COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 26 January 1891 vol 349 cc1030-109

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1.

(4.12.) SIR J. SWINBURNE (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

I beg to move an Amendment to the effect that the landowner shall be liable to pay the tithe rent-charge only in those cases where he has no existing contract to the contrary with his tenant. I object to existing contracts being torn up in the interests of the tithe owner, and I ask the House, in dealing with this Amendment, to bear in mind the present depressed state of the agricultural and farming interest. No less than one-third, or 33 per cent, of the gross rent is now expended by the landowner in repairs, agency, and incidental charges.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is entering into matters which have nothing to do with the Amendment.

SIR J. SWINBURNE

It is the only opportunity I have of bringing forward an argument to show the great depression under which agriculture is now labouring, and how ill-timed the present Bill is.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 6, to leave out from the word "be," to the word "lands," in line 8, and insert the words— In the absence of any contract to the contrary between the owner and the occupier of such lands, be payable by the owner of the lands."—(Sir J. Swinburne.)

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

٭(4.15.) THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.)

This Amendment seems to me to be directed exactly against the principle which this House has practically accepted—namely, that the owner of the land should be made directly liable for the payment of the tithe rent-charge, and that the occupier should be relieved from being distrained upon for a debt which is not his own. The Amendment, if carried, would also leave the law on the subject in an extraordinary state; but the first ground is sufficient to prevent my accepting the Amendment.

SIR W. HARCOURT (Derby)

I wish to point out that in many cases the landlord contracts to pay the tithe rent-charge. The object of the Bill is to put the charge on the owner, which has been the original intention. I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

(4.17.) MR. D. THOMAS (Merthyr Tydvil)

I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name, the effect of which is that the owner shall not be liable where an existing contract to the contrary has been entered into before the passing of the Act. The proposal is a very modest one, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will find it reasonable and practicable. The Bill as it stands affects existing contracts, as well as old ones, and it simply proposes that it shall not apply to contracts made before the passing of the Act. I do not think we ought to lightly set aside contracts without some public necessity is shown, and I venture to say that no case has been made out for doing away with existing contracts in this case.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 8, after the word "lands," to insert the words "unless the same shall have been entered into before the passing of this Act."—(Mr. David Thomas.).

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

SIR M. HICKS BEACH

I think that the hon. Member has failed to consider that the real difficulty arises out of existing contracts. I believe that, even under the law as it stands, where fresh contracts are made, the landlord usually undertakes to pay the tithe rent-charge. If the Amendment is agreed to there would be in the same country two different kinds of law applicable to tithe rent-charge. I cannot conceive that the Committee will be of opinion that this would be a good way of dealing with the question.

(4.22.) After some remarks from Mr. H. GARDNER, which were not heard in the Gallery,

(4.23.) SIR W. HARCOURT

I think that the Bill is right as it stands. The object is that the burden of the tithe shall be cast where it was originally intended to be—namely, on the owner. In the future it will be absolutely so. It would be very inconvenient to have the law in the state in which it would he left by this Amendment. The present Bill is, in my opinion, a great improvement on the old Bill in regard to the recovery of the tithe from the occupier, as now the landlord would only have the remedy which has been possessed by the original tithe owner; he cannot sue the tenant and recover on a judgment, nor can he make him bankrupt, or do many other things which have been objectionable in the previous Bill, nor is the tenant now to be liable for costs. My own belief is that where the owner of the land pays the tithe he very frequently does not recover the whole tithe from the tenant. In these circumstances I cannot support the Amendment which has been proposed.

SIR J. SWINBURNE

If I remember rightly, when the Agricultural Holdings Act was passed it did not apply to existing leases; they had to run out before those farms came under the Act. This Bill has been brought in not for the benefit of the tithe payer, but of the clergy and tithe owners. Let us understand this Act of Parliament. Is it proposed that the tithe owner shall receive an increased value, and at the same time be relieved of the cost and trouble of collecting the tithe by making it a direct charge on the land?

(4.32.) MR. PICTON (Leicester)

The hon. Baronet does not seem to realise that the object of this Bill is to keep the pecuniary burden on the occupier at precisely the same amount as it now is, but to save him and the tithe owner from the annoyance caused by the present system of collection. If the Bill should at all alter the pecuniary obligations of the tenants, I should not be prepared to support it. But it does nothing of the kind, and I therefore hope that it will not be pressed, or if it is, that the Committee will reject it.

(4.33.) MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN (Denbighshire, E.)

This Bill as it stands, is more favourable to the occupier than that of last year. Under last year's Bill in an action between the landlord and the tithe owner, the occupier was not required to be served, and yet might be saddled with costs of the proceedings. He should only be made liable for the sum actually paid, by the landlord to the tithe owner.

٭(4.34.) MR. MORTON (Peterborough)

I should like to ask whether in a case in which there are several occupiers of one tithe field under existing contracts, the landlord would be able to make one occupier pay the whole tithe, or whether he must apportion it among all the occupiers?

٭(4.35.) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER, Isle of Wight)

That question scarcely arises out of this Amendment. The law is not altered in that respect. The Amendment merely refers to excluding from the operation of the Bill cases in which the tenants have at present to pay the landlords' tithe. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby is entitled to credit for having pointed out objections to the Bill of last year.

Question put, and negatived.

(4.36.) MR. S. T. EVANS (Glamorgan, Mid)

The next Amendment in my name is to omit the words, "unless it is otherwise agreed between him and the owner of the lands." This Amendment affects the recovery of the sum from the tenant by the landlord, and it is proposed by the words which I am about to move the omission of, to allow the landlord and tenant to so agree between themselves that the tenant may be liable to other remedies than those of distress. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has just said he is not willing to give any other remedies to the landlord than those now provided. But if these words stand, the effect will be that the landlord or his agent will immediately go to the tenant and say, "The Act of Parliament allows me to make a new contract with you. Will you kindly consent to an agreement whereby, instead of paying the sum as tithe, it will he added to your rent?" The Government seem to me not to object to setting aside contracts at all, when that is to the interest of the landlord or clergy, and now it is proposed to allow contracts to be entered into which may be beneficial to the landlord and prejudicial to the tenant. I fear that one effect of the retention of these words will be to deprive the tenant of the benefit of Sub-section 4 of the first clause, whereby he may be allowed to deduct any rates which he may have to pay in respect of tithe rent-charge. But it will have other worse effects. Suppose, to take a concrete instance, the tithe payable upon a farm is £25, the landlord would go to the tenant and say, "Instead of your paying the tithe I will increase your rent from £75 to £100." The effect would be that while the tenant would have to pay the increased rent, the landlord might not have to pay the tithe. At any rate, he would be able to keep in his pocket for months the money the tenant had paid in lieu of tithe. And again, the tithe might be reduced from £25 to £20, but still the tenant would have to pay the £25 rent which had been, added to the old rent by the landlord. The landlord would reap the benefit of the reduction, and the tenant would not. Moreover, the tenant would be subject to all the remedies now afforded for the recovery of rent, instead of to distraint only, as in the case of tithe at present.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 13, to leave out from the word "unless" to the word "lands," in line 14, inclusive.—(Mr. S. T. Evans.)

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

٭(4.40.) SIR R. WEBSTER

I hope that the House will not agree to this Amendment. The position of matters seems to me to be favourable to the tenant who has contracted to pay the tithe, and the words really involve no hardship of any moment at all upon him. The position is this. The clause assumes that the tenant is under a contract to pay the tithe, that he does not pay it, and that thereby it is thrown upon the owner, and it enacts that the tenant shall be liable to the landlord a sum of money equal to that he ought to have paid in respect of tithe. The words the hon. Member wishes to leave out simply enable the tenant to come at once to a fresh arrangement with his landlord. He may come and say to his landlord, "Instead of my continuing my term at £100 a year plus the tithe, I agree to take it on at £115 a year, you paying the tithe." They are purely permissive words, and cannot be used against the interest of the tenant. Surely it is an advantage to a tenant to be in a position to get more satisfactory terms from his landlord. If I could see any means whereby the landlord would be in a position to put the screw on the tenant I would agree to the omission of the words. With regard to the suggestion that the effect of these words would be to deprive the tenant of the operation of Sub-section 4, I can assure the hon. Member that that section pro- vides that where the occupier has been called upon to pay rates he shall be allowed the benefit of the Section. I think it better that these words should stand, as I am unable to see how they they can possibly work hardly on the tenant.

