder of the grievance that has been set up as a justification for this Bill. Hitherto we have been given to understand that the measure is necessary in the interests of the unhappy half-starved Welsh clergymen, but now it appears that it is not the clergy in Wales or England who are the special objects of the care of the Government, but the lay impropriators of tithe, especially Noncomformists. That is an entirely new light; it is a Bill to facilitate the recovery of tithe by Nonconformists and lay impropriators. It is wonderful how as we go on in discussions of this kind we ultimately discover the real truth, even when it lies at the bottom of a rather deep well. We are now told that the Bill has not been introduced in the interests or for the benefit of the clergy; that it has nothing to do with "Wales nor anything 1149 that has occurred there, but that it is for that unfortunate and ill-used class, the lay impropriators, men like the Duke of Bedford, that the Government are forcing this Bill through the House of Commons on the 13th of August. That is very refreshing information, and it should induce the House to resist the measure still more strenuously.

§ * THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER, Isle of Wight)
I do not propose to follow the right hon. Gentleman in the kind of speech he has just delivered. I hold that it is scarcely fair to suggest that the Government have introduced the Bill in the interests of the lay impropriator or of Nonconformists. That suggestion was a good example of the kind of pleasantry of which the right hon. Gentleman is so fond. I do not think that such observations can assist the House in debating this question calmly, and therefore I shall not say anything further in reply to them. As to the Amendment, it is impossible to accept it. It would perhaps have been better if the mover of the Amendment had disclosed the real motive of his proposal, which was manifestly to prevent the Ecclesiastical Commissioners from levying their tithes. The contention of the hon. Member is that the enjoyment of the new remedy for the recovery of tithe shall be confined to parochial incumbents. Surely if any amendment of the law is desirable it ought to apply to all tithe owners without distinction. The amount of tithe collected by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in Wales is £28,796, while the whole amount expended by them on the Church in Wales is £67,634, more than twice as much. £35,611 is contributed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in support of the benefices of the poor incumbent in Wales, or £7,000 more than is collected by the Commissioners as tithe. Surely a public body who are collecting tithes with the object of handing over the money so collected to the poor clergy, the class of people who, it is admitted, are most in want, should not be debarred from availing themselves of the new remedy which the Bill proposes to bring into existence.

§ * MR. S. RENDEL (Montgomeryshire)
I certainly think that the Amendment is an extremely valuable and important one. If the sole intention of the Government were to protect the poor Welsh 1150 clergy I can hardly conceive that they would resist this proposal. The argument of the Attorney General as to the special claim of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, because they spend more tithe in Wales than is derived from that country, adds in effect insult to injury, for it is felt to be a great grievance in Wales that large sums drawn from England should be expended there for the purpose of buttressing up the Church in Wales. It is an unfair application of national property, which the Welsh people strongly resent. The foundation of the Bill was asserted to be the sad case of the clergy in Wales and the conduct of the Welsh farmers in resisting distress warrants. The Government ought, therefore, to be content to deal with the grievance which they themselves allege to give rise to-the Bill, and not under the guise of protecting the clergy to give relief to-the lay impropriators—to let in the lay rat under pretence of helping the Church mouse. I certainly do not see why poor little Wales should be made responsible for giving increased value to the tithes of the lay impropriators. We wish by this Amendment to test the good faith and honesty of the Government in regard to a measure which they assert to be simply for the protection of the starving Welsh clergy, and nothing more. If that is really the case they will not, I am sure, resist the Amendment.

§ MR. H. GARDNER (Essex, Saffron Walden)
I heartily support the Amendment, if for no other reason than that which has been stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt), that if there could have been a doubt as to whom the Bill was intended to benefit that doubt has been cleared up by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. S. Leighton), who distinctly tells us that it is the lay impropriator. We were assured at the stage of Second Reading by the President of the Board of Trade that the Bill was only brought forward in the interests of the clergy in Wales, and if that is so they alone ought to be given the benefit which it is proposed to confer. It ought not to be shared by the lay impropriator. A few days ago a letter, signed "An English Clergyman," appeared in the Morning Post, in which the writer congratulated the Government 1151 on having wisely resolved to pass the Bill through Parliament. The point of the remark is in the end, where this Christian pastor says if the Bill does not pass this Session the "enemy," by which title he designates his parishioners, will be immensely encouraged in swindling and defrauding the tithe owners to an extent worse than death itself. The letter seems to show the minimum of Christianity with the maximum of ecclesiastical intolerance. I quote this to show what is behind the Government urging them to pass this Bill. I shall vote with my hon. Friend, and by doing so I shall be carrying out the intention expressed by the Government.

§ MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN (Denbighshire, E.)
The Attorney General objects to giving a special remedy to one class of tithe owners, and he spoke as if this would be the only remedy; but be it remembered the lay impropriator would still have his remedy, and the only question upon which the whole issue turns is that to which the Attorney General did not address himself. Months ago we were told the Bill was brought forward for the protection of the poor parson, and now we are told it is for the protection of the rich lay impropriator, and especially the Nonconformist lay impropriator. Now, I must say as regards the lay impropriator that he is an individual for whom we have very little sympathy. His tithe is very dubious, but granting that he has a tithe leave him to work it out as he does now. As to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, it is one of the greatest grievances that they take the money they get from Wales and spend it in support of a Church which the Welsh people regard as an alien Church. On that ground I shall support the Amendment.

§ MR. HANDEL COSSHAM (Bristol, E.)
There are two points I want to urge in favour of the Amendment; the first is, that when the lay impropriator bought his tithe he bought it subject to the existing law, and we have no right to give him more protection than he had when he made his purchase. He is not entitled to the special protection of the House, or to have his property made more secure than it is now. Then I am opposed to giving the power of suing at all, but if we must give it, let us confine it to the narrowest basis. 1152 Upon the clergy we may suppose the control of public opinion will be to some extent exercised, but the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are susceptible to no such influence, they are the most difficult body to deal with, the most covetous, the most overbearing of any in the country, and to put this power in their hands is to put it into the hands of an utterly irresponsible body. I believe we should do well to confine this remedy to the parochial clergy, whom we may expect will exercise it with some regard to public opinion.

§ * MR. J. G. TALBOT (Oxford University)
The remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Denbighshire seem to me to come with very little weight to us on this side, and I will not say on this side only, but to anyone desirous of preserving the elementary principles of law and order in the country. I can understand how irresponsible Members behind him, who feel bound to speak the language of their constituents, commit themselves to wild statements; but how a right hon. Gentleman who has held office, and who, I suppose, expects to hold office again, can lay down such extraordinary doctrines passes my comprehension. First of all, he thinks he has made the discovery that the Bill is proposed in the interest of those who are called the poor parsons.

§ MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN
That was the suggestion.

§ * MR. J. G. TALBOT
But the right hon. Gentleman knows well enough that the state of things in parts of Wales is a public scandal to civilisation. These words are amply justified by the accounts we have heard, and the Home Secretary has vindicated this measure as one for the restoration of order. The Bill is brought in, as I said on the Second Reading, partly for the protection of persons who have quite as much right to the tithe rents as the right hon. Gentleman has to his own property, and partly for the preservation of order, which is equally the interest of all parties. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners own a great deal of the tithe in Wales, as also does the house or college to which I have the honour to belong—Christchurch, Oxford. The Commissioners, of whom I am one, hold this property, and until our right to it 1153 is abolished by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, we must collect it and administer it as best we can. Now, the ordinary process of recovery has not been successful; it has led to scenes of disorder which, I am sure, the right hon. Gentleman must regret as much as we do. The Government come forward with a simpler process; and then the right hon. Gentleman has the assurance to say that, because Corporations are not poor clergymen, he would not assist them to obtain their dues. A still more astounding statement came from the right hon. Gentleman—we heard it before from the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, but from him I thought we merely had the language of his constituents, but from the right hon. Gentleman it excites more attention—he actually denounced the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for sending into Wales a larger amount of money than they received from Wales, and he resented this as an insult. Now, I should like to know what would have been said had the Commissioners taken away the amount of the Welsh tithe.

§ * MR. STUART RENDEL
I did not resent the spending of the money as an insult, but as an injury. I said the proposal for special legislation for the purpose of enforcing payment was the addition of insult to injury.

§ * MR. J. G. TALBOT
Well, then, it is not an insult but an injury. But I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Denbighshire told us it was an insult to spend this money on the Welsh clergy. But suppose the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—holding, as we do, a considerable amount of property in Wales, which we must continue to hold until we are deprived of it—suppose we were to divert the whole of this Welsh income to expenditure in some of the large towns in England, would not the right hon. Gentleman be one of the first to complain? Would he not rise at that Table and, in his well-rounded periods, denounce the iniquitous conduct of the Corporation? We have heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton talk of the richest Church in Christendom having the duty of supporting its own clergy, and is not that exactly what the Commissioners are doing? I say it is a matter of plain common sense. The Commissioners take the tithe they own by indefeasible 1154 title from Wales, and they spend it in Wales. They come to Parliament and say—they, with others—"Allow us to collect the tithe in the most peaceable manner, in the manner least oppressive to those from whom we collect it;" but this is called adding insult to injury, and resistance is now offered to as reasonable a demand as was ever made in Parliament.

SIR WILLIAM HAROOURT
We had a speech from the hon. Member for Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton) from which we learned something, and we have learned still more from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University. I said we were getting on. We are now unmasking the real battery. The imposture of the poor clergy has been used long enough, and now the real reason for the Bill lies before us. It was only a mild skirmish we had from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley Leighton), but now the true batteries are opened by the real promoters of the Bill. The hon. Member for the University does not often address the House, but when he does he always enlightens us, and never, I think, has he done so more to the purpose than to-day. In his lofty way he lectured my right hon. Friend for his assurance, and others for speaking the language of their constituents; but if ever a man spoke the language of his constituents it was the hon. Member for Oxford University. I know something of the University of Oxford, and of its qualities as landowner. I know Oxfordshire well, and I can say that if ever you see property there absolutely out of order and in a state of dilapidation and ask as to the ownership, you are perfectly sure to be told it is college property. The hon. Gentleman is the representative of what I should call, on the whole, the worst class of landowners in the country. I speak of matters on which I have knowledge. It is no blame to the College Authorities; their business is not that of land owning and land management; knowledge of the Greek accidence and the integral calculus does not contribute to the management of land, and, as I say, you may tell college property as you pass along the roads. Now, it is on behalf of these colleges that the hon. Gentleman makes this claim for an extraordinary remedy. We reject this claim 1155 I do not dispute their title; I have no wish to take it away; but I say this—that if there is any class of people not entitled as against the farmers and small owners of England to come and ask for an additional remedy in respect of their property, it is the owners of college property, represented by the hon. Gentleman. So far as this Bill is concerned, the hon. Gentleman says they are—not the only but the principal—claimants in this matter. Then the hon. Gentleman talks of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and from what I know of them they are much better managers of property than the colleges; they understand it a good deal better; but what is the claim on behalf of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners? Why do the Ecclesiastical Commissioners want further remedies? One of the reasons alleged for the Bill is the need of the poor clergy, who are more or less defenceless, and who find difficulty in applying the legal processes now open to them. It is for this that they are to be provided with the County Court, just as you provide claimants of small debts with the County Court. But you would never have thought of providing, for the purposes of large property, this remedy of the County Court; therefore the argument of my right hon. Friend is perfectly good in this respect. Then the hon. Gentleman, in referring to my hon. Friend behind me, has misstated altogether what he said. What my hon. Friend objected to was that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should use the funds derived from elsewhere for the purpose of bolstering up the Church Establishment in Wales.

§ MR. J. G. TALBOT
I was referring to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Osborne Morgan), who spoke in denunciation of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for spending so much in Wales.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
Yes, but the hon. Gentleman did not appreciate the point of the remarks that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners devoted large funds, derived from London and elsewhere, to the support of Church purposes in Wales. That is the objection, that these funds are used for the purpose of bolstering up the Church in Wales. Now, the original object of tithes was to provide for the religious instruction of the people of the district where it was raised. It worked well when the feel- 1156 ings of the people were in harmony with the Instruction provided. But a totally different state of things arises when the money is used for other purposes in the hands of a lay impropriator or a college, for purposes with which the people living on the land have nothing whatever to do. This is a good reason for confining this remedy to those who live on the spot and render some service to the people. Now that we have got to the true principle of the Bill, we find that it is not a small Bill at all. It is a very large Bill, and its object is now disclosed to be to increase the value of tithe property. This extra remedy will give an additional screw which will have a distinct money value. The Bill is, in fact, a proprietor's Bill directed against the occupier. It is well that this should be clearly understood by the tenant farmers and yeomen of the country. It is a Bill promoted by proprietors to increase the value of tithe property with a view to redemption. The real point of the Bill has been illuminated by the speech of the hon. Member for the University of Oxford; and it is to be hoped, therefore, that we shall have no more of the trumpery excuse that this is a mere temporary remedy in aid of distressed tithe-owners.

§ * MR. LLOXD MORGAN (Carmarthen)
I had no intention of joining in this discussion, and certainly should not have done so but for an observation that fell from the hon. Member for Oxford University who referred to the conduct of the Welsh people in regard to the tithe agitation as being a scandal to civilisation. I entirely agree it is a scandal to civilisation to put compulsion upon people to pay for a Church and to support an establishment entirely opposed to their convictions. It is all very well to refer to the Welsh agitation as a scandal to civilisation, but consider what has been going on, how the value of agricultural produce has been diminishing and how landlords all over the country have been making large reductions in their rents. It is a scandal that the clergy of the richest Church in the world should exact the utmost farthing when landlords are everywhere granting reductions of their rent. The same language has been applied to other agitations—to the tithe agitation in Ireland 50 years ago. Yet the policy 1157 of that agitation subsequently recommended itself to the Legislature. The position of Wales now is precisely that of Ireland half a century ago, and the agitation will soon extend to England if tithes are pressed as they have been, and are to be, by Bills of this kind forced forward in this way.