(4.43.) SIR W. HARCOURT

I hope my hon. Friend's Amendment will be carried, for this reason. As I understand the framework of this clause the subsection has this primary object: to make the landowner liable, and to secure that no new contracts shall be entered into which could obviate that. My hon. Friend's fear is that these words will allow of a new contract being made, and enable the landlord to press a disadvantageous contract on the tenant. But all that the sub-section will do will be to moderate the old contract, and not open the door to a new one. These words will, in any event, be mere surplusage, but they might by some persons be construed as if authorising some new contract in reference to the payment of tithe between landlord and tenant. Why should you open the doors to a new contract at all? I hope that Her Majesty's Government will accept my hon. Friend's Amendment.

(4.46.) SIR HENRY JAMES (Bury, Lancashire)

If I thought these words had been introduced in the interest of the landlord, I should have been willing to support this Amendment. But if my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby will look at the first clause he will see that its object distinctly is that the liability for tithe shall be thrown on the landowner, notwithstanding any contract to the contrary. Therefore, I do not see how these words can be construed so as to allow the landlord and tenant to come to some agreement by which the owner will be relieved from the payment of tithe by casting the liability on the occupier. That construction is, I repeat, barred by the wording of the first clause, which says that the tithe shall be payable by the owner notwithstanding any contract to the contrary. The words may be regarded as surplusage, but in the interest of the tenant I think it would be well to retain them. Even if you omit them, there is nothing to prevent a landlord making an agreement with his tenant.

٭(4.49.) MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN

My reason for supporting my hon. Friend's Amendment is that the words, if retained, will enable the landlord to put the screw on the tenant; you may depend upon it that any agreement entered into would be to the advantage of the landlord and not of the tenant, and we should serve the interest of the latter better by keeping out the words.

(4.50.) MR. SYDNEY GEDGE (Stockport)

I think the words would be useful in cases where the landlord may be dead. In such cases, in the absence of any agreement, the executors would be bound to enforce the full payment whatever the private understanding between the parties may have been. And so in the case of the bankruptcy of the landlord; the assignee of the estate would have no option but to claim the fall amount. I do not see how the landlord can be said to put the screw on his tenant when he is merely releasing him from an obligation.

(4.51.) SIR W. HARCOURT

The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury says that these words are mere surplusage. If that be so, then I hope that the Government will yield to our apprehensions, and not be moved by the arguments of my hon. Friend the Attorney General. I am unable to appreciate his argument that if a man owes another a debt, no part of it can be remitted without agreement under an Act of Parliament. Under these words there may be an agreement with reference to the methods of recovery. But we want to close the tithe question as between owner and occupier, and these words seem to us to leave a door open for new agreements. Unless the Government attach vital importance to them, I hope they will strike the words out.

٭(4.54.) SIR R. WEBSTER

I am utterly unable to see any means whereby these words can be construed otherwise than favourably to the tenants, for in the case of the landlord's death, or of bankruptcy, or in other cases where statutory consent is necessary to reduce the liability, the words will operate. I can assure my right hon. Friend that if anybody could point out a way in which a tenant could possibly be injured, I should be inclined to let the words go. But no one has pointed out a concrete case of injury to the tenant. We desire to make the Bill work fairly with the interests of the tenant, and we ask the Committee to let the words stand. I can imagine cases in which the words would be advantageous to the tenant.

٭(4.56.) MR. S. T. EVANS

Take the case put of a farm on which the tithe rent-charge at the present time is £25. Suppose the landlord says—"I will add £25 to the rent; you will pay it not as tithe but as rent." Is not the tenant likely to be prejudiced by that? Why the tithe might be reduced to £20, but yet under his agreement he would still be paying £25 more than his rent. I do not think these words are, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury said, surplusage. If they are surplusage, why not agree to omit them, but if they are not, then they will enable the landlords to put the screw upon the tenants. The Attorney General says the tenant need not enter into a fresh agreement unless he likes, but I submit that no opening should be left for such agreements to be forced on the tenant.

(4.57.) SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID (St. Pancras, S.)

The question is—Is it desirable so to frame the Act that anybody may depart from its provisions? I think it is not, and for this reason: An agreement might be made between landlord and tenant that the latter should pay the tithe. But, as I understand it, the object of this Bill is that the landlord shall always pay, and I regret very much to think that anybody should even suppose that a tenant might go on paying. It is perfectly obvious that if a landlord desires to give his tenant more favourable terms, he can do it without any formal agreement. We constantly hear of remissions of rent being given to tenants; might not remissions of tithe be granted in the same way? I cannot help thinking that we had better omit the words. They are not necessary, and they might introduce an element of difficulty which nobody desires. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will carefully consider the objections which have been raised.

(4.59.) SIR M. HICKS BEACH

I do not think my hon. Friend quite appreciates the effect of these words. They have nothing whatever to do with the question of the payment of tithe rent-charge and they would not enable the landlord to get rid or his liability to pay. In the case assumed by the hon. Member for Glamorganshire the landlord has already power to give notice to quit to enable him to raise the rent, and therefore these words give him no greater power than he has already. I think the words will enable more favourable terms to be made in the tenant's interest than would be the case without it.

٭(5.1.) MR. STUART RENDEL (Montgomeryshire)

I dread very much any suggestion being made in this Bill that there is any occasion whatever for an agreement between landlord and tenant arising out of it. If there is no necessity for making such a suggestion, and if these words are deemed by high legal authority to be surplusage, I hope the Government will not put them in. One of the great objects of those who brought forward the Bill was to provide that there should be afforded as little opportunity as possible for the raising of difficulties between landlord and tenant. I hope that under the circumstances my hon. Friend will press the Amendment.

(5.3.) MR. F. S. STEVENSON (Suffolk, Eye)

There is a very great danger that a new contracts might result in shifting the burden from the shoulders of the landlord to those of the tenant. A great portion of the farmer's capital is always sunk in the soil, and when he leaves he gets no compensation for it in spite of any Act that may be passed. This always places a certain lever in the hands of the landlord in dealing with the tenant. If you leave out these words you have a perfectly simple and definite statement of law, but if they are allowed to remain, to that simple and definite statement you add a provision which opens the door to future complications, the end of which it is impossible to foresee.

٭(5.4.) SIR M. HICKS BEACH

I would point out that a fresh agreement might be made on this particular point without entering into the question of the contract on which the tenant holds his farm.

(5.5.) SIR W. HARCOURT

The more I hear this matter discussed the more I see of the danger to which attention has been drawn. Take a case in which the tithe rent-charge is £30, and a new contract is entered into under which it is agreed to take a payment of, say, £25. Supposing before the expiration of the lease the tithe rent-charge falls to £15, the tenant will still be bound to pay £25 although the landlord will only pay the £15. If no fresh contract could be made the landlord could only recover the £15 from the tenant, and yet you are going to allow a contract to be made which will enable him to recover £25. If you strike out the provision the tenant will never have to pay more than the landlord pays. I am not at all sure that under this clause the tenant might not be induced to agree to go on paying the owner what he has paid as tithe after the expiration of the lease. It is of course difficult at the moment to realise all the circumstances that might occur, but I do see a danger in opening the door to evils that may arise under a new contract.

٭(5.7). SIR R. WEBSTER

With regard to one point that has been raised, the clause is distinct. It says, "Notwithstanding any contract to the contrary," which means any existing contract. The right hon. Gentleman had put forward an hypothesis in which the tithe rent-charge is £30, and the tenant agrees to pay £25. The right hon. Gentleman's assumption is that, although he pockets so large a reduction, he may have eventually to pay more than the landlord had to pay. The right hon. Gentleman, however, did not consider the quite as probable contingency of the tithe going up. This provision must, at all events in the first instance, operate in favour of the tenant, because the tenant would not be likely to enter into a contract unless it was to pay less than the amount of tithe due. It is a contract primâ facie in favour of the tenant, and I hope Parliament will give him power to enter into it.

٭(5.12). MR. J. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion)

I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General has quite seen the force of the illustration put by my hon. Friend. The gist of the objection, I take it, is the possibility of adding this fixed amount to the rent rather than allowing it to remain in the nature of tithe. There is nothing to prevent the landlord saying, "Instead of your repaying me the tithe let us decide on a fixed amount, based on the average amount of tithe, and add that to the rent." The retention of these words would enable such, an arrangement as that to be made. The tithe would then, as between landlord and tenant, be converted into rent, and the landlord would have the like remedies for recovering it as for rent, including eviction in cases where there may be a right of re-entry on non-payment of rent. Such an arrangement, therefore, would practically repeal Sub-section 3, which says that such sum shall be recoverable from the occupier by distress, in like manner as provided by the Tithe Acts in regard to arrears of tithe, and not otherwise. The case put is not one where there is agreement to take a reduced sum, but a fixed sum. I put this to the Government. Further: It is apprehended from one point of view that these words would be injurious, and seriously injurious, to the tenant; it is conceded from the other point of view that they are surplusage. Why, then, cannot the Government omit the words, seeing that they are considered unnecessary?

(5.14.) SIR H. JAMES

I put it to the Government that they might permit these words to be struck out, seeing that from both points of view their retention is regarded as immaterial. If the section says that money is to be owed, if these words are struck out, the landlord and tenant can agree that it shall not be owed. If the Amendment is carried, the agreement can still be made—you do not prevent it by striking out the words. The landlord and tenant, if it be right, can still come to an agreement. My right hon. Friend, in asking for this, is asking for no protection for the tenant; the Government, in seeking to retain the words, are seeking no protection either for the tenant or landlord. We are discussing nothing, and if the words remain out or in, the fact of the voluntary agreement will remain still. If the Government agree that the retention of these words will not alter the law, would it not be better to allow them to be struck out, so as to ensure progress being made with the Bill?

٭(5.15.) MR. C. W. GRAY (Essex, Maldon)

So far as I see the tenant farmer will get no benefit from the words, consequently, I shall support the Motion to leave them out.

MR. PICTON

The matter of costs has been overlooked.

٭(5.16.) SIR M. HICKS BEACH

I listened with great attention to the observations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir H. James) in the first instance, because the matter appeared to be of a legal character. I thought the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of the retention of these words, but now I see he regards them as surplusage. Under the circumstance—as I do not attach very much importance to the words myself and as I am anxious to make progress with the Bill—I will consent to the words being left out.

Question put, and negatived.

٭(5.17.) MR. J. BRYN ROBERTS

I desire to move an Amendment on the same point—before the word "owe" to insert these words "notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary." The words just struck out were surplusage, but is is necessary to prevent a landlord putting pressure on the tenant by increasing his rent, so as to bring it up to the estimated average amount of the tithe. Unless these words are inserted, such an agreement could be entered into, and thereupon Sub-section 3 would become of no effect whatever.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 13, before the word "owe," to insert the words "notwithstanding an agreement to the contrary."—(Mr. J. Bryn Roberts.)

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

٭(5.18.) SIR M. HICKS BEACH

I hope this Amendment will not be pressed. We had in our minds that the landlord and tenant might come to an agreement if they thought fit, and these words would prevent the landlord from agreeing to relieve the tenant of the payment, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury has explained can be done under the section as it stands.

Question put, and negatived.

٭(5.19.) MR. SYDNEY GEDGE

I move, in line 14, to omit the word "owe," in order to insert the words "be liable to pay."

Amendment agreed to.

٭(5.20.) MR. S. T. EVANS

I would now move to insert, in line 14, after the word "has," the word "properly." If this is not agreed to, a tenant might be called upon to pay a sum which the landlord might have improperly paid to the tithe owner.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 14, after the word "has," to insert the word "properly."—(Mr. Samuel Evans.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'properly' be there inserted."

٭(5.21.) SIR M. HICKS BEACH

There might be litigation, if this Amendment were accepted, as to the propriety of a payment that a landlord might have made on account of tithe rent-charge. It can hardly be supposed that he would pay more than was due.

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

If the tenant were in arrear, say for three or four years, and the landlord chose to pay, could he recover the fall amount from the tenant?

٭(5.22.) SIR R. WEBSTER

The only remedy for recovery of tithe rent-charge is limited. There can be nothing recovered that is more than two years overdue. I fail to see what improper payment there can be by the landlord, especially when we remember that his remedy against the tenant is expressly limited.

٭(5.23.) MR. S. T. EVANS

If the words stand as they are there is no inquiry whether the landlord has paid properly or not. Supposing the tithe owner, who may be a poor clergyman, has gone to the landlord and has said to him, "You will owe me tithe in six months; I am very hard up; give it me in advance." That, I think, would be a payment, and the landlord might forthwith make the tenant pay what was not due. At any rate, I do not see what danger there is in inserting the word "properly."

Question put, and agreed to.

٭(5.27.) MR. S. T. EVANS

I have an Amendment on the Paper to leave out "exclusive of" in line 15 in order to insert "but shall not be liable to pay." I will not move it, however, if the Attorney General thinks the words "exclusive of" better express the intention.

٭(5.27.) SIR R. WEBSTER

I think those words would be better in the interest of the tenant.

٭(5.28.) MR. S. T. EVANS

Is it understood that in no case shall the landlord's costs be recovered from the tenant?

SIR R. WEBSTER

Yes.

٭(5.28.) MR. MORTON

I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, after the word "rent-charge," to insert— Provided that in case there are several occupiers in any tithe-field, the landlord shall divide the tithe rent-charge among the said occupiers according to the rent reserved by him. I understand the Attorney General to say that the law as to collection will remain the same under the Bill as it is now. At this moment where there are several occupiers in a tithe-field each occupier is liable for his neighbour's tithe. I can give instances where the law has been put in force in that direction in large cities, and has led to something like a riot. At Streatham, I remember, the rector of the parish endeavoured to make a man who occupied perhaps the fiftieth part of a field pay the whole of the tithe. I do not know what was the upshot of it, but there was a great deal of excitement in the neighbourhood, and it does appear to me that, now that you are dealing with the question of tithe, you should take the opportunity of making the law fair to occupiers. I cannot see why the Government should not provide in the Bill that the landlord shall in each case divide the tithe according to the rent on each parcel. When the owner puts in a distress because one occupier cannot pay, he says, "You have your remedy by making your neighbours pay their share." But it will be found that there is difficulty in a man's making his neighbours pay, because practically in most cases the expense makes the remedy impossible. I myself have gone to agents of tithe owners, and have said, "Why don't you collect the tithe from the parties from whom it is due?" and the answer has been, "Because we have the power to make one person pay, and we go to the one whom we know to have the most valuable goods." I may say that I have heard more cursing and swearing and more harsh language used towards the Church with regard to this mode of collecting the tithe from a single occupier than in regard to any other subject

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 16, after the word "rent-charge," to insert the words— Provided that in case there are several occupiers in any tithe-field, the landlord shall divide the tithe rent-charge among the said occupiers, according to the rent reserved by him."—(Mr. Morton.)

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

(5.34.) SIR R. WEBSTER

I must point out that the hon. Member is really mixing up two completely different matters. This clause deals with the liability to the tithe, and has no reference at all to the tithe owners. If he desires to alter the law whereby the tithe owner can recover the whole of the tithe from any one of the tithe owners of a field or of several fields, he must do so by a separate section. It is impossible to engraft on this section any Amendment of the kind.

MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN

I think, with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, that it would be better for the hon. Gentleman to endeavour to deal with this matter by a new clause.

MR. MORTON

I shall have no objection to do so if that be deemed the proper course; but I hope the Government will give the matter their consideration.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR J. SWINBURNE

I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name—namely, in page 1, line 17, to leave out the words "such sum," and insert the words "tithe rent-charge."

SIR M. HICKS BEACH

I would point out that this is merely a Consequential Amendment, which is inappropriate in this place.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

٭(5.38.) MR. SYDNEY GEDGE

I now have to move as an Amendment to this clause, in page 1, lines 17 and 18, to omit the words "by distress," in order that I may hereafter move the insertion of the words "if it were rent in arrear;" so that the sub-section would then read thus— Such sum shall be recoverable from the occupier in like manner as if it were rent in arrear. The case we are dealing with is, where the occupier has made himself liable to the owner by covenant to pay the tithe rent-charge. It has nothing to do with the question between the occupier and the tithe owner. The tenant not having paid the money, the landlord has done so, and he has to recover it. As the law stands, if the tenant fail to pay the tithe rent-charge, and the landlord has done so, the landlord can sue him for breach of covenant, and compel him to refund the money so paid. No reason has been shown for taking this right from him. One of the objects of the Bill is, that the tenant may not feel that he is paying the tithe rent-charge as such. A large number of the farmers do not object to pay a larger rent out of which the tithe rent-charge is paid, but they object to pay a tithe rent-charge as such in any case whatever. Indeed, some of them have made vows that they will, under no circumstances, ever pay the tithe rent-charge, and it is one of the objects of the Bill to get rid of this feeling. It is put as a matter of contract between the tenant and the landlord, and it is undesirable that the landlord should be obliged to distrain for the amount so paid as a separate thing. It would also be unfair that where the tenant has-broken his contract the landlord should not be able to get damages for the breach as he does now. I hope the Government will accept my Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, lines 17 and 18, to leave out the words "by distress."—(Mr. Sydney Gedge.)