§ * MR. GRAY (Essex, Maldon)
Just a word or two in reference to the speech to which we have just listened. I have been doing what little I could do to prevent this Bill passing, and I should be glad if still I could do something that would have that effect; but at the same time I must take the opportunity of saying that I have no sympathy whatever with the views expressed by the hon. Member. I recognise tithe as a property, and I hope that every Englishman and Welshman will do his utmost to meet his obligations so long as he has the means to do so. I could point out to the hon. Member in my own County of Essex places where on one side of the road a field supplies maintenance for a chapel and on the other side of the road a field helps to maintain a church, and I fail to understand why the rent collected for the one field should be described as a scandal, but should be perfectly justifiable when collected for the other field. Perhaps I may say a word or two in reference to the somewhat sweeping criticisms which fell from the right hon. Gentleman opposite in reference to the management of college property. I do not think his was a fair description. He will pardon me for saying that his criticism would have more effect——

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
I was speaking of Oxford, not of Cambridge.

§ * MR. GRAY
Well, I was about to speak of Cambridge.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
My remarks did not apply to Cambridge. I spoke especially of my knowledge of Oxfordshire. I am a Cambridge man myself, and I believe that the Cambridge property is much better managed than the Oxford property, which is managed about as badly as possible. I take the testimony of the hon. Member as regards Cambridge.

§ * MR. GRAY
For once the right hon. Gentleman and myself are in accord; we are both standing up for the University that has the proud distinction of having been Alma Mater to the right 1158 hon. Gentleman. I was speaking of Cambridge, and was about to show that the language of the right hon. Gentleman did not apply to the college property, but I leave that subject. With many hon. Member3 on both sides, I believe that redemption is the only way in which, sooner or later, we can settle these tithe troubles, and in all our Amendments I hope we shall keep that purpose steadily in view, but we must not to that end seek to increase the value of tithe. I admit the property in tithe, I admit that we ought to pay our debts, but I do not think we are called upon to raise the value of the property with some system of redemption in connection with it in view.

§ MR. H. GARDNER
I wish to make a few remarks in regard to one observation which fell from my hon. Colleague opposite on one point. His point was that from his own knowledge of property in Essex he was aware that the rent of a field on one side of a road——

THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order! I was unwilling to interrupt the hon. Member for Carmarthenshire, who was making his first speech to the House, and who strayed from the question before the Committee. His speech has, however, been followed up until the question before the Committee is now well in the back-ground. The hon. Member must address himself to that question.

§ MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS (Glamorgan, S.)
I do not, I am sure, wish to travel away from the Amendment before the Committee, but I must express a hope that my hon. Friend will divide the Committee on this Amendment. Whatever may be the claims of the parochial clergy, they stand upon a different footing from those of lay impropriators, whose ownership of tithes originated in spoliation and the diversion of tithes from their original purposes. The lay impropriator has no claim upon the consideration of the Legislature, and he ought to be left to the remedy given him by the Act of 1836. Yet it is proposed by this Bill to raise the value of the lay impropriator's tithes by 25 per cent. When the Bill was first proposed, and I read it, I came to the conclusion that I must be very stupid indeed in not finding out what its object was. Reading it section by section, I came to the conclusion that 1159 it was the most stupid composition it had ever been my lot to read. It proposes to replace an immediate, an easy, a convenient, and a cheap process, with a process which is circuitous, which involves considerable delay and expense, and imposes a heavy penalty on the tithe-payer. That seemed to me impenetrably stupid until I thought it over and found out the real object of the Bill. That object is not to give an easier remedy, but to give a debt-collecting security, and to increase the value of the property.

THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order! The only question before the Committee is whether this Amendment should be adopted.

§ MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS
With the greatest respect, Mr. Courtney, I think in a few sentences I can show why I have ventured to point out this difference. It may be very well that the clerical tithe-owner should have this personal remedy. I think it unfair and unnecessary; but, admitting that he should have it, I maintain that it is not a remedy which ought to be given to the lay impropiator. The hon. Member for Oxford University said he could not wonder at the irresponsible utterances of Members on this side who are bound to speak the views of their constituents. It is very well for an hon. Gentleman representing a great University to put forward personal arguments of that kind against a body of men who are endeavouring to represent honestly the views of their constituents; and, as to the extraordinary language which he says we use, I doubt whether it comes anywhere near the extraordinary language used by clerical and other orators on the other side. We do not charge the other side of the House with swindling, or attempting to swindle, or to defraud the tithe-payer. We put it, at all events, in more Parliamentary language. We say that this process is an unjust process to the tithe-payer, and we also say that it is the duty of the Government to act up to their distinct announcement that the object of of the Bill was to benefit the parochial clergy.

§ MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN
I merely rise to correct a misrepresentation—of course, unintentional—in the speech of the hon. Member opposite. What I said was that the Welsh people, 1160 and the Welsh Nonconformists especially, resented the application of moneys levied from them to the maintenance of a Church in which they do not believe.

§ SIR J. SWINBURNE (Staffordshire, Lichfield)
I am a lay impropriator, though a small one, and therefore I know something about this subject. How the Government can come forward and break the bargain which has been made between impropriators and tithe-payers by increasing the value of the tithes 25 per cent I really do not know. When this Bill was introduced, I sent a copy of it to my land agent and asked him what its effect would be. His reply was—"It will increase the value of your tithes 25 per cent." I do not know a stronger instance of a Government proposing to increase for electioneering purposes the value of property for the most part in the hands of those whom they believe to be their own supporters, and to increase that value in anticipation of a forced sale. It is also as strong a case as could be of the one sided breaking of a bargain. Lay impropriators are placed in a position of which they may well feel ashamed. The clergy may have hardships, and I know some of them have, but the greatest hardship is to have an income from a congregation which does not work under them. That is the practical point of view, and I think it will soon all come to this—that each set of labourers should support their own ministers. I shall vote most heartily in support of the Amendment.

§ MR. W. ABRAHAM (Glamorgan, Rhondda)
I do not think I should vote for the Amendment if its sole effect was to make incumbents privileged persons, but I shall vote for it because I believe that we ought not to pay any tithes at all. It is well-known in Wales that the majority of the people in that little country do not want the services of the parochial incumbents. True, they are there; like many barbers' shops they are there. The barbers, perhaps, never shave, because people never go to their shops——

THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member must confine his observations to the Amendment.

§ MR. ABRAHAM
With clue respect to your ruling, Sir, I am endeavouring to point out that the clergy ought not 1161 to be made privileged persons at all. As to the spending of money by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in Wales, I should say that it is not the spending of money we disagree with and denounce. Spend what money you will to help the Church in Wales, but do not compel other people who do not believe in the Church to contribute to that expenditure. It has been said in the Debate that we ought to pay tithes as long as we have the money to do it. The only question I have to ask is—what are we to do if we have no money to pay?

§ MR. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.)
This Debate has not been brought so near to the real issue as some of us consider right. The Amendment is to leave out the word "persons," and that word includes all persons who have become possessed of the right to levy tithes in some way or other. Those who have bought tithes as a matter of speculation knew that if they were not paid they had to be obtained by distress on the particular ground they were levied on. I think that those gentlemen who have speculated in tithes for purposes of profit stand before the world in a very contemptible position, and I think we are doing our duty to the nation in making them bear the responsibility of the burden they imposed on themselves when they purchased.

§ MR. T. ELLIS
I think the least the Government could have done would have been to reply to the very serious arguments which have been put forward in the latter part of this Debate. I see on the back of the Bill the names of Mr. Secretary Matthews and Mr. William Henry Smith, and I should have thought that one of those gentlemen would have tried to reply to our arguments. I should like to ask the Government whether they agree to the ordinary definition given of tithes—namely, a tenth of the produce payable for the maintenance of the parish priest. It seems to me it is grossly unfair that the toilers of Durham, and Essex, and other counties should have money extracted from them by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in the shape of tithes in order that the Establishment in Wales and the system of proselytising the Welsh people may be bolstered up. My Amendment, which limits the operation of the measure to the clergy, is quite in 1162 harmony with the real nature of the tithe, and I earnestly appeal to Gentlemen on the other side of the House to follow me into the Division Lobby on this question.

MR. STAVELEY HILL
My next Amendment is to leave out "entitled to a sum," and insert "claiming money." The phrase "entitled to a sum" seems to me a doubtful expression, for I do not quite see what the word "sum," means. But what I wish to call attention to is the word "entitled." Does my right hon. Friend intend by these words to give the County Court Judge unlimited jurisdiction with regard to amount? Supposing the tithe comes to £50, £60, or£l00 a year, the claimant goes into Court, saying there is a certain amount of money due to him, upon which the question of title is raised. At present where a distress is levied the question of title can only be raised by removal by certiorari into a Superior Court, under 7 & 8 William III.; but under this Bill, if the defendant raises the question of title, it will have to be settled by the County Court Judge. I ask those who are looking carefully after the interests of the poor incumbent to consider the position in which he will be placed if he has to fight the question of title. And supposing the sum involved does not exceed £20 a year, that at 25 years' purchase would mean an enormous amount of capital to be decided upon by the County Court Judge.

§ THE SECRETARY Of STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS, Birmingham, E.)
No.

MR. HILL
My right hon. Friend says "No." But it is so. Will my right hon. Friend say that he does not allow this jurisdiction without limit to the County Court Judge? I raise the question as to the word "entitled" in order to know how the matter really stands. Are we to have the incumbent set at arm's length by half-a-dozen persons combining together to raise the question of title? If so, then it is a very small mercy you are extending to him. Will my right hon. Friend afterwards agree to some provision limiting the jurisdiction of the County Court Judge? I beg to move my Amendment.

§ MR. MATTHEWS
I am not quite sure that I apprehend the extent to which my hon. Friend desires to go. Does he desire anybody who is not entitled to receive tithe to recover judgment for that tithe and then to proceed to execution? That is what his words would enable anybody to do.

MR. A. STAVELEY HILL
The right hon. Gentleman misinterprets me altogether. If a man goes into Court, he must go into Court as claiming money; and if he does that, you at once invite the defendant to raise the question of title, because you say "entitled to a sum."

§ MR. MATTHEWS
If you take away the word "entitled," you apparently deprive the defendant of the power of raising the question whether the plaintiff is entitled, and that is certainly not what we intend. My hon. and learned Eriend grew pathetic over the incumbent who may have to defend his title. He may have to do that now. If the defendant disputes the title, in an action of replevin, all the points of title to the tithe will have to be raised and have to be fought by the tithe owner or the persons claiming the tithe. It ought to be observed that the points of title that arise in a case of tithe are extremely small. The advantage of the mode proposed by the Bill is that you have to fight the point of law, in the first instance, before the trouble and expense of an execution. Under the arbitrary remedy of distress, you begin by taking the goods, and then you settle the point of law. That is a cumbrous way of doing it. But here you settle it in the first instance. Our intention certainly is, that if there is any doubt about the title of the claimant, that doubt shall be settled by the County Court Judge. With regard to the word "sum," I really cannot understand the verbal criticism. It means the amount of the rent-charge, and how my hon. and learned Friend can think it means anything else I cannot conceive. But if he is in doubt I am willing to 1164 add the words "sum of money," and not of anything else.

§ MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN
The question raised is very important. As I understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument, this section is to give unlimited jurisdiction to the County Court Judge. There are cases in which the tithe is £500 a year, and instances may arise in which the greatest legal experience will be required to go into-the question of title. The County Court Judge, if this Bill passes as it is, will have a more important duty imposed upon him than any he has had before.

§ MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS
In the first place, I am entirely of opinion that the clause is not a work of art, for the word "entitle" has been used, when it clearly ought to be "claim." Although it is a small matter, I do hope the word "claim" will be adopted. With reference to the jurisdiction of the County Court, it has been constituted by about 30 Acts of Parliament, and has been extended in every direction, but in every instance it has always been limited as to amount. There is not a single instance, I believe, in which jurisdiction has been given without limitation.

THE CHAIRMAN
I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the words of the clause are "whatever the amount may be."

§ MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS
I would venture to suggest that the word "entitled" ought to be struck out.

§ Mr. RANDELL (Glamorgan, Gower)
I should be very sorry indeed if, in a case of this kind, the defendants were shut out from making any defence by raising the question of title.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
It is not a very material point, but I should have thought the Home Secretary would have seen that if a man claims who has no title, that want of title will be urged against his claim. But to start by saying that a man who goes into Court is entitled, is determining the very thing which may be disputed. It is not only bad drafting, but it is begging the whole question. I would strongly urge the Government to take the ordinary way; but to say before he goes into Court that he is entitled to a sum of money is, in a logical sense, putting the cart before the horse.

§ * SIR R. WEBSTER
I do not think we need occupy the time of the Com- 1165 mittee with this minor point. Nobody can be in any doubt about the general scheme of the Bill, and I think the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman is rather strong. The words "entitled to a sum" of money is a form which occurs in several Acts of Parliament, including the Lands Clauses Act. I would suggest the words—" person claiming to be entitled."

§ MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS
I beg to move that after the word "sum," the words "not exceeding £20" be there inserted. This section will give unlimited jurisdiction to the County Courts. It is perfectly true that questions of title as to tithe are of comparatively rare occurrence, but they notoriously do involve abstruse questions of law; yet by this Bill we call upon the County Court Judge at once to give a decision. The lay improprietor may at once get a decision in the County Court, after which his claim cannot be ousted throughout by the Amendment. The jurisdiction of the County Court is limited to £20 a year, and that would apply to the Section as it now stands. There will be very few cases of tenant farmers in which the amount is for more than £20, and if this remedy is to be granted, I think it ought to be limited to £20. I beg to move the Amendment.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
This clause gives universal jurisdiction to the County Courts in all questions of tithe, and not merely as to the amount to be recovered. It is really making a Bill, with small objects, give universal and unlimited jurisdiction to the County Courts on all questions of real property so far as they are connected with tithe. It is a most extraordinary thing to be introduced into a Bill of this kind. 1166 Then I observe that the Home Secretary proposes to introduce an Amendment making the County Court judgment final and conclusive. In the ordinary way, there is an appeal to the Superior Courts; but here the County Courts will decide in respect of property worth hundreds of thousands of pounds. The Home Secretary has actually got on the Paper an Amendment to prevent the ordinary forms of appeal from the County Court to the Superior Courts, and all this in the name of the poor clergy in Wales. Was there ever such a preposterous Bill drawn with such carelessness, such recklessness, such obvious want of consideration of the consequences involved as this? Surely there ought to be some limitation of the jurisdiction of the Court.

§ * MR. MATTHEWS
The right hon. Gentleman's criticisms are not always couched in conciliatory language, and the draftsman will appreciate his compliments. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that part of the intention of the Amendment I have on the Paper, and which has called forth his sarcasm, is simply putting into proper language an Amendment which the hon. Member for West Monmouthshire has put upon the Paper. It aims more certainly, in my opinion, at preventing the removal of any payment for tithe to a Superior Court for the purpose of getting execution upon it in places in which the jurisdiction of the County Court does not extend or run. In my judgment the clause is already effective for the purpose, though I did offer to put an Amendment on the Paper preventing a removal of judgment to the High Court. It is not necessary to remove it under Section 21 of the County Courts Act, 1888, and the appeal remains. The right hon. Gentleman says we intend to give the County Court jurisdiction in cases of title. Undoubtedly we do. The whole remedy would be useless otherwise. There may be cases in which title to real property is involved, but they are so rare that so far as my knowledge goes there is not a single one. Most of the titles to tithes are perfectly clear, and in many instances there is no title to prove. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners, Colleges, Schools, lay impropriators and other large bodies have no title to prove. They have perpetual 1167 succession, and the fact of their being corporate bodies or continuous bodies is proof of their title. I do not think there is a single case in the books—I am speaking seriously—in which any point of title has arisen as to the tithe. The right hon. Gentleman raises the question of amount, and I do not deny that there may be some cases where the tithe rent charge is £500, but I doubt very much whether it is paid in the lump sum, because it must be remembered that the tithe is paid field by field or close by close, which is the apportionment in most parishes, so that you may know exactly what arises on each close. The Bill, certainly not from any oversight or carelessness, is intended to apply in all cases. I agree that in some instances where the amount is very large the County Court is not the most appropriate tribunal, but it will certainly be appropriate in 999 cases out of a thousand.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
The right hon. Gentleman says cases may arise. That is true of all other property as to which there is a limited jurisdiction in the County Court. I do not follow the Home Secretary in what he says with reference to separate closes. Does he mean that an action may be brought with reference to each close? I do not believe any such process ever has been or would be undertaken. The action is brought for the whole of the tithe. The right hon. Gentleman says that the cases to which I refer would be rare. I venture to say that 100 such cases arise every year. Tithe passes by will like any other property, and if the will is disputed it includes the tithe like any other property. You will not see in the books the question of tithe referred to particularly, but questions of tithe do arise where there is disputed succession to property, whether by will or devolution or any other proceeding. There are cases in the Court every month in the year. Tithe is not different in that respect from any other property, and it is subject to all the difficulties attending the devolution of property. The right hon. Gentleman will excuse me if my feelings are occasionally too strong for me, but I cannot help describing his Bill as one of the most crude performances I ever saw in my life. Tithe property is not exceptional, and why should not the jurisdiction of the County 1168 Court with regard to it be limited, just as it is in respect of other property?

§ * MR. SEALE-HAYNE (Ashburton, Devon)
I would like to ask whether, under the extraordinary Tithe Act, 1886, the power of the Judge to adjudicate was limited to £50; and, if so, why it was proposed by this Bill to increase that limit?

§ MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS
I have had placed in my hands a little book on the law of tithe, and, as I expected, I find a number of cases. I venture to say that there is not a law so complicated and difficult as the law of hereditaments, yet there is no provision in the Bill for appeal. I submit with the greatest confidence that by this Bill questions of title, however difficult, large and far-reaching they may be, may be settled by the County Court Judge finally and without appeal.

§ MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN
This is a new departure. In every case hitherto, so far as I am aware, the Legislature has safeguarded parties to an inquiry by providing that cases could not be dealt with in the County Court above a certain amount. Tithes are derived just as land is, and cases will arise which will require all the great legal experience and acumen of a Judge of the High Court. Although it is perfectly true that appeal is not expressly excluded, yet it will be impossible for either side to avail itself of the right given by a former Statute.

§ * SIR R. WEBSTER
I have no doubt that the right of appeal will exist. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that, in numerous instances, difficult questions have arisen. I think, however, that the right hon. Gentleman's memory is treacherous. In cases of administration or where a clergyman has got into difficulties some questions may arise, but in ordinary cases the questions of law which could arise are singularly few, as the award is conclusive and binding. With regard to the Amendment, surely the right hon. Gentleman must know that cases in which questions are likely to arise are not those in which £500 was due. In such a case a farmer would understand his position, and know that he ought to pay. Questions will arise in cases where £50 or a smaller amount is due, as in such cases there is a tendency to refuse payment. The difficulty as to the limit of jurisdiction 1169 has been sprung upon the Committee now for the first time. There is, I believe, no other Amendment on the Paper with regard to it. At present I see no reason for limiting the jurisdiction, but I will, if necessary, provide at a future stage of the Bill that there shall be an appeal in cases above a certain amount.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)
I do not think the Attorney General can have looked at the Paper, or he has overlooked an Amendment limiting the amount to £5. On the Grand Committee last year I fought very hard for extending the jurisdiction of the County Courts, but the Attorney General very successfully met me, and conquered me. And now we have the Home Secretary making a powerful appeal in favour of unlimited jurisdiction for County Courts in this one case. Under the guidance and advice of the Attorney General last year the Consolidation Act was passed, defining and limiting the jurisdiction of the County Court to £50. We fought hard to extend it to £100. The Attorney General was sternly obdurate, and pointed out that very great injury would be done to the profession if important cases were tried in the County Court instead of the Superior Courts. I do not agree with my hon. Friend behind me. I think the £20 limit is too small, but, in face of the legislation of last year, and the strong reasons which the Attorney General gave against the unlimited jurisdiction of the County Court, I am not prepared to give that unlimited jurisdiction with respect to a specific description of property, and for a specific purpose. The Attorney General Bays that if the difficulty arises, it might be met afterwards by a provision in the Bill. But we have to deal with the Bill as it is and as it stands; it gives no right of appeal in case of disputed title. A friendly action may be raised; the tithe payer may be sued; and the question of title may be settled by the County Court Judge without any appeal whatever. If the Government are prepared to say that the time has arrived for such a great reform in our law as to the jurisdiction of the County Courts, and are willing to apply it to all cases and all claims, unlimited in amount, then, Sir, I am not prepared to say that I would not accept this extension. But I do object to this specific extension for a 1170 specific purpose. By a side wind you seek to alter the law with respect to real property, and to give unlimited jurisdiction to a class of Court which has hitherto been held incompetent to exercise that jurisdiction, and which the Consolidation Act of last year has practically confined to cases of title of a very limited amount per annum. If my hon. Friend would alter his Amendment to £50, I think the Committee would be disposed to regard it favourably.

MR. STAVELEY HILL
I agree with what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, but I would only remind him that £20 per annum would be practically giving the County Court a 25 years' purchase—jurisdiction as to 25 times £20.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
The hon. and learned Gentleman complained of my criticisms of the drafting of the Bill, but see what happens. This Bill, as drawn, gives the County Court universal jurisdiction without appeal. Practically speaking, if the Attorney General did not know that statement was true, he would never have tendered that defence. As the Bill stands there is no appeal given; and fortified by my right hon. Friend and other hon. Friends, I make that statement against the Attorney General. He has stated that if the Bill did not give the right of appeal, provision could be made for appeal.

§ * SIR R. WEBSTER
The right hon. Gentleman has no right to say so. I stated distinctly that the words as they stand would give the right of appeal. I only ask that ordinary courtesy should be extended to me. It is scarcely fair to repeat twice across the floor of the House that I knew what I said to be incorrect.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
The right hon. Gentleman is unduly susceptible. I only said that his law was bad. I will say that he is willing to admit an appeal, and I hope that will satisfy him. As to the question of amount, if this is not a question of carelessness, but of deliberate drafting with a special object, I should like to know what it is. If the ordinary course had been followed with regard to County Courts this would have been limited to £50. Under the Extraordinary Tithes Act the jurisdiction was limited; but here the Government, 1171 for what earthly reason I cannot conceive, have put in words which have never appeared in any Bill before, affecting the County Court jurisdiction—"whatever the amount of the sum may be." If you strike these words out the jurisdiction of the County Court will be limited. Why are they put in?

§ MR. MATTHEWS
They are put in for the purpose——

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
Of making the County Court jurisdiction universal and unlimited?

§ MR. MATTHEWS
Yes.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
Why? If these cases are so rare why not limit it to £50? We have taken the view that this Bill is to enable the proprietors of tithes to vastly increase their revenues. If the draftsman had the object in view of preventing appeal, then the Bill is properly drawn; but if he had not, then it is as blundering a performance as I ever saw. If the Government do not intend to revolutionise the jurisdiction of the County Court why should they object to the ordinary limit of jurisdiction? Why do you not deal with this ordinary tithe as you dealt with extraordinary tithe? Why have you departed from that course in order to give unlimited jurisdiction to the County Court?

§ MR. RANDELL
In many cases the jurisdiction of the County Courts is limited to amounts not exceeding £50, and as tithe rent-charge is now to be made a debt, actions for its recovery at common law ought surely to be subject to the same limitation. I very much regret that in a Bill of this kind, to which so many objections have been taken, the Government are attempting to largely extend the jurisdiction of the County Court on the Common Law side. I strongly object to this attempt.

§ * MR. GAINSFOED BRUCE (Finsbury, Holborn)
It is not correct to say that the jurisdiction of the County Court is limited to £50. It is true it is so limited in one class of cases, but in many other classes it is largely extended, and it has been the policy of the Legislature in different cases to give the County Court a varying limit of jurisdiction. For instance, in Admiralty cases, salvage claims in which the value of the property saved does not exceed £1,000 can be dealt with. Under the Employers' Liability Act there is another 1172 limit, and in equity cases still another limit. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down suggested that in all cases there was some limit. That, even, is not correct, because in bankruptcy there is an unlimited jurisdiction. Although there may be good reasons for not extending the jurisdiction of the County Courts in ordinary actions beyond £50, I do not see why the jurisdiction conferred upon the County Courts under this Bill should not be as unlimited as in bankruptcy. I will not stop to answer the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby in reference to the question whether an express provision is necessary to confer a right of appeal. I prefer, myself, the opinion of the Attorney General to that of the right hon. Member.

§ * MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)
Considering the position which was taken up by the learned Attorney General in Committee on the County Courts Consolidation Act last year, on the proposal made by myself to extend the jurisdiction—a proposal which was resisted by the Government—I am extremely surprised at the contention put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just addressed this House. I think the Attorney General should give us some reasons for having altered his attitude since last year on this question.

§ MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS
Although I should have been glad to have followed the advice of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, I am bound, I think, in this case, to press my Amendment, as I am satisfied it would be most mischievous to give the County Courts unlimited jurisdiction under this Bill. The mischief would be found both in intention and in results.

§ MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS
I beg now to move the insertion of the words "not exceeding £50," after the word "sum." I do hope that the Government will accept this Amendment, and thus place the tithe on the basis of an ordinary personal debt. We cannot forget that they have broken the contract originally made; they have withdrawn tithe from the remedy of distress, 1173 they have made it a personal debt, and therefore its recovery should be subject to the same provision at Common Law as personal debts. I do press upon every fair-minded Member of this House that if we are to pass this Bill, and alter the position of tithe, we should insert this limitation.

§ * SIR R. WEBSTER
I trust it will not be necessary to discuss the question of limit, or no limit, over and over again; but I will say one or two words in order to explain what I conceive to be the reason why we should not concede this Amendment. I will undertake to insert the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, giving the same appeal as in an ordinary case before a County Court, so that if there is any dispute about tithe, there will be no doubt about its being investigated by the proper tribunal. But what is it my hon. and learned Friend suggests? The object of this Bill, we must remember, is simply to give another method of enforcing an admitted debt, without those circumstances which we believe, rightly or wrongly, conduce to trouble and disturbance. We think that the procedure in the County Court will get rid of that difficulty. Does my hon. Friend suggest that tithes above £50 should only be recoverable in a Superior Court, because if that is his view, a man will only have to sue for the tithe in respect of a portion of his farm, so as to bring the amount under £50, and then when he has recovered that, he can issue another summons for the remainder.

§ MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS
Not against the same occupier.

§ * SIR R. WEBSTER
Certainly. There is not the least objection now to the splitting up different causes of action in order to bring the claim under £50. We are dealing with the question whether or not there shall be a remedy in cases in which the tithe as a matter of fact exceeds £50, and if this Amendment is adopted we should be compelled to add further clauses to this Bill, and 1174 to create a new machinery. I really think that the difficulty is met by the granting of an appeal, and that having regard to the great majority of cases, it is unnecessary to insert any limit. The Government must therefore stand by the Bill as at present framed.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
If the Government object to fixing a money limit, why have they not followed the course which was taken in 1886 with reference to extraordinary tithe. I propose later on to move the omission of the words, "whatever the amount of the sum may be." Now, in the Extraordinary Tithes Act it is provided that the tithe may be recovered by action in Her Majesty's High Court of Justice or in the County Court, and having given the County Court jurisdiction the action would follow the ordinary rules of the County Court except for those words. I wish to know why the Government should go out of their way to deal with the ordinary tithe in a different way to that which they deal with the extraordinary tithe.