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

٭(5.41.) SIR R. WEBSTER

It seems to me that we cannot possibly accept the proposal of my hon. Friend, although doubtless there is a great deal to be said in favour of the view he puts forward. I am one of those who did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, that it was unjust that the tenant should be liable in respect to the non-payment of tithe in the same degree as in respect to the non-payment of rent. But when you have shifted to the landowner the responsibility for the tithe, our view is that you ought to give him the same remedy against the tenant as he now possesses. After what I said a few minutes ago, I could not accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend.

SIR W. HARCOURT

This is certainly one point on which I took strong objection to this Bill, my ground being that it places the tenant in a worse position than before; that is to say, he will be liable to other and stronger remedies than at present in respect of the amount payable for tithes. I am glad Her Majesty's Government have made a concession on this matter. The hon. Member opposite would, however, overthrow this, and expose the tenant to being sued and pursued by other and different methods to those that are now adopted, thereby lessening his present position and rendering the law ranch more oppressive than before.

MR. SYDNEY GEDGE

At the present moment the tithe owner may distrain on the tenant's property for the amount of the tithe rent-charge, and not only so, but for the amount of the whole of the charge on land not in the occupation of the tenant. He is also under the liability, if he does not pay, of an action for damages for breach of covenant, and that is where I leave him.

MR. S. T. EVANS

I would point out that if the Amendment of the hon. Member be carried, the landlord may distrain in respect of the tithe rent-charge on the dining-room furniture or any other chattels of the tenant, which he cannot do now.

MR. T. H. BOLTON

Under the proposal of the hon. Member for Stockport, it may be that the tenant will be committed to gaol. If he be sued in the County Court and does not pay, and the County Court Judge thinks he ought to pay, he may be committed to prison. Therefore, I regard the Amendment as a most objectionable one, and as altogether opposed to the understanding come to some time ago.

SIR M. HICKS BEACH

I hope my hon. and learned Friend will not press the Amendment to a Division. The matter is one which we carefully considered, as we thought that the tenant ought not to be placed in a worse position than that in which he had voluntarily placed himself. It was for that reason that we accepted the principle of the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman opposite thinks of so much importance. I do not think it so im- portent as he does, because the whole matter is temporary and only applies to existing contracts, and if the landlords or tenants wish to get out of them they can give notice to terminate them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

٭(5.45.) MR. S. T. EVANS

I beg to move, in page 1, line 19, at the end, to insert the words— But such sum shall not be recoverable until three months after the owner has served on the occupier a written notice specifying the amount so paid by the owner, and to whom, and the date of payment thereof. I think the Amendment is a very reasonable one, and I hope the Government will see their way to accepting it. I would point out that by Clause 2 this indulgence is given to the landlord, who is allowed three months in which to pay. If my Amendment is not carried, then I suppose the landlord is to be treated differently to the tenant, and that, I think, ought not to be the case. I remember that last year Lord Brabourne said that it was the universal custom to allow the tenants three, six, or even nine months in which to pay their tithes. I think the Amendment a reasonable one, and that it ought to be accepted by the Government.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 19, after "otherwise," to insert the words— But such sum shall not be recoverable until three months after the owner has served on the occupier a written notice specifying the amount so paid by the owner, and to whom, and the date of payment thereof."—(Mr. S. T. Evans)

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

SIR M. HICKS BEACH

The alteration proposed is in favour of the tenant, who would not be liable to pay the charge. At present he is allowed 21 days in which to pay the tithe; but now that it is proposed that the owner shall pay it, the hon. Member asks that the occupier shall be allowed three months to meet his liability to the owner.

MR. S. T. EVANS

Why should the landlord have it in Clause 2?

SIR M. HICKS BEACH

That is a question to consider on Clause 2.

SIR W. HARCOURT

As to the question of the tenants not having notice, I would call my hon. Friend's attention to Sub-section 5 of Clause 2— Where the occupier of the lands out of which the tithe rent-charge issues is liable under any contract made before the passing of this Act to pay the tithe rent-charge, and is consequently liable by virtue of this Act to pay the amount thereof to the owner of the lands, he may serve notice of such liability on the owner of the tithe rent-charge, and thereupon before an order under this section is made, there shall be such service on and hearing of the occupier, in addition to the owner, as may be prescribed. It strikes me that is a protection, because the tenant cannot be called upon to pay unless notice is served.

MR. S. T. EVANS

I do not think it is, because that sub-section is only to apply to proceedings in the County Court. It says so—"That before an order is made by the Court notice must be given." I do not think the subsection meets the provision which I want to insert.

SIR M. HICKS BEACH

The hon. Member will recollect that the tenant must be aware of his liability.

(5.54.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 99; Noes 172.—(Div. List, No. 14.)

٭(6.2.) MR. MORTON

The Amendment I desire to move is to provide that implements and animals used in land cultivation should be exempted from distress. It may be said, of course, if the owner has to pay the tithe, the occupier who uses the implements and animals may not have much to do with the matter; but there are, at this moment in the country, a certain number of small freehold occupiers who would be affected in this way, and I believe we all hope that in the future there may be more freehold occupiers of small farms than there have been in the past, and the future operation of this Bill may affect a great many persons. At the present time, as the law stands, a workman's tools and various other articles are exempt from the process of distress, and all I wish to do is to put these small freeholders in the same position as regards distraint. I observe that under the old law, or custom, you could not put a distress upon beasts used in tillage, and so it came to my mind to ask the Government to accept this Amendment, as I hope they will.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 19, after "otherwise," to insert the words— Provided that implements and animals used in cultivating the land shall be exempt from such distress."—(Mr Morton.)

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

٭(6.5.) SIR R. WEBSTER

I hope the hon. Member will not press this Amendment. In the first place, I may point out, there is no necessity for it, but my principal objection is, it is quite impossible to alter the remedy for the collection of tithe without a much fuller discussion of the law of distraint from, a complete point of view. At the present time beasts for tillage can only be taken when there is no other means of distress. Certain rights are given to the occupier, and the same law prevails in this as in other forms of distress. I do not think the hon. Member has shown a sufficient reason why here there should be a deviation from the general law, and I have never heard a demand for the alteration in the general law.

٭(6.7.) MR. MORTON

I do not agree that it is an alteration of the general law of distress, because all I want to do is to put small farmers who are freehold occupiers on the same footing as workmen in other trades. I do not wish to detain the Committee, but I think it is my duty to take a Division.

٭(6.8.) MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN

I hope the hon. Gentleman will not do that. It is only a partial alteration, and it can only apply temporarily. On the general principle perhaps something may be said, but not certainly on such a clause as this.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2.

٭(6.9.) MR. SYDNEY GEDGE

I hope the Government will accept the Amendment of which I have given notice, to strike out the words "three months" and insert "21 days." I am looking at the matter not from the point of view of the parson alone. I am supposing that the tithe is the property of the nation, and will ultimately fall into the nation's hands; the question simply is in regard to a just debt—how and when it shall be recovered. At present, if the tithe-payer does not pay his tithe, a distress can be levied in 21 days. The Bill does away with one remedy and provides another, but it postpones the operation of that remedy for three months. Now, the remedy is in itself a slow remedy. Application must be made to the County Court, and a day has to be fixed for hearing, and the remedy then determined, and, in fact, the tithepayer will get a great deal of delay he has not at present, and in certain cases this will operate with considerable hardship on the man entitled to receive the tithe. For instance, tithe being due in July, he can take no proceedings for three months, and that brings him to the vacation, and the hearing is put off to the next sitting of the Court. So, practically, it may be four or five months before the tithe owner can apply the remedy to get the amount justly due to him; and he gets no interest meanwhile. I really do not see why there should be this long interval. In other cases a man can take proceedings at once when the debts are due, and though people do not do so, that is because it is pleasanter to use a little patience and persuasion before taking proceedings. The same course surely might be pursued in the case of tithe rent-charge, and there is no reason why there should be a statutory limitation barring proceedings for three months.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 28, to leave out the words "not less than three months," and insert the words "twenty-one days."—(Mr. Sydney Gedge.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'not less than three months' stand part of the Clause."

(6.11.) SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE (Kensington, N.)

I join in entreating the Government to accept this Amendment. May I point out to the Committee that the argument which was used with unanswerable force by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in the earlier part of the Debate applies totidem verbis to this Amendment? Why should longer credit be given to landowners in regard to the payment of tithe than has been given hitherto to occupiers? I fail to see why landowners should have longer credit; why they should have a period of six months, within which no action shall lie; while the occupier has only 21 days. Further, let me point out the question as to length of notice required, really concerns only those cases of tithe where it is undoubtedly a fact that the tithe is justly due and recoverable; for in any other case, in a case where ultimately it is shown the tithe is improperly or unjustly claimed, it really matters not two straws whether the claim is brought to hearing in three months or in a year, because when it is brought to hearing, it will be disposed of, no payment will be made, and no harm will have been done. But this concerns cases where tithe is actually recoverable as a just debt, and surely no more is required than a reasonable time, so that a person who intends to pay his debt may not be put to the hardship of being called upon at a moment's notice to make the payment, or be visited with penalties for not doing so. I trust it is not the intention of the Legislature to inflict such a hardship upon the owner of the tithe as to compel him to wait three months before he can take proceedings to recover that which is justly due to him. We know that would mean a considerably longer time before payment could actually be realised. Probably it will come to this: that three months will be regarded as the legitimate time within which payment is actually due and ought conventionally and customarily to be paid. In many cases this would be a serious hardship. In the case of a large number of owners of tithe a considerable portion of their income is derived from this source, and to pass the clause in its present shape means that a certain portion of the community will be deprived of their debts justly due for an appreciable portion of time during which no interest shall accrue.

(6.18.) SIR M. HICKS BEACH

It is a mistake to suppose that this Amendment is on all fours with that of the hon. Member for Glamorganshire. We are imposing a new liability on the landlord, and therefore it is obviously reasonable that any difference in his position as compared with his liability under his present position ought to be fairly considered. What is the difference? As a general rule, the landowner does not obtain his rent for, at any rate, three months after the period at which it is due. That is a point which surely my hon. Friends be- hind me, who have spoken, on behalf of the tithe owners, ought to take into consideration. You are imposing a liability on the owner of land to pay a certain sum. You ought, in fairness to him, I think, not to enable the tithe owner to proceed against him for non-payment until a reasonable time has elapsed to enable him to obtain, the money to discharge that liability. Well, the extension from 21 days to three months has been, I think, in all Tithe Rent-Charge Recovery Bills submitted to the House. I observe that some hon. Members think the period insufficient, and that it should be extended to six months, and that seems to indicate that we have adopted a happy medium, and that three months is a term that commends itself to those who consider the matter from both sides. I believe it is not the custom for any tithe owner to expect or to receive payment of tithe until at least two months after it is due. Speaking from my own experience, being a considerable tithepayer, the tithe owners are never so harsh as to exact payment before that time. I believe this is a general custom throughout the country. There may be some delay owing to the fact that the question will have to be brought before the County Court; but, on the other hand, remember the sittings of the County Court are more frequent than my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport supposes. At any rate, they do not indulge in a long vacation, as he suggested; and therefore if the, tithe rent-charge is not paid in three months, I do not think a very long period will elapse before the tithe owner may take proceedings.

٭(6.21.) MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN

I suppose the right hon. Gentleman referred to me, for I have put down an Amendment to make the period six months, believing three months not sufficient. The object of interposing delay is two-fold, first, to give the landlord an opportunity of receiving his rent, and I should have thought that on the average a landlord would be exceedingly lucky to get his rent within six months; and further, to give the parties an opportunity of settling the matter amicably, or, as the hon. Member for Stockport said, pleasantly. I am sure we must all deprecate hasty hostile proceedings, and I think that 21 days for the purpose of settlement is manifestly too short a period. There need be no apprehension as to the length of time required for recovery, for, as a matter of fact, County Courts have no long vacation, and they sit every month except in September.

(6.23.) MR. H. T. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN (Kent, Faversham)

I hope the Government will agree to limit the period. There can be no doubt that the result of the Bill, whatever else it may be, will not be to lead to an increase of the income of the tithe owners. Indeed, to some extent, it will diminish it; and I fail to see why we should go out of our way to impose a greater burden upon them to place more difficulty in the way of their collection of their income. I do not think it has been sufficiently placed before the Committee that there are a number of the poorer clergy who are entirely or mainly dependent on tithe for their subsistence. These poor clergy have their household bills to meet, and if you keep them out of possession of their tithe for three months they will have to borrow money and pay interest for it, while for the delay in payment of tithe they will receive no interest. I hope the Government will see their way to modify the Bill, and allow some less period than three months.

٭(6.25.) SIR J. SWINBURNE

Upon agricultural holdings rents are frequently allowed to run half a year, and not collected, perhaps, for six weeks or two months after that, so that really the landlord gives a credit of eight months. I am a tithe owner, and I know that my tithes are not paid more than once a year, so for six months they are running. Here we give every possible advantage to the tithe owner. We make the tithe easy of collection; we make it a first charge upon the land; whereas now it is a charge on the produce of the land, and I think it is only reasonable that tithe payers should have at least six months for payment. Landowners will have to pay rates for the tithe owners in advance, and it is right they should have some consideration in return. There is no doubt this Bill will double the value of tithe. From 12½ years' purchase it will become worth 25 years' purchase, and the least concession we can make to tithepayers is to allow them six months to pay in.

٭(6.27.) MR. C. W. GRAY

As I had something to do with trying to induce the Government to propose this change, which the landlords of the country have accepted, placing a large responsibility on their shoulders, I may be allowed to express an opinion that the landlords have some claim in return. In the Eastern Counties it is the custom for landlords to collect the Michaelmas rent in January, and the Lady Day rent in July, and sometimes later than that. That is all very well when the farms are in a prosperous condition, and when the tenants are able to pay the rents are collected, but I know farms where 12 months' and 18 months' credit has to be given. This is not because the landlord likes it, but because it is Hobson's choice with him; he must wait until the tenant can scrape the money together, or he must be content to have the farm vacant on his hands. Under all the circumstances, and considering the enormous responsibility the landlords of England have accepted for the benefit of tithe owners, I do hope that if any alteration is made in the terms of this clause, it will be in the direction rather of extending than of restricting the credit. As the clause stands, I think a happy medium has been reached.

٭(6.29.) MR. T. H. BOLTON

I think hon. Members are making too much of this point. Under the present system collection is seldom made under three months. The 21 days' notice is a sort of penal notice which is given preparatory to distress; but in practice, when the tithe becomes due the tithe owner waits a month or two before applying for payment, and if payment is not made, then follows the 21 days' formal notice prior to distress. This notice is considered to be of a penal character; it involves a payment of 2s. 6d., and it is only resorted to after previous application has been made for payment. This is the invariable custom. The three months' period is a reasonable compromise on the existing system, and I hope the hon. Member will not consider it necessary to press the matter further.

(6.30.) MR. H. R. FARQUHARSON (Dorset, W.)

I hope the Government will stick to their guns. Considering the advantage given to the clergyman, I think he ought not to expect payment on the nail, but that he should be content to wait three months.

(6.31.) MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon, &c.)

I think it would be difficult to recall a single case in which a clergyman has thought proper to institute legal proceedings, by distraint or otherwise, when tithe has not been in arrear for more than three months. Suppose, for instance, 21 days is substituted for three months, and the clergyman thinks proper to avail himself of the substitution, what will be the result? Irritation will be caused, and far more harm done to the Church, in whose interest this Bill has been brought in, than the reverse. I think it would be far better to leave the clause as it stands.

MR. TALBOT (Oxford University)

I think the balance of the argument is on the side of my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment. Yet, on the whole, I would advise him not to press the Amendment to a Division. I tender the advice on the ground that this Bill is essentially a Bill of compromise and conciliation. It is a Bill for the settlement of a long-vexed question, and we can never settle any vexed question unless there is a certain amount of give and take. There can be no question that if this Bill is passed it will put the tithe rent-charge on a firmer and more solid basis than it has hitherto occupied, and that is a very desirable consummation. I believe the tithe rent-charge will be paid as regularly and punctually as before—perhaps more so—and if so, whether the tithe owner has to wait for payment three-weeks or three months is not very material. We have all of us to wait for payment of debts, and I suppose the tithe owner must wait like other people.