§ * MR. BRADLAUGH
I was a little startled when I heard the learned Attorney General state that it is possible for a creditor, having a claim against me, to divide that claim into two portions in order to bring the action in the County Court. If I were not a layman, without much knowledge of the law, I would take leave to contradict the Attorney General very strongly on that point. I would remind him of the arguments he used against myself and others who wanted an extended jurisdiction under the County Courts Consolidation Bill last year, and I would ask him why he has since changed his opinion.

§ * MR. WINTERBOTHAM (Gloucester, Cirencester)
The statement of the Attorney General suggests that if tithe is payable on a farm, the tithe-owner can, if he chooses, sue for it field by field, and in this way enormously increase the burden of costs on the tithe payer. Are there no words in the Bill which will prevent vexatious proceedings of that kind, and if not will the Government insert some?

§ MR. W. J. BEADEL (Essex, Chelmsford)
I think if the limit of £50 were agreed to it would not be applicable to a great number of cases. The Attorney General's argument carries great weight with it, and it is undesirable to fix any 1175 limit, seeing that since the settlement of 1836 there have been a considerable number of re-apportionments.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
The more this Bill is debated the greater is the amount of light we get thrown upon it. It is not merely a Bill for the recovery of small sums, and the pretence that the measure is intended to enable poor clergymen, through the medium of the County Court, to recover these small sums has now disappeared. As the hon. Member who last spoke knows perfectly well, the Bill gives exceptional means for the recovery of large sums as well as of small. The hon. Member for Chelmsford has knocked on the head the favourite theory of the Attorney General that the Bill will only affect the tithes on small farms. I agree with the hon. Member for Cirencester, after what the Attorney General has said, that the enforcement of the tithe may be made most vexatious, and if the view of the hon. and learned Gentleman is correct—as to which there is some doubt—the Bill will certainly require amendment. That makes it all the more necessary why we should confine it to this limit. If you want the County Court Jurisdiction, take it as it is; strike out the words, "Whatever the amount of the sum may be."

§ MR. COSSHAM
I certainly heard the statement of the Attorney General with great surprise. If I have to sue a person who owes me £800 for coals, I cannot sue him four times for £200. The Attorney General is wrong in his law and in his facts.

§ MR. M. HEALY (Cork)
The hon. Member for Northampton, as a layman, expressed his surprise at the legal doctrine laid down by the Attorney General. I am not exactly a layman, though I am not supposed to be learned in the law, still, I join in the hon. Gentleman's expression of surprise. I have practised for several years in Irish County Courts—of course I do not pretend to understand English law—and if I attempted to argue there what the Attorney General has laid down as indisputable law, I should be laughed at. It has been laid down over and over again that you cannot split the cause of action for the purpose of giving the County Court jurisdiction.

§ * SIR R. WEBSTER
The Committee are discussing this point mainly on account of 1176 an inaccurate expression of mine. I do not like to be misunderstood. I never suggested you could split a cause of action. My point was that tithe is a separate cause of action in respect of each piece of land. I have not looked up the matter, but my impression is that it is a separate cause of action.

§ MR. BRADLAUGH
That was not quite what you said.

§ * SIR R. WEBSTER
I certainly meant to convey that there was a different cause of action in each case, and I apologise to the Committee if by an inaccurate expression I have misled them.

§ MR. BRADLAUGH
What I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say was, supposing the tithe on a piece of land is more than £50 the land can be divided into two portions.

§ MR. H. GARDNER
I cannot congratulate the Government upon the only support they have got from their own Benches. The hon. Member below the Gangway (Mr. Beadel) flatly contradicted the statement of the Attorney General. In certain cases there are what are called field apportionments, but there are instances in which the whole farm pays a large sum. The Attorney General says you are able to bring an action for the various portions of the tithe. The tithe owner is thus able to inflict on the tithe payer a very heavy penalty in the shape of costs. Supposing a man owes £300 in tithe split up in three lots or apportionments of £100 each. If the tithe payer can be sued in respect of each separate piece of tithe, he may possibly have to pay £40 or £50 in costs.

§ * SIR R. WEBSTER
The Amendment would cause that. If the Amendment is carried there will be a temptation to split; if the Amendment is not carried there will be no temptation to split.

§ MR. H. GARDNER
I really think the Bill, as explained by the Attorney General, gets worse and worse as we proceed. It is quite bad enough that the tithe payer should be put to this penalty at all, which he is not subjected to under the existing law. And, according to the Attorney General, the penalty may be cumulative, amounting to a sum that we can hardly imagine.

§ * MR. STUART RENDEL
The revelation made by the hon. and learned Gentleman has almost taken away the 1177 breath of the Welsh Members. If the case is hard, as seen from the point of view of the hon. Member for Saffron Walden, how much more serious is it from the point of view of the Welsh Members? It is acknowledged that this is a measure aimed at Wales; it is a Penal Code applying to Wales; it is a measure of petty coercion. Now it appears it is in the nature of a cat-o'-nine tails. Under this legislation tithe receivers are distinctly invited to use the County Court expenses as a means of compelling tithe-payers to be prompt in their payments. If the tithe-owners carry out the full spirit of this legislation, they will undoubtedly take the opportunity now and again of dividing their claims for the express purpose of making them more penal and more severe. With the state of feeling which exists, and which is being fomented in Wales on this question, it is by no means beyond the point of possibility that there will be cases in which this mischievous use will be made of the clause.

§ MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN
Does the Attorney General mean to say that if a farmer has 50 closes, 50 actions can be brought against him? If that is so the law ought to be altered at once. We ought to suspend the proceedings on this Bill and bring in a short Bill changing such an iniquitous system. We are only asking the Committee to do that which the House did three years ago in the case of extraordinary tithe, and what was done last year by the Committee over which I had the honour to preside.

§ MR. JEFFREYS (Hants, Basingstoke)
There is a tithe map by which field apportionment is indicated, and I believe that under this Bill a tithe-owner could sue for a particular sum on each field. It is no answer to say that in some parishes there is no apportionment. If the Bill passes as it stands there will be an apportionment made in every parish. I think that as under this Bill the power is to be given to the County Court it ought to be given altogether.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
The hon. Gentleman holds out to us the prospect that if the Bill passes in its present shape there will be apportionments made in parishes where it has not hitherto prevailed. I am not going to dispute the law laid down by the Attorney 1178 General that there may be a separate action brought in respect of every close but let us consider what the effect may be. If a man has not paid his tithe, and the clergyman, or tithe-owner, thinks he is a cantankerous Nonconformist and that it would be a very good thing he should receive a lesson, and that it might be useful in the neighbourhood and might serve the cause of religion, the Attorney General has taught him what to do. He may be small parson but a man of a large mind, and his tithe may be £100 a year, but it may be collected from 20 closes. Under the advice of the Attorney General, and under the cover of a "very small" Bill passed this Session, he can bring 20 actions and run up a bill of costs, say, of £100 in order to punish the cantankerous Nonconformist for his conduct. The tenant farmers will be absolutely at the mercy of the tithe-owner, who may wreak his vindictiveness and spite upon them if he chooses. I have known such a spirit as that exhibited with respect to burial; vindictiveness is often carried to the grave. If the Attorney General is right the first thing to do is to introduce a clause to prevent the tithe-owner bringing as many actions as he chooses.

§ MR. T. ELLIS
I think the discussion on this Amendment has proved quite clearly our contention last night that it is useless to deal with this complicated question in this one-sided way. In the first place, you have to distort the whole question of County Court jurisdiction and run counter to the very principles you upheld in Committee upstairs last year. A man may be County Courted in respect of one close and distrained against in respect of another.

§ MR. ATHERLEY-JONES (Durham, N.W.)
The Attorney General has advanced the very best argument which could possibly be advanced in favour of this Amendment, because he has pointed out that in the event of the Amendment being carried an opportunity would be afforded in a case where tithe is apportioned to different closes of bringing an action in respect of each close. Again, let me ask what is the reason for imposing upon the County Court jurisdiction, which at present is very heavily burdened, other responsibility. The Attorney General felt the force of that objection, because he pointed out that an appeal would lie. 1179 But that suggestion is not a very satisfactory one, because the same observation might be made in the case of every proposition for extending the jurisdiction of the County Court.

§ COMMANDER BETHELL (York, E.R., Holderness)
If it will be possible for the titheowner to sue the tithe-payer in respect of different apportionments, I am bound to say I cannot support Her Majesty's Government. Whatever else may be said about it, the clause as it stands is open to abuse, though I cannot say that the thing is much improved by the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite. I shall vote for any Amendment that may obviate the particular objections advanced by the other side, and which have not been met by the Attorney General.

§ MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS
I think the Government is bound to give us some further explanation on this subject. We have it from the Attorney General that if the Bill passes as it stands it is possible for the tithe-owner to sue in respect of every apportionment or close. Before we go to a Division I should like to know whether the Government will introduce a proviso which will render it impossible for any tithe-owner to bring an action in respect of each parcel of land.

§ * SIR R. WEBSTER
The hon. and learned Member is anxious for some words to be inserted in order to prevent a wicked clergyman from bringing 50 actions where one would do. I will not form an opinion as to what the clergy are likely to do on the representations of the hon. Gentleman; but if any section of the Committee think it necessary to insert a proviso that only one action shall be brought in respect of several closes, I shall not have the slightest hesitation in accepting it.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
I think the statement of the Attorney General is perfectly satisfactory; but this only shows how useful these discussions are. We had these separate actions held out to us as a threat for an hour and a half, and it was not until representations came from behind the right hon. Gentleman as to the injurious consequences of this that an offer of concession is made. It is quite plain that the danger was infinitely great, and the candour of the Attorney General has revealed the magnitude of it to-night. We may 1180 accept what he has said, and I hope he will put into the Bill the security for which we contend.

MR. PHILIPPS (Lanark, Mid)
The Attorney General has said the accusation against the clergy of Wales came from this side; but he is mistaken, and, indeed, it was himself who suggested that the clergy might use this method of retaliation.

§ MR. THOMAS ELLIS (Merionethshire)
According to the present wording of this remarkable Bill, a new assumption is declared as to what the tithe rent-charge is. As I understand a tithe rent-charge, and as the definition is laid down in the Act of 1836, it is different in two or three important particulars from an ordinary rent-charge. But in the present Bill it seems to me that tithe rent charge is put in the same category as if it were identical with an ordinary rent-charge. But there are grave differences and distinctions which are recognised in the Act of 1836, and should be incorporated in this Bill. A rent charge, I assume, is a charge on the inheritance by the owner; in the second place, it is a fixed unvariable sum; and, thirdly, it is recoverable in default of payment if necessary by the sale of the land. A tithe rent-charge, on the other hand, is chargeable not on the land, but on the produce of the land; it is not a fixed charge; it varies from year to year; and thirdly, it is recoverable by distress or occupation of the land, and never by sale. But the wording of this Bill puts a new construction upon a tithe rent-charge, either through bad intention or bad draftmanship. In a case tried before the late Vice Chancellar Bacon, in 1885, and reported in the Law Reports, 30 Chancery Division, it has been laid down clearly that the owner of a tithe rent-charge is not entitled to a sale of the land for the purpose of recovering his rent-charge. The object of my Amendment is to make it plain in this new measure that that is the law, and to bring the Bill into conformity with the Act of 1836.

§ MR. MATTHEWS
I am really unable to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. The Bill speaks of a remedy in the County Court in order to recover tithe rent-charge. You are not bound to sue for the whole but can sue for part on account, or for the unpaid portion; and I really cannot see what is gained by this Amendment. If it has any effect at all, it seems to me to extend the remedy proposed in the Bill to something that is not actually tithe rent-charge, but is in the nature of a rent-charge. I do not think we gain anything by that, and I confess I do not appreciate the hon. Gentleman's object.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
I think the object of my hon. Friend is clear enough. The difficulty of the Home Secretary is that among his multifarious duties he is under the disadvantage of not having been able to understand the question of tithe or tithe rent-charge at all, and the consequence is that his Bill is drawn as I have said before, and may repeat it a thousand times, in absolute ignorance of the whole subject. The objection of my hon. Friend is this, that the Bill calls that a rent-charge which is not a rent-charge. It is not a rent-charge at all, nor was it so treated in the Act of 1836. The draftsman talks of "a tithe rent-charge charged upon the land." But there is no such thing existing in law, and to describe tithe rent-charge in that way is a mere ignorant blunder. That is not the language of the Act of 1836. It would almost be well to move to report Progress, in order to give the Home Secretary an opportunity of studying the matter for half an hour. He evidently has not the elementary conception of what is the nature of a tithe rent-charge. Tithe is not a rent-charge—that is the first proposition—nor in the ordinary sense is it a rent-charge upon the land, so the draftsman of the Bill has simply made a blunder. The Secretary to the Admiralty is amused; but I think that, probably, he knows more about navigation than of tithe rent-charge, and I will try to explain it to him. The authors of the Act of 1836 did know the nature of a tithe rent-charge, they were very careful not to call it a rent-charge charged upon the land, and the 1182 language they employed materially affects the whole question. They said it is in the nature of a rent-charge, but it is not a rent charge properly so called, it is not charged on the land, but it "issues out of the land charged therewith." These are very careful words; but the words in this Bill are the vulgar slip-slop of a man with vague and cloudy ideas of what tithe is and what rent-charge is; and all that my hon. Friend desires to do is to introduce the language used by the lawyers of 1836. It is not immaterial, because in the case quoted by my hon. Friend, the consequence of it being so described was that it was declared that a tithe rent-charge owner was not entitled to recover by sale of the land. But your new and clumsy phraseology would change the character of the law altogether. This vague slip-slop would effect a revolution in the character of this property, and you would make the land from which the tithe rent charge issues liable to sale for the recovery of the tithe rent-charge. What difficulty is there about accepting the language of the Act of 1836? Why not accept the Amendment taken textually from the Act of 1836? Surely it would be better to do so now than occupy two hours, and then ultimately accept it as you have done in regard to other Amendments.