(6.34.) MR. GARDNER (Essex, Saffron Walden)

I sincerely trust the Government will stick to their Bill in this respect. Although the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Talbot) said the balance of the argument is in favour of the Amendment, he did not give any reasons for his belief. But I rose principally to demur to one statement of the hon. Gentleman, and that was that this is a Bill of conciliation and settlement. I assure him that, in the opinion of many of the tithe payers of the country, this is not a Bill of conciliation, or settlement in any sense of the word, nor will the tithepayers accept any measure as one of conciliation and settlement that does not involve some equitable distribution of the tithe rent- charge.

٭(6.35.) MR SYDNEY GEDGE

If this Bill were going to conciliate people all round, I should be happy to give way; but the hon. Gentleman has just told us it will do nothing of the kind. I do not feel disposed always to give and never to take, and therefore I cannot withdraw my Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

٭(6.36.) SIR J. SWINBURNE

I move to leave out "whatever is the amount," in line 29, and insert "where the amount due is over five pounds, and does not exceed fifty pounds." Considering the very great advantage the tithe owner gains under this Bill I do not think he ought to be able to go to the County Court unless the amount is over £5. The hon: Member for the Oxford University has spoken about concession, but it appears to me that the concessions are all on one side.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 29, to leave out the words "Whatever is the amount," and insert the words "Where the amount due is over five pounds, and does not exceed fifty pounds."—(Sir J. Swinburne.)

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

٭(6.37.) SIR M. HICKS BEACH

The Amendments of the hon. Member would leave the law in a very remarkable state. Under them the tithe rent-charge would be recoverable by distraint, under the existing law, on the occupier when it was under £5 or above £50. The hon. Gentleman excludes the tithe rent charge under £5 and above £50 from the purview of the County Court, and therefore I am reduced to the belief that he intends to retain the existing law. I utterly fail to understand how the hon. Member would recover from the owner who does not occupy his own land.

Question put, and agreed to.

٭(6.38.) MR. S. T. EVANS

I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, after the word "owner," to insert the words "and occupier." I understand the Attorney General has been considering whether he can agree to the insertion of these words. My reason for proposing the Amendment is that the occupier is to be bound by proceedings which are conducted in his absence. Under the 5th Sub-section the occupier is to give certain notices before proceedings are taken, but if he does not receive notice how can he give notice under the 5th Sub-section? I do not think the occupier ought to be bound by anything which takes place in his absence, and therefore I hope the Attorney General will see his way to the acceptance of the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 3, after the word "owner," to insert the words "and occupier."—(Mr. S. T. Evans.)

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

٭(6.40.) SIR R. WEBSTER

I have not a particle of objection to the insertion of these words, if it is really thought it is desirable to insert them, but after the best consideration I do not think it is desirable. This matter must be considered together with Sub-section 5. The general case is this: Land is held. The landlord or owner is responsible for the tithe in the first instance. The tenant will never have to pay tithe so far as the tithe owner is concerned, but what will happen will be this: if the tenant owes rent, and a receiver comes to him and says, "Your landlord owes the tithe owner so much money," the occupier, under Sub-section 5, will have to pay his rent to the receiver. In that case I have not been able to appreciate—and I have discussed this with the hon. Member—any case in which the occupier could wish to go through the Court at all because he has nothing to do with the dispute. All he will have to do is to pay his rent to the receiver instead of to his landlord. It seems to me the Amendment would increase the cost in every case without the slightest reason. Then take a special case. Under Sub-section 5 we have provided that in every case where the occupier is liable to pay he shall have such hearing as is necessary In order to protect his own interests. That necessitates the occupier, who is under terms, by his contract, to pay to give notice to the tithe owner. But that would equally apply in case he had notice under the sub-section. The tithe owner cannot tell the cases in which the occupier is liable, and in which he is not liable. The Amendment would increase the costs, and although the increase would be small I think it ought to be avoided.

٭(6.45.) MR. S. T. EVANS

We only want to protect the occupier from being prejudiced. So far as costs are concerned, there need be no additional cost, or, if there is, it need not amount to more than 1s. for the service of the notice. With regard to the bearing of Subsection 5 upon the matter, I think the difficulty which would arise might be got over by the acceptance of my Amendment to Sub-section 5, which provides that instead of the occupier, the owner should give the notice. Let me also point out that before an order could be got under the proceedings a month might elapse. During that time the landlord, if he desired, might get the tenant to pay him any rent which happened not to be paid; but if notice was given to the occupier at the commencement of the proceedings the money would be tied in his hands until the proceedings were concluded.

٭(6.47.) MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN

On the former Bill I pointed out that where the occupier is liable——

SIR R. WEBSTER

The Amendment does not deal with a case in which the occupier is liable.

MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN

I pointed out that where the occupier is liable it would be unfair that the landlord and tithe owner should be able to settle the question without any service on the occupier, which would have been the effect of the old Bill. It seems to me the Government have met the case fairly by Sub-section 5, which gives the occupier who is liable the opportunity of serving notice, and in that way being heard. If the Amendment is carried it would be necessary in every case, whether the occupier is liable or not, for the occupier not only to be served, but to be heard. That seems to be a little unreasonable and unnecessary. I trust the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment.

٭(6.50.) MR. SYDNEY GEDGE

I can hardly understand anything more hard on the poor occupier than the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. What are these occupiers? Many of them are ignorant people. ["Oh, oh!"] I do not mean ignorant of the three R's, but ignorant of the provisions of Acts of Parliament. A poor widow, for instance, may be served with a notice, and she will have to attend, or pay a solicitor to represent her, although she may not have the slightest interest in the question. Why should you give a person in such a position the trouble of having a notice served upon her which will frighten her out of her life?

٭(6.51.) SIR M. HICKS BEACH

We entirely agree with the views of the hon. Gentleman opposite, and if he can withdraw his Amendment now and can suggest to us any case which is not covered by Sub-section 5, but can be included in it, we shall be very glad to consider it.

MR. S. T. EVANS

I will fall in with that proposal.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

(6.52.) SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE

The object of the Amendment I have placed on the Paper is very clear, and I think the Committee may at once proceed to a decision upon it. I take it that it is not the intention of the Government to encourage litigiousness. If the Government will not consent to the words I propose, I can only imagine that some other means will be provided by which the cost of recovery will be added to the tithe where it is found to be recoverable.

Amendment proposed in page 2, line 5, after the word "due" to insert the words "together with the cost of recovery."—(Sir R. Lethbridge.)

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

٭(6.53.) SIR R. WEBSTER

I hope the hon. Member will not press this. It is one of the many small matters that must be dealt with by rules. It is very undesirable to endeavour to affirm in this Bill what is to be found in the County Court Acts, although it may be expedient to declare that certain provisions of those Acts do not apply in this case.

SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE

Am I to understand from my hon. and learned Friend that the costs will be added by the rules of the County Court?

SIR W. HARCOURT

It would be most improper that such a rule should be laid down in an Act of Parliament. Costs are generally or very often in the discretion of the Court. This Amendment, if adopted, would take away that discretion. Though the Court thought a case a very proper one to be argued, and that each party should pay his own costs, there would be no power, if this Amendment were passed, to make such an order.

٭(6.54.) MR. SYDNEY GEDGE

I think the right hon. Gentleman cannot have read the clause. The words are not "the Court shall" but" the Court may order." My hon. Friend proposes to add, "together with the costs," and the right hon. Gentleman wants the House to believe that under the Amendment the Court "may" order payment of the sum and "shall" order payment of the costs. Will my hon. and learned Friend give me the assurance that if the words remain as they are in the Bill the Court will be able to give the costs?

٭(6.55.) SIR R. WEBSTER

I thought my hon. Friend's experiences of County Courts was larger than mine. I have no personal knowledge on the point, but I am so advised by County Court authorities, and I think there is no doubt about it. We intend to give the County Court the discretion, but I will look into the matter.

SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE

That quite satisfies me.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

٭(6.56.) SIR J. SWINBURNE

I beg to move the Amendment which stands next in my name. The first part provides that the County Court Judge may have power to order payment of arrears by instalments, and the second that the owner of the land shall not be liable to imprisonment for non-payment. At present no tithepayer can be sent to prison for non-payment of his tithe, but it is doubtful whether under this Bill he could not be sent to prison either for contempt of Court or otherwise. I think that when the subject was discussed by the House last year it was generally understood that there should be no imprisonment for non-payment of tithe in any shape whatever.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 7, at the end, to insert the words— Provided always, that the County Court Judge have power to order the arrears of the tithe rent-charge to be paid by instalments, and provided also that the owner of the lands out of which the tithe rent-charge issues shall not under this Act be liable to imprisonment for non-payment under an order of the County Court.—(Sir J. Swinburne.)