§ MR. MATTHEWS
When the righ hon. Gentleman uses such expressions as "vulgar slip-slop," "ignorant blunders," and so on, one is tempted to apply the epithets to his own argument. He has had the courage to tell the Committee that the words in the Bill are not used in the Act of 1836, but when I turn to section 55 of that Act I find the expression "Tithe rent-charge charged on the several lands," &c., and again I find a like expression employed in the 58th Section. The draftsman of this Bill, then, has not blundered through ignorance; he has used the very language of the Act of 1836, and has displayed, I think, more knowledge of the Act than the right hon. Gentleman himself. I must say the Amendment appears to me to be perfectly idle and meaningless. I do not know to what it may be pointed, for the hon. Member's speech did not enlighten us. There can be no possibility of mistake as to the meaning and intention of the Bill, 1183 because Section 4 has a direct reference to the Act of 1836.

§ * MR. LLOYD MORGAN
I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that Section 71 of the Act of 1836 describes tithe in precisely the same language as that employed by my hon. Friend. If my hon. Friend's Amendment is rejected, then it comes to this, that by this section it goes forth that tithe rent-charge is a charge upon the land, and not upon the produce of the land. Now, it has already been pointed out, if the charge were upon the land the tithe owner would have a right to sell the land in respect to which his tithe was not paid. But as my hon. Friend has shown by reference to the decision of Vice Chancellor Bacon, in a case in which this very point was raised a few years ago, there is no such power of sale, because the charge is a charge on the produce of the land, and not on the land. I understood from that decision that it was perfectly clear what was the nature of the charge issuing out of the land. I imagined that the Government did not desire to make any alteration in the law further than to introduce a change in the manner of collecting tithe. It seems to me, however, that the Government are now attempting to make tithe a charge upon the land, and not, as it has hitherto been held to be by the Courts, a charge upon the produce of the land.

§ * SIR R. WEBSTER
I think it is scarcely fair for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby to speak of the draftsman of this Bill in the way he has done. The draftsman is a gentleman of great experience, and the right hon. Gentleman has himself taken advantage of his experience as often as anybody. There is not the slightest ground for the suggestion that these words will alter the law in any way, as the interpretation clause defines the tithe rent-charge as tithe rent-charge payable in pursuance of the Act of William IV., and in the Act of William IV. there are a series of charging sections which treat the rent-charge as being charged on the land. There is no question as to its being a charge on the land in a technical sense, and no one can contend that we alter the law. There is a whole series of sections in the Act of 1836 in which the words "charged upon the land" are used. In my judg- 1184 ment this is a simple and concise repetition of the Act of 1836. If it altered the law in any way, I would accent the Amendment, but I appeal to the House to let the words stand.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
The Attorney General admits that this is not a rent charge in the ordinary sense of the word. I admit that there are sections in the Act of 1836 in which it is spoken of as "rent charge charged on the land," but there is a larger description of it than that, and I should be content if the tithe rent charge were spoken of as "tithe rent-charge under the Act of 1836." If the words "charged on the land" remain there will be a danger of making the land liable to sale as in the case of an ordinary rent-charge. "Why will you not accept my proposal?

§ * SIR R. WEBSTER
We desire to meet the right hon. Gentleman as far as we can. We do not care at all for the word "charged," our impression being that this is a false point, and we are willing to accept the words "issuing out of the land."

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
I think it would be simpler to say "tithe rent-charge as hereinafter defined."

§ MR. MATTHEWS
I would point out that that will not do because the land must be specified. At present the distress can only be for the tithe on the land in which the rent-charge is charged, and in like manner the execution has to be confined to the particular close or farm on which the rent-charge is charged or out of which it issues.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
I have no objection to the words proposed to be substituted, but I would point out that in the definition clause the expression "tithe-rent charge" means tithe rent-charge payable in pursuance of the Act of 1836.

§ MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS
Why not specifically introduce the words of the Act of 1836? That would get rid of all the difficulty. It is obvious from this discussion that there is considerable ambiguity in the words originally proposed, and the Committee will agree that we cannot be too careful in drafting this new procedure.

§ MR. T. ELLIS
The Attorney General has said that tithe is a tithe rent-charge.

§ * SIR R. WEBSTER
So it is.

§ MR. T. ELLIS
It is not. The Homo Secretary has taunted us on this side with gross ignorance on this subject. I would ask him if he still holds that tithe is a rent-charge?

§ MR. MATTHEWS
What I said was that tithe rent charge is a rent-charge.

§ MR. T. ELLIS
That comes to the same thing. Tithe rent-charge is not a rent-charge.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
My hon. Friend's Amendment is practically accepted by the Government. They take the first words of his Amendment, and the other part of it is in the definition clause. They are willing to omit the words he objects to—namely, "charged on any lands."

§ MR. T. ELLIS
After it has been shown conclusively that tithe rent charge is not a rent-charge, I am willing to withdraw the Amendment, in order to accept the words the Government propose.

THE CHAIRMAN
The next Amendment is in the name of the hon. Member for the Maldon Division of Essex (Mr. C. Gray), and is follows:—Clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out "and," and insert— Shall not after the commencement of this Act distrain for the same in manner provided by the Act of the Session of the sixth and seventh years of the reign of King William the Fourth, chapter 71, intituled 'An Act for the Commutation of Tithes in England and Wales,' but in the case of any tithe rent-charge. This is clearly out of order, in view of the decision arrived at by the House last night.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
Are we to take it that by rejecting all the Instructions last night the Government have defeated the Amendments they themselves propose—that, for instance, of the Home Secretary in line 11, after "debt," to insert, "Provided that he shall not be entitled to distrain for any sum after he has sued for it under this section"?

THE CHAIRMAN
The matter is one of some intricacy, and when I first con- 1186 sidered it I felt very much in the position of the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Maldon wishes to do away with the power of distraint in all cases, substituting for it the process of recovery provided in the Bill; but the Home Secretary leaves the alternative methods of procedure open to the tithe owner, merely providing that, after the procedure in the Bill has been availed of, the old process of distraint shall not be adopted.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
In the Bill there are words which preserve the rights at present in operation, whilst they give County Court jurisdiction without prejudice to any other remedy. Is it not possible for us to strike out the words which preserve the existing rights?

§ * THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH, Strand, Westminster)
We propose to do so.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
The Amendments of the Home Secretary come to the same thing as that of the hon. Member for the Maldon Division.

THE CHAIRMAN
The Amendment of the hon. Member for the Maldon Division would deprive the tithe owner of the power of distraint—of the exercise of his volition in the matter. The scheme of the Government on the other hand leaves the tithe owner the power of distraint, unless he has resort to the course provided in the Bill, in which case he must abandon the alternative of distraint.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
Why is not such an Amendment as that of the hon. Member for the Maldon Division in order without an Instruction to the Committee? The Bill is one "To Amend the Law Relating to the Recovery of Tithe Rent-Charge," and why in connection with such a Bill is it not possible to introduce a clause abolishing the process of distraint? What reason can there be against it? Under the Bill the tithe owner gets a new remedy and can keep his old one. What is there to prevent anyone moving an Amendment to confine him to the new remedy?

THE CHAIRMAN
The tithe owner may take the new remedy, in which case he will abandon the old; he may elect. With respect to the question whether an Amendment of this kind can be moved without an Instruction, it 1187 is sufficient to say that to allow such an Amendment would be inconsisist with the decision arrived at on the Instruction of the hon. Member for the Maldon Division of Essex. It is within the power of the Committee to amend the process for the recovery of tithe rent-charge, but not to take away against the will of the tithe owner the remedy which he now has, without an Instruction from the House to that effect.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
There was no Instruction touching the question of distress moved last night, though there were Instructions as to the election of remedies. I submit that if the proposal of the Government is that the owner shall elect one of two processes, it is competent without Instruction for the Committee to reject one of them.

THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member moved an Instruction to the Committee yesterday to provide that the tithe rent-charge should be recoverable from the landlord only. That was rejected, the House holding that the tenant, from whose property on the land the tithe is recoverable by restraint, should remain liable. It seems to me, therefore, that the Amendment now proposed is not permissible unless authorised by the House.

§ * MR. C. GRAY
It will, perhaps, save the time of the Committee if I say that, even if my Amendment had not been ruled out of order, I should not have moved it, as I consider there is more to be gained by another Amendment dealing with the period of time—extending the one month to three months—which Amendment would be impossible if the power of distraint were done away with.

§ MR. BLANE (Armagh, S.)
I beg to move, in lines 6 and 7, to leave out "one month," and insert "three years." The history of the tithe in Ireland was well known, and the Irish Members are past masters in the art of abolishing the iniquity. If I may give a "griffin" to my Welsh friends, it would be "accumulate arrears." If the Irish landlord has to wait years for his rent, I see no reason why the English parson should not wait as long. It seems to me that the contention of Her Majesty's Government, that this tithe is a sort of national institution, will not hold water. In Wales we find a small minority exacting this 1188 tax from the majority, hence I think it reasonable that we should allow the tithes to run into arrears to as great an extent as possible. If you do not do that you will never have a remedy for the monstrous exactions on the people who do not believe in the Established Church. Accumulate arrears, otherwise Parliament will not come to the rescue; make this more or less a burning question. If my Amendment is accepted I think the-people will run into three years' arrears, and will avoid the hardships of having to pay this money year by year.

§ * MR. SEALE-HAYNE
I beg to move after the word "may" to insert the words "if the owner of such lands is not under covenant to pay the tithe rent charge." It would be hard on the tenant to be called upon to pay that which his landlord has covenanted to pay. The landlord may be impecunious and become a bankrupt or run away, or the tenancy being near its termination he may be unable to recover from future rent any payment for which he has been sued by the titheowner, and I desire to avoid the necessity of compelling the tenant under such circumstances to pay twice over. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment.

§ MR. MATTHEWS
The hon. Member will see on a moment's reflection that the liability of the landlord to the tenant cannot affect the rights of a third party, the tithe 1189 owner. If the tenant wishes to avoid a distress at present he has to pay. The only remedy the tithe owner has is to go to the occupier and, if he does not pay, to distrain. No doubt there is some hardship in it in cases where the landlord has covenanted to pay, but the occupier has been fixed upon as the person liable to pay for the sake of convenience, as it is sometimes next to impossible to find the owner. The occupier, of course, will not suffer, as he can deduct the tithe from the rent.

§ * MR. SEALE-HAYNE
The landlord may receive the money from the tenant and may not pay it to the tithe owner.

§ MR. MATTHEWS
The landlord where he has covenanted to pay will do so, otherwise the amount will be deducted from the rent.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
As long as the money is obtained by distress it can be paid only out of the produce of the land; but the Bill now substitutes another remedy. It is said that the tithe is to be stopped out of the rent; but the right hon. Gentleman has never met the point which you, Mr. Courtney, raised on the first night of the Debate, that the rent may not amount to so much as the tithe, or the produce of the land may not be sufficient to pay either the tithe or the rent. It is quite plain that the tenant will be deprived of the security he now has where the produce of the land will not yield the sum claimed.

§ MR. MATTHEWS
The right hon. Gentleman does not allow for the effect of the sub-section of the clause providing that the judgment recovered may be executed against all personal property on which a distress for the sum can at the date of the execution be levied, and shall not be executed in any other manner. These words restrict the execution to precisely the property on which a distress can now be levied; and the Bill does not provide a personal remedy in the old sense of the word. The exceptional cases in which the rent is less than the tithe, or the property less than both, will stand in the same position as now. Where, then, is the hardship? I believe it is true that in some parts of Sussex the tithe exceeds the rent. In that case, says the right hon. Gentleman, you cannot recover. That is quite true, but neither can you now. The tenant would clearly nave an action 1190 against his landlord if he were distrained upon under such circumstances. It seems to me, therefore, that the clause inflicts no hardship and no injustice.

§ MR. T. ELLIS
I am surprised that the Government are not willing to accept this Amendment. It is aimed at placing the cultivators of the soil in something like an equitable position. The Home Secretary says the provision of the Bill imposes a certain amount of hardship on the tenants. I beg to point out that you are placing a monstrous and intolerable hardship on a large number of the cultivators of the soil. It has been pointed out repeatedly that if this is a debt it is a debt from the landowner. According to the great national contract of 1836 the tithe rent-charge was to be paid by the landowner. So far so good. Not only was that so, but Lord Salisbury in the House of Lords and in declarations made all over the country said that hitherto the tenant had been placed under the inconvenience of having to pay a debt which was not his own debt. It was, he said, the debt of the landlord, and the landlord should pay it. Here is a case in which the landlord is not merely the debtor under the Act of 1836, but has entered into a contract with his tenant that he will pay the debt. When a tenant now refuses to pay the tithe, which is not his own debt, what do you on the other side of the House call him? You call him dishonest, and a Bishop of your own Church, the Bishop of Llandaff, says— It is abominable dishonesty; it is comparable to the act of a man who takes money from his landlord's pocket. Because the tenant does not pay the debt of the landlord, that is how he is spoken of. Now, in this case the landlord solemnly covenants to pay the debt, and yet when my hon. Friend asks that the tenant shall not be distrained upon, the Government say they cannot accept the Amendment. Let me tell the Committee what may occur under this Bill. During the last four or five years agricultural distress has hit the agriculturists of Wales as hard as if not harder than any agriculturists in this country. They 1191 have been able to bear up better than might have been expected, because they live almost indescribably hard and thrifty lives. They have been able to keep their homes together and to keep on their farms owing to a life of very severe thrift and great sacrifice, and by denying themselves not merely the luxuries, but the very necessaries of life. What is the result? In scores of cases when the tithe becomes due they are unable to pay it not merely out of the earnings of the year, but out of the accumulations of many years of thrift, and they have to borrow the money in order to pay the rent, which sometimes includes tithe. On the 1st of June they go to the landlord's office and pay over the rent plus the tithe. The very next week they may receive a note stating that the landlord has not paid his tithe, and that the tenant must therefore pay it. Unless under these circumstances the tenant does pay he has to face either distress or the County Court. But the Home Secretary says he has his remedy, because at the next rent day, some time in November, he can deduct the amount from the rent. The Home Secretary says he has an action. What a mockery to say that a yearly tenant can have an action against the landlord—the yearly tenant who can be turned from his home, and in many cases, has been because he has shot a rabbit or because he goes to a Nonconformist Chapel on Sunday. This is what is offered to the tenants in Wales and in England as compensation for the introduction of this wretched, monstrous, and preposterous Bill, every clause of which brings out some new iniquity or some shameful mistake in drafting or some shameful ignorance on the part of those in charge of it.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
I really do hope the Government will give way on this Amendment, because the clause is so unjust and so gross that if they do not we must go on discussing it until midnight or mid-day to-morrow. You are providing a means by which the tenants of England and Wales can be compelled to pay tithes. The Home Secretary says that if the tenant is such a weak and foolish man as to pay the tithe to the landlord he deserves all he can get. He is very ignorant, and this is not merely the commonest transaction in the world, but a transaction which 1192 the Act of 1836 contemplated, because the rent was to be inclusive of the tithe. It is only by that unfortunate system by which the landowners of England have always endeavoured to defeat every legislative provision in favour of the tenants that it has ever been otherwise. The Act of 1836 intended that the landowners should pay the tithe. The landowners of England combined to agree that they should not pay the tithe but should make the tenant pay it. That is exactly what happened in 1875, when the Legislature determined that the landowners should pay for the improvements of their tenants, and they instantly combined to contract themselves and to "notice" their tenants out of the Act. That is what the landowners have always done. They have always entered into conspiracies to defeat every arrangement of the Legislature in favour of the tenants. The hon. Member for Sussex (Sir W. Barttelot) said the other day that on the greater number of his farms the tenants paid the rent. Under these circumstances, the tenant does pay the tithe to the landlord, because in the rent he pays the tithe. Having paid the tithe in the rent to the landlord, on the understanding that the landlord should pay the tithe, what happens if the landlord becomes insolvent? The tenant then has to pay the tithe twice over. And then you offer him an action against an insolvent landlord. It is against compelling the tenant to pay the tithe twice over that this Amendment is aimed. Can anything be more simple? What is the use of the Government fighting us hour after hour on this point? Surely they must see that their opposition to the Amendment cannot be justified to their constituents. I cannot believe that the tenants and their supporters can refuse to give to the tenantry of England a protection of this kind, to which they are so plainly entitled.

§ * MR. STUART RENDEL
I hope this Amendment will receive some attention from the Government, because it aims at an injustice which lies at the bottom of our objection to this Bill. The tithe which is properly a lien on the land has been made by the Act of 1836 a debt recoverable on the produce of the land in the possession of the occupier. That is a very great hardship on the occupier, but I suppose it was brought about by the 1193 difficulty of finding any other corpus against which a remedy could possibly be sought. The Government now make an excuse of the existence of that hardship for the creation of a new grievance of a very much graver character. They propose to turn the tithe into a personal debt against the occupier. Surely that is an extraordinary hardship and a great grievance. But now it appears that that grievance is to be placed on the occupier, even in cases where the landlord has contracted with the occupier that he will pay the tithe. I submit that that is a monstrous aggravation of the injustice. I do not think it has yet been observed that there is a positive advantage to the landowner in inducing the tenant to pay the tithe in reference to abatements of rent called for by the feeling of the country generally. If it is the habit in the district for the landlord to abate 10 or 15 per cent of the rent, the landlord who does not pay the tithe gives 10 or 15 per cent on less than the true rent, and on a smaller sum than the landlord who pays the tithe, and there are probably many clever landlords who expressly pay the tithes in order that they may be generous at a cheap rate. I have known a large landowner admit that that was the cause of the custom of payment of tithe by the tenant on his own estate. It does seem a most unreasonable thing to urge that men whose landlords have actually covenanted to pay the tithe should be compelled to pay it themselves.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
I only wish to appeal to the sense of justice of Gentlemen opposite who are favourable to this Bill in reference to this Amendment. Just let us see what is the case the Government have made for the Bill. The Attorney General and the Home Secretary say the Bill is brought in to deal with the cases of tenants who can pay and will not pay, and that we need a speedy and easy mode of recovering the tithe rent-charge from tenants who are liable under their agreements to pay the tithe, and who, having the means to pay, will not pay. That is the point of view of the Government. I am not going to argue now whether they are right or wrong. We say that, admitting the grievance and the remedy, there is another class of tenants who have contracts with their landlords, under which the latter have 1194 covenanted to pay the tithe. Are they to be subjected to this exceptional mode of recovery in order that the landlords may recover through them? I do appeal to the sense of justice of hon. Gentlemen opposite whether it is not a monstrous thing to put on the tenants a special liability for that which the landlord has covenanted to pay. Let me quote the words of Lord Salisbury upon this very point. Speaking upon the Bill which the Government introduced two years ago the Prime Minister said the object of the Bill Is to relieve both the tithe owner and the farmer from grievances under which they at present suffer—the tithe owner that he has to recover a tithe from the person who does not owe it, and the farmer from the grievance that, though he does not really owe, it he is called upon to it. I am aware that the farmer is put into that position by his own act—by an agreement made with his landlord—but the inconvenience of the process is unquestionably very great, because all variations in the amount of tithe fall upon the farmer, and are felt by him in bad times, causing much exasperation, owing to the farmer having lo bear the brunt of the payment at a time when he can least afford it, and leaving him subject, if he does not pay it, to a process—that of distraint—which we know from experience is singularly calculated to excite popular feeling. ֵ There can be no doubt that it is the land, and the land only, that is liable for the tithe. The occupier never has been, and is not now, by law liable. What, is liable is the gross produce of the land. If the land yields no produce then there is no tithe due. That has been the case hitherto, and that will still be the case under this Bill. Though the Bill makes the landowner liable for the tithe, it really only provides a change of procedure, substituting the simpler procedure of the County Court in the place of the ancient and exasperating procedure of distraint. What was Lord Salisbury's principle? It was that it was altogether a mistake to make the occupier liable in any sense of the word, that the owner was the man liable, and that even if the occupier had entered into a contract the inconvenience was so great that the Legislature was bound to step in and deal with it. The Government now ask that where the landlord has agreed to meet what was his original obligation, but refuses or neglects to do so, the tenant is to be made liable, is to be County Courted, is to be distrained upon; and the Home Secretary, in his light and airy way, tells us that the tenant tan bring an action for the recovery of the sum of money he has been most unfairly compelled to pay. 1195 I put it to hon. Gentlemen whether, as a matter of simple justice between landlord and tenant, they ought not to accept this Amendment?

§ * SIR R. WEBSTER
Judging from the way in which some of my observations have been received, I am afraid it is not much good making any distinct statement in this matter. All I can say is that if the injustice suggested by the right hon. Gentleman were brought home to my mind, I should be one of the first to vote for the Amendment; but it is because the right hon. Gentleman has, unintentionally of course, lost sight of the real position, that he has failed to see that injustice does not exist. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that the tithe receiver has no remedy against the owner of land. Whether or not an Act should be passed to alter the state of things is another matter; but at the present time, as the law now stands, as the law will stand after this Bill is passed, the tithe receiver has no remedy against the owner at all. We must bear that fact in mind. Our view is that we ought to get rid of the exasperating remedy by distraint. We may be right or wrong, but, as Lord Salisbury said, we think a great deal of those troubles have come about because of the method in which tithe is to be recoverable. The process of distress, whether it be for rent or tithe, often has produced, trouble, disturbance and turmoil in the districts in which it is resorted to, and therefore we are providing an alternative remedy. The right hon. Gentleman says we ought to provide that alternative remedy in cases where the landlord has covenanted to pay the tithe. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman applies to the law as it stands now. Where the tenant has paid what is called a higher rent, the tithe receiver has no alternative; he must distrain, he must go against the occupier as the law now stands. What we want is to induce people to resort to the County Court remedy, and not to the remedy by distress. The tithe receiver knows nothing about the covenants between the owners and the occupiers. The title receiver cannot tell whether the tenant is paying a rent whereby he is to pay tithe or not. [Mr. SEALE-HAYNE: He knows it by the agreements.] He cannot know it before he takes proceedings; he cannot tell 1196 whether the rent is one inclusive or exclusive of tithe. But whether the tenant is to pay the tithe or not, the only remedy the tithe receiver has got is to go against the occupier. We may be wrong, but we believe the alternative remedy suggested will remove the cause of disturbance in many cases. Why should we not be allowed to provide a resort to that which we believe will have a salutary effect? If we were to increase the burden on the occupier by a single fraction, I admit the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton would be right, but they will recollect that by Section 2 of Clause 1 the tithe receiver is only to be allowed to levy by execution on the same goods and under the same circumstances as the distress would be levied. I respectfully urge there is no reason for excluding from the operation of the Bill the particular case in which the tenant has got a remedy against the landlord.

§ MR. H. GARDNER
I am one of the last to wish to believe that Her Majesty's Government are anxious to stereotype injustice, but I am drawn against my will to say they are doing so. The Attorney General has admitted there is injustice under the existing state of circumstances. He has pointed to it as a matter which ought to be remedied, and yet in this Bill he stereotypes the very thing he admits to be an injustice. You have disturbed the settlement of 1836, and you are not ready to face the consequences. The Attorney General tells us the occupier has the remedy against the landlord of bringing an action. What is the reason for recovering from the owner, and through the occupier? One hon. Gentleman assigns as a reason, that the landlord is often a very mysterious person, whom it is difficult to get at. If such is the case, how is the poor tenant to fare? The Government have brought forward this measure in the interest of the tithe owner, and they will do nothing in the interest of the tithe payer.

§ MR. AMBROSE (Middlesex, Harrow)
It is quite clear that the tithe-owner may have great difficulty in knowing who the owner of the property is. In the case of the income tax the occupier is made the payer, because the Government has no means of knowing 1197 who is the actual owner. When a man makes a contract he knows with whom he is dealing. The tenant knows with whom he is dealing, but the tithe receiver does not of necessity know who the landowner is. I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton with regard to the stereotyping of injustice in this case. When the landlord and tenant agree that the landlord is to pay the tithe the tenant knows that he is primarily liable. He is liable to have his goods seized by way of distress. A jeweller whose shop is liable to tithe is liable to have every article of jewelry swept away. It is an entire mistake to suppose that the tithe rent-charge is only issuable from the produce of the land. The tithe rent-charge actually issues from the land, but every particle of property belonging to the tenant is liable to be seized.

§ MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS
I was very much puzzled by the reply of the Attorney General to the strong appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. H. Fowler). The hon. and learned Gentleman says the law as it at present stands gives the tithe owner no remedy against the landowner. I turn to the Bill which Lord Salisbury spoke of in the speech which has been quoted, and I present the Attorney General with the easiest way out of the difficulty. In the Bill introduced by the Government two years ago I find that in the first instance the landowner was to become primarily and only liable for the tithe. All the problems about the tithe rent-charge issuing out of the land and the produce of the land fall to the ground in face of the very measure which the Government brought in last Session. You only want to adopt a part of the clause of last year, and you get out of the difficulty at once. The words of last year's Bill are— After the commencement of this Act any owner for the time being of such land who has agreed to pay the tithe shall be liable to pay such rent-charge and all arrears thereon upon being due, and the same may be recoverable in the manner provided by this Act. There you have an alternative remedy.

MR. A. STAVELEY HILL
The difficulty which arises here is that which would have arisen on an Amendment further down—namely, 1198 who is to be the person primarily liable, the occupier or the owner? Some of us have thought that, under all circumstances, the owner was the person to be held liable, and, above all things, that he should be liable under the circumstances stated in this Bill. It is said by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Ambrose) that there is some difficulty in finding who is the owner of the land. To my utter surprise I heard that statement cheered by the Leader of the House and the Home Secretary. If they will go into their own parishes and look at the rate books they will find there is nothing more certain than who is the owner of the land. The occupation of the land is sometimes uncertain, but the owner of the land is easily discoverable. Now, who should be liable, and should an agreement between the landlord and tenant be taken notice of? It is said that an agreement has been made between the landlord and tenant of which the tithe owner cannot know. If you are to take advantage of an agreement which makes the tenant liable, why not take advantage of an agreement which makes the owner liable? The landowner is the person who is properly liable.

§ MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN
The Attorney General confesses thero is a gross injustice. Yet he says he is powerless to remedy it. It is said that the landlords will not benefit by this Bill, and I do not know that any class will particularly, and if this Amendment is rejected I fully expect that in county constituencies we shall have a walk-over at the next General Election. I cannot imagine any agricultural voter supporting the Attorney General. But I prefer to support the Amendment simply on the grounds of justice. The Amendment deals simply with the cases of landowners under covenant to pay the tithe rent charge. No doubt, in the first instance, the tenant will be liable for judgment and execution, and you have given him the remedy of action against the landlord. But supposing the landlord is abroad or that he is insolvent, how is he to get back the money he has wrongly paid? It seems to me you put the tenant under the harrow first and then you leave him to chance for his remedy. The argument that the landlord may not be known has, of course, 1199 been disposed of by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. Of course, the landlord will be known. I think the Amendment is simply justice.