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

٭(6.58.) SIR R. WEBSTER

Two questions are raised by the Amendment. As to the first, with regard to payment by instalments, the answer is exactly the same as I have already given on the subject of costs. The power is possessed by the County Court Judge already, and it would be unwise, to reaffirm it in the Bill, as it would give rise to the argument that other powers, now possessed by the Judge, are intended to be withheld by this Bill. As regards the question of imprisonment, I would ask the hon. Baronet not to raise it now but to allow it to be discussed on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glamorgan shire (Mr. S. T. Evans). The question has been considered by my right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade and myself, and I may indicate what we regard as the right line to take. We have not the slightest intention of making any person liable personally, that is to say by imprisonment for non-payment of tithe. I say that in the most distinct manner possible. But there is one case that has to be carefully observed, and that is a case, not exactly of contempt, but one which I am sure the sense of the House would not like to see excluded. I refer to the case in which a bailiff, who is simply executing the process of the Court properly is met either by assault or by having the goods taken from him. That is already dealt with by the County Court Act, under which a person who acts in that way is liable to a fine of £5, which can be recovered before the County Court Judge. I am sure no one would wish that a mere Ministerial officer should be assaulted with impunity or have the proceeds of the distress taken from him. It is perfectly clear, however, that the existence of liability will under no circumstances enable a person to be imprisoned for non-payment.

(7.0.) SIR W. HARCOURT

It is very desirable that we should clearly understand where we are on this point. I should therefore like to know whether, in respect to an owner now liable for tithe rent charge under the Bill, there will be any remedy against him whatever except such remedy as now exists, that is to say, no remedy but distress?

SIR R. WEBSTER

None whatever. Distress, or occupation of the land.

SIR W. HARCOURT

Sub-section 2 declares that the officer of the Court— Shall have the like powers for the recovery of the sum ordered to be paid, as are conferred by the Tithe Acts on the owner of a tithe rent charge for the recovery of arrears of tithe rent charge. I would suggest that this requires strengthening by the words "like powers and no other." So long as we have it distinctly that the tithe owner shall have no remedy he does not now possess against the landlord, who is now in the position of tithepayer, I think we can work out the section on these lines.

٭(7.2.) SIR R. WEBSTER

It seems to me it is only a drafting question. The powers you confer are conferred in so many words, and the addition of the words ''and no other powers" adds nothing to the effect. I think it is perfectly clear. Take first the tenant under agreement. All he has to do is to pay over the rent to the receiver of the County Court, and not to the landlord. Where the owner is the occupier, recovery is then made by an officer of the Court, who will have the same powers as are conferred by the Tithe Acts. The only other case provided for is the case that does not directly arise, improper interference with the officer of the Court, but that, of course, does not affect the liability of owner or occupier.

٭(7.3.) MR. S. T. EVANS

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman undertake to introduce words to show that the reference is expressly to a particular section?

٭(7.3.) SIR R. WEBSTER

It is impossible to give that kind of promise without seeing what section the hon. Member means. If he suggests any particular section, I will of course consider any such suggestion. My distinct opinion is that the words in the Bill are amply sufficient to prevent any other remedy being enforced against occupier or owner.

٭(7.4.) MR. T. H. BOLTON

I understood the Attorney General to say that the Court will have power to make an order for payment by instalments. Is that consistent with the scope of the Bill? The remedy is not an order for payment, the remedy is the appointment of a receiver. There will be no order to pay, except to pay the amount which the receiver is authorised to recover. Is the County Court to appoint a receiver, and direct him to accept the rent-charge by instalments? I do not know whether the Attorney General has considered the matter; but what he says may be reported, and may lead to a construction of the Act not intended. I apprehend that it is the duty of the receiver to recover the amount, and not to accept instalments, unless the exigencies and necessities of the particular case require it.

٭(7.6.) SIR R. WEBSTER

I must disabuse the hon. Member's mind of the idea that anything I say will be used as an interpretation of the Act. I do my best to explain to the Committee what the state of the law will be, but no one should know better than the hon. Member, an experienced practitioner, that the Court puts its own construction on the words of the Act. The hon. Member has really answered his own question. There are no directions in the Act that the money shall be paid by instalments. The receiver will receive the rent and profits, and he will act under the direction of the Court. He will come back to the Court, and say he cannot recover the whole of the tithe rent-charge, but has an offer to pay £5 or £10, or whatever it may be, a month. The Court will consider whether this is a proper arrangement, and will sanction the receiver in receiving it. There will be no difficulty; it occurs not unfrequently in existing practice and procedure in cases of distraint, and there is no occasion for an alteration in the clause.

٭(7.8.) SIR J. SWINBURNE

I should like the Bill to be so drafted that the County Court Judge should be able to order payment of tithe to be made by instalments if he thought fit, like any other debt; but not to go through the form and expense of putting in a receiver. If the Attorney General assures me that the Bill is so drafted that the Court, can say the debt for tithe shall be paid at so much per month I shall be satisfied.

٭(7.9.) SIR R. WEBSTER

The hon. Member has not quite sufficiently studied the scheme of the Bill. So far as the tenant occupier is concerned we propose that he shall not be liable for more than he owes the landlord, and it would be impossible for the County Court to order it. It would alter the whole scheme of the Bill to do as the hon. Member suggests. The receiver for the County Court will receive the rent and profits, but in cases where the receiver cannot get the whole, the Court will authorise him to proceed by instalments. It would be utterly inconsistent with the whole scheme of the Bill if the Court were, in the first instance, to enter into the question whether there should be payment by instalments or not. A little more consideration of the Bill will show the hon. Member that the words he proposes are unnecessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

(7.10.) SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE

The next Amendment raises exactly the same question as was raised earlier, in reference to the cost of recovery and upon the undertaking given by the Attorney General; I do not move it.

٭7.10.) MR. S. T. EVANS

I propose to add at the end of the sub-section the words, "and no greater or other powers." This will meet with the approval of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, and I leave him to press the Amendment upon the consideration of the Committee.

(7.11.) Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 13, at the end, to insert the words "and no greater or other powers."—(Mr. S. T. Evans.)

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

٭(7.11.) SIR R WEBSTER

The powers conferred are set forth in the Statute, and it is for anyone who suggests that the receiver has other or greater powers to find the words that give such powers in the Statute. My only objection to the words is that they would be extremely bad drafting. Of course, the hon. Member may say he does not mind that if it adds to the clearness of the section. All I can say, and speaking from some experience, is that the powers given are given by Statute, and the addition of these words do not make the meaning more clear, while they are contrary to the recognised rules of drafting.

(7.12.) SIR W. HARCOURT

If you give to the County Court jurisdiction in a matter where it has not jurisdiction already the natural inference is that the ordinary County Court regulations and powers apply to this subject matter, and, supposing you said nothing more about any special remedy, all the County Court powers and remedies would be applicable to this subject matter. Now, here you give the County Court jurisdiction in regard to tithe.

SIR R. WEBSTER

If the right hon. Gentleman will look at line 13, where the Amendment moved comes in, he will see that the powers conferred for the recovery of the tithe rent-charge refer to the powers of the receiver under the Tithes Act; they do not refer to the County Court Act at all.

SIR W. HARCOURT

But I have not said what I wish the Attorney General to hear. This gives, no doubt, power of distress under the Tithe Rent-Charge Act, which the County Court does not naturally possess. But, in my opinion, it would not be an unreasonable interpretation to say this is a cumulative power. It does not exclude the ordinary County Court powers, but gives, in express terms, a jurisdiction that does not belong to the County Court at all, and it is quite possible to hold that the ordinary and natural County Court jurisdiction and administration should attach to the matter, plus the special remedies given under the Tithe Act. You say you allow these powers, but you do not say only these powers, excluding other County Court powers. It is not an unreasonable proposition to say this gives the County Court extraordinary powers it did not before possess. If you do not mean that, say so; make it clear that you do not mean to add this to the ordinary County Court powers.

٭(7.15.) SIR M. HICKS BEACH

We did not conceive it possible that such an interpretation could be placed upon the words in the Bill; but as we find it is possible, and that the right hon. Gentle man has suggested such an interpreta- tion, to save further discussion we will accept the Amendment.

tion, (7.16.) MR. SYDNEY GEDGE

If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby will look at the first subsection he will see that we have already amply provided that these shall be the only powers given to the County Court. The Court May order that the said sum, or such part thereof as appears to the Court to be due, be recovered in manner provided by this Act, and tithe rent-charge as defined by this Act shall not be recovered in any other manner. That excludes all other powers of the County Court.