§ * MR. GEDGE (Stockport)
I agree that it is against the owner and not the occupier of the land that the primary remedy should lie when tithe rent-charge is not paid, and I hope a number of the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken in support of that view will support me when we come to the point at which I shall propose to substitute owner for occupier, which will give the opportunity of applying the remedy where it ought to be applied. But for all that I cannot support the Amendment before us, and I will explain why. The Amendment is to this effect, that if there be a contract between occupier and owner, whereby the owner is to pay the tithe rent-charge, then the tithe-owner is to be deprived not of all remedy against the occupier, but only of the particular remedy in this Bill. The hon. Member does not propose to take away from the tithe owner the power of distraint upon the goods of the occupier, if there be such a contract between him and the landowner as is contemplated in the Amendment. That remedy would remain, and the only difference acceptance of this Amendment would make would be that the tithe owner, driven from this remedy, would be obliged to have recourse to distress against the tenant, and so practically this Amendment would give the contracting tenant no protection at all. There is this further hardship to the tithe owner, that he might not be able to find out whether such a contract existed until the defence was put in to his action, and he would then be mulcted in the costs. Of course the practical difficulty about the owner is not to find out who he is, but where he is. You may, as my hon. and learned Friend says, readily find out who the landowner is, but the difficulty is to find out where he is. It may be difficult to sue him, but really this question does not arise. It is not necessary for the occupier who pays under pressure tithe rent-charge, which the landlord has contracted to pay to sue the landlord, because he can deduct the amount from the next rent due, and so the occupier will have no grievance. 1200 I think I have shown the Amendment will not have the effect which is desired. That effect, however, will be gained by the Amendment of which I have given notice, and consequently I look forward to carrying that by a considerable majority.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
The Attorney General has alluded to an action against the owner, but that does not arise. The point really is, addressing myself to the Attorney General's argument, if this remedy which the Government propose was to be an absolutely substituted remedy there would be no alternative, and then, I admit, the Attorney General's argument would be a very difficult one to answer, but the case is this: the Government leave the old remedy precisely as it was, but this gives an additional and alternative remedy against this improper proceeding of tenants whom the tithe owner waits to punish. The Attorney General admits there is an injustice in the present arrangement, and he charges us with wishing to stereotype it, but that we do not wish to do. What we propose is that the present arrangement should rem in as it is, that the produce of the land only should be liable, and that the tenant should be liable to distress in respect to that produce, and that that should be the only remedy the tithe owner should have against a tenant in the event of the tenant being under contract with his landlord not to pay tithe. The hon. and learned Member for Harrow (Mr. Ambrose) assumes that the occupier is personally liable, but there is no provision in the law as to personal liability in respect to tithe-charge. The landlord is not liable, the tenant is not liable, there is no person in existence at the present moment who is liable. Now, the Government say we are going to make the tenant liable to be sued, and assuming that that is-necessary, we say, do not extend that liability to those cases where the landlord has contracted to pay the tithe rent-charge. That is the point, and a good deal that has been said is beside the mark. As to finding the landlord, the tithe owner cannot do so now, nor can he touch the tenant, all that he can touch is the produce of the-land, and we do not wish to interfere with that arrangement, we would have 1201 it remain as it is, the hay, the corn, the produce of the land being liable for the payment of tithe. When you enable these tithe-owners to put the occupier into the County Court, you give him the power of imposing upon the occupier the additional penalty of costs, no in-considerable item. The Attorney General says how is the tithe owner to know of the existence of the contract, and, of course, he would not know if the contract were a secret one, but I say that does not touch the case. If it was to be the only remedy, then the Attorney General's argument would be sound; but we do not interfere with the remedy existing, and there is always the produce upon which the tithe-owner can distrain. There is an alternative remedy, and what we say is let the status quo be preserved, do not make the occupier liable to twice payment of the tithe, plus the cost of the County Court proceedings.

§ * MR. H. R. FARQUHARSON (Dorset, W.)
We are told that the tenant can withhold the amount of the tithe from his rent; but may I ask what is to happen when the tenant's rent does not equal the amount of the tithe? It is not an impossible case, there are many acres in Wilts and Hants, and, I think, in Dorset also where the rent is less than the tithe. I certainly think the tenant farmer, under this Bill, may find himself in the position of being compelled to meet a demand for tithes, for which, owing to the smallness of his rent, he might not be able sufficiently to recoup himself.

§ MR. HALLEY STEWART (Lincolnshire, Spalding)
The question of the ton. Member who has just sat down will be of even greater importance if the Committee will remember that in addition to the tithe itself there will be the County Court costs. I am not quite sure whether the latter could be recovered from the landlord. The question is, where there is a covenant between landlord and tenant by which the landlord is to pay the tithe and does not do so, can the tenant recover both tithe and costs? It seems to me there is a considerable lapsus that may involve the tenant in serious responsibility. There are lands just within the verge of cultivation to which the question of tithe is just that which will decide whether the 1202 land shall go out of cultivation, and this, therefore, is a serious question from the producer's point of view. I am sure there is not a Member on this side who did not feel confident that the Government would accept this Amendment. What has become of all the Government promises, to look at this from the tenant's point of view, and that some part of the obligation should rest upon the landlord? I take last night's Division List as showing that the sense of the House is in favour of making this a landlord's charge instead of a tenant's charge, and this should make it obligatory upon, the Government to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend. It is a fact that ought to be stated that we should have been in a majority last night but that five of our Members were in prison.

§ MR. HANDEL COSSHAM
We are losing sight of the essential point. It is admitted on both sides that the landlord is chiefly liable, and the whole of the talk seems to me to get him out of his liability and to put that liability upon some one else; but let us go straight to the point, if the landlord is liable let that be distinctly laid down. The landlord ought to be liable, and to be prohibited from contracting himself out of the liability, as employers are prohibited from contracting themselves out of the Employers Liability Act.

§ MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON
There appears to be some confusion in the minds of some hon. Members as to who is liable for the tithe rent-charge by law, but there is no doubt whatever that the occupier is the person liable for tithe rent-charge all over England, and upon the occupier only can the tithe owner come. [Cries of "No!"] And not only can the tithe rent-charge owner come upon the occupier for the produce of the land, he can come upon his personal property, his house or other property upon the land; even a railway station and its plant may be liable on tithe paying land.

MR. A. STAVELEY HILL
There there is a special Act.

§ MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON
My hon. Friend interrupts me, but I think my knowledge of the law on this subject is equal to his. From the occupier 1203 alone is the tithe rent-charge owner able to recover his debt; and as for the landlord contracting to pay the tithe rent-charge, why such a thing cannot exist. The landlord can never contract to pay the tithe rent-charge. The only mode in which the landlord may become liable fur the tithe rent-charge is by the tenant contracting with him that he will not deduct the tithe rent-charge which he pays from the rent; that is the only way in which the landlord becomes liable—by the deduction which the tenant by law is able to make from his rent for tithe rent-charge. Hon. Members seem to think that is an injustice, but it is in precisely the same position as the property tax. This cannot be levied on the owners, it can only be levied on the occupiers, and the occupiers have by law the right to deduct that income tax from the rent they pay their landlords. It is evident that it is impossible to get hold of and claim this from the landlord; he may live abroad, in France or in Australia; you can only come down upon the occupier and give him the right of deduction from the rent.

MR. A. STAVELEY HILL
Just a word in reply to my hon. Friend and his reference to railway stations and engines being liable to tithe rent-charge. I may inform my hon. Friend that this question of railway stations is dealt with by special Act of Parliament.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
The speech of the hon. Member opposite shows how necessary it is to continue these Debates. That a County Member who sets up as a great authority on the tithe question and writes letters to the Times should say that the occupier is liable shows such a condition of Cimmerian darkness that we must continue the process of education. The hon. Member is entirely mistaken. Not merely is the occupier not liable, but it is part of the contract—it is expressly provided in the Act of 1836—that he shall not be liable. The words of the Act are— Provided always that nothing herein contained shall be taken to render any person whomsoever personally liable to the payment of any such rent-charge.

§ MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON
But his goods are liable.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
That is not the same thing. That the hon. Member 1204 should fail to perceive this distinction between goods and occupier shows that he does not apprehend the very elements of the question. The hon. Member for Dorsetshire has appealed to the Government to give some satisfaction on this point. Suppose the tithe rent-charge should be greater than the produce of the land itself—which, notwithstanding what the Home Secretary has said, is a very ordinary occurrence—if the hon. Member were right the tenant would still have to pay it. The tenant in some cases pays the tithe in his rent to the landlord. Having paid it once he may be called upon to pay it over again. That is a grievous injustice, and I cannot understand how the Government can persist in refusing in some way to remedy it.

§ MR. MATTHEWS
I cannot complain of the right hon. Gentleman urging his arguments; but I am afraid I can only give the same answer again. The right hon. Gentleman asks why the Government commit the injustice of making the tenant pay the tithe? He now says that probably the tenant pays a rent in which the tithe is included, which covers the tithe. What happens to the tenant now?

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
No doubt there is some sort of grievance arises now, but in making a new arrangement I say you ought to remedy this. It is no answer to say what is the course pursued now, because the Bill gives a new remedy, and, in giving it, we ought to protect the tenant from injustice.

§ MR. MATTHEWS
I do not admit that this is a new remedy which alters the incidence of the charge. I say that at the present moment, whatever rent the tenant pays, and whatever covenant the landlord has entered into, the law, for reasons of general convenience, in spite of the particular hardship, is that the goods of that tenant on the titheable lands are liable to be seized in the first instance. We do not enlarge that liability by one hair's breadth. We say these very same goods on these very same titheable lands shall still be liable to be seized, and none else; the only difference is that they will be seized by the County Court bailiff, and not by the private bailiff. There is no reason for upsetting what is, on the whole, a convenient arrangement, which the expe- 1205 ience of 50 years has shown to be the only one possible, and which is adopted for income tax as well as for tithe rent-charge. The Bill renders the same goods of the occupier liable to be seized under the same circumstances.

§ MR. H. GARDNER
But not under the same covenant.

§ MR. MATTHEWS
The covenant has nothing to do with it. But I am assuming the same covenant, and that the landlord has covenanted to pay the tithe. If the Bill does not pass, the distrainable goods of the tenant upon titheable lands are liable to be seized, notwithstanding the covenant. The Bill says the very same goods on the same titheable lands shall also be liable to be seized, notwithstanding the covenant. To talk about that being a disturbance of the settlement of 1836 may do for a platform, but hardly for the House of Commons.

§ MR. H. GARDNER
This is a most important matter. The right hon. Gentleman does not recognise the principle of his own Bill, and when he says that we are only going to do the same thing that was done in 1836 he forgets that under the Bill the tithe-payer can be County Courted, and that there will be costs against the defendant. That presents a very different state of affairs to that which existed under the Act of 1836. We are merely asking the Government to do an act of justice in asking them to allow the tenant who is to deduct the tithe from his rent also to deduct the costs of the County Court proceedings from his rent. If they do not agree to that it will be an injustice to the tenant, the landlord having covenanted to pay the tithe. I can assure the Government this Amendment will make the Bill work easier, and I would strongly urge them to accept it.

§ MR. MATTHEWS
The hon. Member is perfectly aware that the cost of the distress can be deducted at present.

§ MR. H. GARDNER
Yes; half-a-crown.

§ MR. MATTHEWS
No; the cost of the levying by a man in possession. ["No, no!"] The costs of the levy under a distress are as great as they would be under the County Court. No doubt the preliminary costs under the County Court process would be heavier; but the point is this—the tenant now cannot deduct the costs of distraint, because 1206 it is his own fault if they are incurred.

§ * MR. GRAY
I cannot agree with the Home Secretary. Tithe is not on all fours with Income Tax, which bears a much smaller proportion to the rent. In many cases tithe is more than the rent. It is not the tenant-farmers who ask for this legislation; it is being forced upon them; and they have a right to ask that if a change is made they shall not be allowed to suffer. Take a case of this kind: a landlord has a farm on his hands; the man who has given it up has been struggling with adversity and has got the farm into a bad condition; the landlord goes to another farmer whom he knows, and in whom he has confidence, and says—"I cannot farm this land; I have not the means to spare; you must take it under easy terms;" and perhaps a bargain is agreed upon, whereby the farmer takes the land for the first year, rent free, the second year at 2s. 6d. an acre, and the third year at 5s. Under those circumstances, where the rent for the first year is absolutely nothing, how can you provide that the tenant can deduct the tithe he pays from the rent?

MR. SWETENHAM&c) (Carnarvon,
I wish to see the saddle put upon the right horse and the owner made liable permanently; but I cannot accept this Amendment, because, if the goods of the occupier are not to be distrained upon when the owner is under a covenant to pay tithe, the tithe-owner will have no remedy at all. He cannot sue the owner of the land, because under the Act of William IV. no one is to be made personally liable. The Amendment does not give power to the titheowner to sue the landlord as if it were a personal debt.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
It leaves the right of distraint.

§ MR. SWETENHAM
That is true, but I am now dealing with the effect of the Amendment. I say it cannot be supported, because it would leave the tithe-owner without a remedy in a case where the landowner had covenanted to pay the tithe.

§ * MR. STUART RENDEL
From a Welsh point of view this question of costs is an important one. We regard this as a penal measure. Although hon. Members opposite may consider 1207 that our grievance is purely a sentimental one, we have a practical grievance, which is that the County Court may be made a vehicle for piling up costs against us. At present it is comparatively easy to make a certain amount of peaceful and orderly resistance, within the law, to the payment of tithe. That resistance is easy and economical—economical, because though the occupier was made liable to distress, he had the security in the Act of 1836 that the costs would only be of a moderate amount. It is a distinct breach of the contract of 1836 to come forward now and pile up costs against the occupier. At present in Wales it is not difficult to organise a sort of campaign against tithe. Personally, I have no sympathy in that.

THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member, I think, has lost sight of the Amendment.

§ * MR. STUART RENDEL
I am sorry if I have done that. "What I wish to point out is, that through the imposition of these costs it may possibly be made more difficult to carry on anything like a campaign, but that the mischief will only be driven underground.

THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order!

MR. PHILIPPS
Hon. Members who support the Government seem to rely very much on the fact that the tenant who has to pay the tithe will be able to recoup himself by deducting what he pays from the rent. But do they know that in a large part of the country the tithe is more than the rent? I can say from my knowledge of the Wiltshire Downs that there are many thousands of acres of land there on which the tithe is double the rent. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would have been able to corroborate that. I fancy there is a good deal of land in Hampshire of which the same may be said, and I would appeal to the hon. Member opposite, who represents some portion of that county. I forget what Division he represents, but I refer to the hon. Member, who always speaks against the Bill and votes for it, to say whether my statement is not correct. In these cases the tenant cannot possibly recoup himself by deducting the tithe from the rent, because there is no rent, or very little rent. That is what makes 1208 this Amendment a remedy for a very practical grievance.

§ * MR. WINTERBOTHAM
By the Bill as it at present stands the tenant farmer is not only put in the position that he will have to pay a debt which the law declares to be the debt of his landlord, but if the claim happens to come at a time when it is not convenient to meet it, in one month he will have to pay with County Court costs which will not be recoverable. And he will have to do something else—having paid his landlord's debt he will have to wait until he can get the money back from the landlord. The tenant farmers are many of them very poor, having passed through bad times, and it may happen to be a very serious thing for them to have to pay this debt and wait two, three, four, or perhaps six months until the rent day comes round, and they can deduct the tithe from the rent. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who represent agricultural constituencies, appear to be becoming pretty well agreed that in principle the burden ought to be removed from the occupier and placed on the shoulders of the owner of the land. When the proper time comes I hope we shall have a satisfactory Division to affirm that principle; but it does seem to me strange that these very same hon. Gentlemen, who have over and over again in the course of their speeches given their assent to the principle, should resist an Amendment which only goes half as far.

§ MR. WADDY (Lincolnshire, Brigg)
As representing a division of a county in which the burden of these tithes is felt as much as anywhere else I desire to point out what I believe to be another difficulty. According to the law at present the remedy of distraint is a remedy upon the goods or property upon the particular land in respect of which the rent-charge is claimed; but construing this section with the next, a County Court judgment under this Bill will not be limited to any particular property at any particular place.

§ MR. MATTHEWS
Yes, it will.

§ MR. WADDY
All I can say is I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman in that, and I have read the Bill as carefully as possible. Of course, i£ it is intended to limit the judgment, I 1209 am satisfied; but it seems to me that any of the personal property of the occupier may be affected by the judgment.

§ MR. MATTHEWS
Any of the property on which now there can be a distraint.

§ MR. WADDY
A man may have property in parish "A" and property in parish "B," and the judgment could be applied to either. ["No, no!"] Yes; the right hon. Gentleman will see that that is so if he looks carefully at the Bill. There is nothing to limit the distress.

§ * MR. GEDGE
I would point out that according to the Act of 1836, if several sums are due from the same occupier in respect of different closes held under the same owner the distress may be levied on all these sums put together on all the closes, and this Bill leaves the matter precisely as before.

§ * MR. SEALE-HAYNE
I regret that after the Home Secretary's admission, that a serious grievance was possible under the clause as it stands, the Government refuse to accept this Amendment Before going to a Division I desire to warn hon. Gentlemen opposite to think well what they are about to vote for—it is for setting up under the provisions of this Bill the possibility of the tithe-payer having to pay tithe rent charge twice over. This would be a gross injustice to tenant farmers, and it is a pity the Government have made no effort to meet the present proposed Amendment of this Bill, which is a Bill for the purpose of "remedying the law," and not of setting up an injury.

§ MR. P. MORGAN (Merthyr Tydvil)
I think this is a fair Amendment. The landlord should not be relieved from the covenant he has entered into, although the Government, in refusing the Amendment, seem to desire that he should. I have been for the past two days exercising my mind to discover what object the Government can have in pushing on this measure. As was said on the Second Reading—

THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is not entitled to repeat a Second Reading speech.

§ MR. P. MORGAN
The Attorney General said he preferred the County Court remedy to the remedy of distress. I desire to point out why, in my opinion, 1210 the hon. and learned Gentleman prefers the one remedy to the other.

THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member must keep to the Amendment.

§ MR. P. MORGAN
I will only say that the Government can have no other object in refusing to entertain the Amendment than this—that they wish to relieve the landlord from a covenant which he has entered into. I see no earthly reason why the land itself should not remain liable for the tithe.

§ MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)
Unless the Amendment is adopted the state of things will be this—that if the landlord chooses to be dishonest the tenant has first to bear the cost of the distraint; and, secondly, he has to bear the sacrifice of the produce. This is a new and novel remedy. It is admitted that if the landlord covenants to pay and does not pay he is dishonest, and yet, by this Bill, the Government propose to punish the tenant by two modes for the dishonesty of the landlord. Under the old system the tenant could not be made a bankrupt in respect of tithe, but this will no longer be the case.

§ * MR. SEALE-HAYNE
I have now to move another Amendment to Clause 1—namely, in page 1, line 7, to leave out the words "whatever the amount of the sum may be." I say it is contrary to justice that the tenant should be liable to be sued in the County Court for the landlord's tithe, and that the powers of the County Court should be enlarged for this purpose in the way proposed by the Bill. It is about five hours since I called the attention of the Home Secretary to the provisions of the Act of 1866, in which the powers of the County Court, with regard to extraordinary tithe, are limited to £50, and no reply has been given to the question, if that were considered a proper limitation in regard to extraordinary tithe in 1886, why are we in 1889 to have the powers of the County Court extended in order to meet the case of a few Welsh parsons? It would be a monstrous injustice to strain the law for such a purpose; and I protest agains our being kept here to the end of August, and possibly the beginning o September, over a measure of this kind, 1211 when matters of far greater importance—such, for instance, asthelndianBudget—are being kept in the background. But Her Majesty's Government regard the well-being of 250,000,000 of Her Majesty's subjects as nothing compared with a measure providing the means of enabling a hundred or so of the Welsh clergy to recover tithes from the tenant farmers. I trust Her Majesty's Government will agree to the omission of these words, and that they will afterwards accept a further Amendment which would limit the power of the County Court to £50.

THE CHAIRMAN
The point raised by the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman has already been decided. The Committee has refused to maintain the limit of £50, which is the County Court limit.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
Yes; but on the point of order I would say that that is only the County Court limit in a particular case, and it has been pointed out that £50 is not the general limit. In many cases the jurisdiction of the County Court extends to £100, and even to £500 or £1,000. The Committee has, I admit, declined to impose a £50 limit, but this Amendment is a proposal of a different character; and I submit that though these words "whatever the amount of the sum may be," cannot be governed by an Amendment imposing a limit of £50, yet we are proposing to omit words which are now in the Bill, words which entirely alter the whole condition of the existing County Court jurisdiction. I hope we may be allowed to take a Division on this proposal, because we desire to enter our protest.

THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman is not speaking to the point of order; he is addressing himself to the Amendment.

§ MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN
May I ask whether it would be in order to move the omission of the words referred to in the Amendment, in order to insert "in cases not exceeding £100"?

THE CHAIRMAN
Possibly, if the omission of the words is moved with the intention to insert a limit of £100, such an Amendment might be in order. The hon. Member who has moved the Amendment referred at the end of his speech to a limit of £50 as that which he desired to substitute; but, apart from 1212 that, the effect of the omission of the words would be to introduce the County Court limit of £50, and the Committee have already refused to maintain that limit.

§ * MR. SEALE-HAYNE
That would hardly be the ease if we were to stop at this Amendment, which only proposes to omit the words "whatever the amount of the sum may be." I propose to fix a limitation further on, but that is not before the Committee now.

THE CHAIRMAN
I am afraid I have not made myself intelligible. If the hon. Member has some other Amendment on the Paper which will bring this Amendment within the scope of admissibility I will allow it to be moved; but as it now stands, it is strictly in itself inadmissible.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)
Would it be in order to move the omission of the words referred to in order to insert the words "in cases not exceeding £100"?

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
I rise to order. My hon. Friend below the Gangway has asked a question which I beg to repeat. You, Sir, have ruled that, inasmuch as the Committee have already decided against a £50 limit, the Amendment to omit the words "whatever the amount of the sum may be" cannot be moved; but if it be proposed to omit those words in order to insert the words "in cases not exceeding £100," that would not be the limit of the County Court jurisdiction, but would be an entirely new proposition. Therefore I propose to move the omission of the words "whatever the amount of the sum may be" in order to insert the words "in cases not exceeding £100."

THE CHAIRMAN
I carefully restricted myself to pointing out that the Amendment was out of order as it stood; but I did not say it was impossible to move the Amendment in connection with another amount.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
But if the words "whatever the amount of the sum may be" remain, it would be impossible to insert the words "in cases not exceeding £100." Therefore, in order to insert the latter words, we must get rid of the first; consequently, I beg to move the omission of the words "whatever the amount of the sum may be," so that afterwards, in the proper 1213 place, I may move to insert words raising the limit from £60 to £100.

THE CHAIRMAN
The right hon. Gentleman now proposes to put before the Committee a complete, intelligible, and consistent Amendment, which I will accept.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
The effect of that Amendment would be a very rational one—

THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order! Surely it is needless to occupy the time of the Committee as to the admissibility of an Amendment which is now before the Committee.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
I apprehend that if the Amendment now before the Committee is carried, it will be possible afterwards to insert a limitation of £100, which I think would only be reasonable seeing what takes place in the English County Courts. I hope we shall have from the Attorney General to-night his view of the practice of the English and Welsh County Courts. We heard a great deal from him last year as to the inadvisability of giving those Courts jurisdiction beyond a certain sum, and it was urged that they ought not to be allowed to deal with very large amounts. But now we have come to this—that in the view of the Government the County Court Judges may safely deal with the largest sums, provided they are connected with the difficult and complicated question of tithes, where the parsons and Ecclesiastical Commissioners are the creditors; but where it is a mere case of shopkeeper and customer they must not go beyond a small specified limit. The County Court Judges are, in my opinion, most competent to deal with ordinary Civil contract debts; but when we come to questions of this character, I agree with the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman, and therefore I have great pleasure in supporting his Amendment.

§ MR. MATTHEWS
The object of my next Amendment is to enable the tithe-owner to use either the present remedy of distress or the County Court procedure. He cannot have both; he must choose between the two.

MR. A. STAVELEY HILL
I am happy to find that at last the Home Secretary is coming round to our view and is admitting a remedy which many of us have suggested. I shall have great pleasure in accepting this Amendment.

§ MR. H. GARDNER
I beg to-move, Sir, that you do report Progress. The discussions this evening have thrown a flood of light on the Bill, and1 it would be a good thing now if hon. Members were to go home and meditate on what has taken place, especially after the decreasing majorities of the Government.

Hon. Members
Increasing.

§ MR. H. GARDNER
Hon. Members opposite must be grateful for very small mercies.

§ * MR. W. H. SMITH
I would appeal to the hon. Member to be reasonable, and not to insist upon his Motion, especially at this period of the Session.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
On the other hand, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is reasonable at this period of the Session for the Government to go on with this Bill? That is a more pertinent question, considering the character of the opposition offered to the progress of the Bill, and considering the number of votes by which it is supported. I venture to say that proceeding with this Bill on the part of the Government is contrary to all Parliamentary custom, certainly since I have sat in this House. When the Government at the end of a 1215 Session takes the whole time of the House, it has always been on the understanding that it is for the purpose of closing Committee of Supply, and of dealing with what is non-contentious business. That is the well-established rule and practice of Parliament. The Irish Votes have been interrupted for the purpose of taking the most contentious measure that it is possible for the Government to bring forward. It is plain, also, that we are only at the beginning of the discussion. We have succeeded, with great difficulty, and by dint of long discussion, in introducing a great many of our Amendments, and we have also induced the Government to put down some Amendments of their own. I think in these circumstances that the Motion of my hon. Friend is perfectly reasonable, and I hope he will press it to a Division.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
We have recently had bitter experience of what takes place at 12 o'clock and after half-past 5 on Wednesday, for on the interruption of business the right hon. Gentlemen has promptly moved the Closure. Therefore, before this Motion is withdrawn, I think we ought to have some pledge from the right hon. Gentleman that he will not at 12 o'clock Closure this Amendment, which, from what I can see of its effect, is an important one. If there is any chance, however, of the Amendment being discussed in the few minutes which remain before midnight without the First Lord of the Treasury moving the Closure, there will be no objection to proceeding. But this is doubtful, judging from past experience, and therefore I suggest that the Motion to report Progress should be agreed to. I think the Amendment of the Government is a most objectionable method of proceeding in dealing with tithe, because it will tell against the Welsh farmers, who are the parties immediately concerned. Will the Government give us a pledge that on this momentous question we shall not be Closured?

THE CHAIRMAN
Order, Order! The hon. Member is not at liberty to discuss the conduct of the Chair, with whom the responsibility for putting the Question rests.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
Then I will suggest that the Government should 1216 undertake to give us to-morrow reasonable time for discussing this Amendment.

§ * MR. W. H. SMITH
The hon. and learned Member does not appear to realise that this Amendment has been brought forward to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite. If they are not prepared to accept it, of course it must be withdrawn. As to the strong language used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby as to Her Majesty's Government persevering with this Bill, the right hon. Gentleman appears to be oblivious of the fact that this Bill is included among the measures which the Government announce it to be their intention of passing into law.