٭(7.16.) SIR M. HICKS BEACH

If I agree it is conditional upon the discussion now ending.

Question put, and agreed to.

(7.17.) MR. H. R. FARQUHARSON

I propose to move at the end of the clause a provision that the occupying owner when a receiver is appointed shall be entitled to all the advantages an outgoing tenant would have under the Agricultural Holdings Act. The landowner occupying his own land is to be under the existing law, with the exception that an officer of the Court will be appointed to act for the tithe owner. I believe under the existing law the tithe owner can enter and occupy land from which tithe is due after it has been due for some considerable time. But under the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883 the incoming tenant will pay the out-going tenant for ploughing, harrowing, tilling, and various other acts of husbandry. Certainly these things are not the produce of the land; and I think it would be very desirable if the tithe owner in future when he enters on the owner's land should be put in the position of any incoming tenant and pay the outgoing tenant for such tillage which he would have payment for, were he an ordinary tenant under the Agricultural Holdings Act.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, after line 13, to add the words— Provided that if an officer is appointed by the Court and enters into occupation of the land the landowner shall be treated as an outgoing tenant, and shall be entitled to be paid such money as he would be entitled to receive if he were an outgoing tenant, under the 'Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883,' and by the custom of the country, and such money shall not be retained as a set off against the tithe."—(Mr. Farquharson.)

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

(7.20.) SIR M. HICKS BEACH

This sub-section refers to the case of occupying owners, against whom the remedy is by distress, and I do not quite understand how the proposed words apply in that case. I think that, at any rate, I must ask my hon. Friend to place his Amendment on the Paper, for it is evidently an Amendment I could not agree to without some consideration, and I confess I do not quite understand how it would apply at all.

٭(7.21.) SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID

Further, I think the hon. Member must tell us where the receiver is to get the money. His proposal appears to me to be an absolute impossibility.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

(7.21.) SIR J. SWINBURNE

I propose to move the omission from lines 16 to 20 of the words— Unless the Court otherwise direct, on the ground that it is unnecessary for recovering the rents and profits of such land, also of the rents and profits of any other lands of the same owner which are occupied by the same occupier, together with those lands. If these words remain, I think, as an hon. Member behind me has explained, the tithe owner can sue on the owner of the land for the whole of the tithe, whether the tithe is charged upon the whole of the land or not, a power which I think should not be granted.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 16, to leave out from the word "and," to the word "lands," in line 20.—(Sir J. Swinburne.)

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

٭(7.22.) SIR M. HICKS BEACH

The reason for the words is this: It frequently happens that a farm consists of tithable and non-tithable land, and if a person were appointed receiver merely of the tithable part of the farm there would be a difficulty in deciding what he was appointed receiver of, and it would give very great trouble to the receiver. Of course, this is a change in the present Bill to the advantage of the owner of the lands as compared with the proposal we made last year. In some cases it might be possible for the Court, in co-operation with the owner, to divide the land and appoint a receiver over one part, and this would come in under the words "unless the Court otherwise directs." Non-tithable land is in no way liable for the payment of tithe rent-charge. It is rather a technical point, but I hope I have made myself clear.

٭(7.23.) SIR J. SWINBURNE

But you are going to put a charge upon land not now tithable.

SIR M. HICKS BEACH

No; the words are a limitation of the existing law.

(7.24.) SIR M. HARCOURT

Well, but I should like to know, does it mean that the tithe upon land in one county can be recovered by authority over land in another county? If a man occupies two farms, can you make one farm responsible for the tithe on the other?

SIR M. HICKS BEACH

No; they will be separate occupations.

SIR W. HARCOURT

It is very obscure——

THE CHAIRMAN

There is a subsequent Amendment which deals with the point particularly; it would be better to dispose of this Amendment first.

٭(7.25.) SIR M. HICKS BEACH

I take it that the farm would be held under a separate agreement, that it would be rated separately, and therefore would be a separate occupation. The words are applicable to a case where there is tithable and non-tithable land on the same farm.

(7.26.) SIR W. HARCOURT

I am desirous of meeting the Government in the intention that this shall be as nearly as possible a Bill to transfer the liability for tithe from the occupier to the owner; that it should not pass beyond that limit. I will support a Bill having that object. I do venture to submit to the Government that they should eschew in their Bill any alteration of the liability itself; that they should not vary the liability by a hair's breadth in transferring the responsibility from one individual to the other. Now, so far as I understand the right hon. Gentleman, he admits there is a difference from the existing law in this multiple occupation. I do entreat him most carefully to avoid altering the character of the liability. I understand the ten- dency of these words is to make a variation in the existing law, which will, the right hon. Gentleman says, be to the advantage of the tithe owner.

SIR M. HICKS BEACH

No.

SIR W. HARCOURT

Well, he admits it is an alteration in the law. He says it will be against the tithe owner if the alteration is not made, so I conclude it is an alteration in favour of the tithe owner. That we ought not to do. Apart from the incidence, we should adhere to the law strictly and literally as it is, and if there is any doubt about it I should strongly advise the omission of the words.

٭(7.28.) SIR M. HICKS BEACH

I did not say this was an alteration of the law, but an alteration from the proposal we made last year, which was taken objection to. Our proposal last year was that the order of the Court should be executed against the lands subject to the tithe rent-charge, and against any lands of the same owner in the same parish, and occupied by the same person as the lands subject to the tithe rent-charge.

٭(7.30.) SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID

It appears to me that there might be considerable difficulty in dealing with this matter. If a man occupied 1,000 acres, and the tithe had not been paid on an additional strip of 10 acres, I think it would be a little strong to seize the 1,000 acres as well as the 10.

٭(7.31.) MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN

My difficulty is that the effect of this clause as it stands will be to make tithable lands which were not previously tithable. If it does so to any extent that is a very objectionable change in the law, and quite contrary to the principle on which the Bill is based.

٭(7.32.) MR. SYDNEY GEDGE

Unless these words stand, the clause will not be workable at all. The landlord may, perhaps, have leased or let the farm to one tenant, but the farm is liable in different parts to different charges, and unless this clause comes in the unhappy receiver will have to ascertain and apportion the precise plots of land which are subject to the different rent-charges. It would be utterly impossible, therefore, to limit the receiver in the reception of the rent merely to the particular plots. With regard to the limitation to "within the parish," that was all very well before- hand, but now that it is the landlord and not the occupier who is made responsible it is a very different thing. The landlord's estate is to be liable for the money.

(7.35.) SIR W.HARCOURT

I thought these words were dangerous before, but after hearing the speech which has just been delivered, I see that there is not only danger, but immense mischief in them. I am exceedingly obliged to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockport, for he has explained the words by his speech. It says, it was all very well in the old days when you were proceeding against the occupier, but it is different now. Well, first of all, you never did proceed against the occupier, but against the landlord, and so you ought to do here. Now, the hon. Member has shown that by having this matter dealt with in the County Court, the tithe owner is to have greater and more extensive powers against the landlord than he had under the old law. I cannot understand at all why the Government are not content to leave the law as it is under Clause 85 of the present Act. You are altering the provisions of that clause most materially. The present clause contains none of the limitations which appear in that. If we are asked how the receiver is to distinguish between one piece of land and another, the answer is that he has to distinguish under the Act of 1836. I would urge the Government to keep the law as it is. I understand this Bill to make this simple change in the law: that the tithe is to be levied on the owner instead of the occupier, and that instead of being levied by the tithe proctor of the tithe owner, it is to be levied by the County Court officer. With that part of the Bill I agree, but I object to, and will resist, anything that goes outside those two propositions. This is a material alteration of the existing law. If it is not, leave out the words. If it is, I think for the reasons I have stated we ought to object to it, and I do object to it, in the interest of the landowner as well as of the occupier.

٭(7.39.) SIR R. WEBSTER

As I understand the Amendment, it goes a great deal further than the right hon. Gentleman has just said. We have no intention of bringing within the ambit of the Bill, rents and profits in tithable land which would not be subject to Section 80 of the Act of 1836; and if the words go further than our intention, we must consider the question. But the Mover of the Amendment proposes that no other land shall be liable except the particular land from which the particular tithe issues. We cannot accept an Amendment which will, practically speaking, remove from the security of the tithe owner those very lands which are subject to Section 85.

٭(7.40.) MR. T. H. BOLTON

The object of Section 85 was not to make land which was not tithable pay tithe, but to provide that when the tithe was apportioned between the various parcels of land—so much on this and so much on that—and where the lands were owned by the same parson and occupied by the same tenant, you might resort to one tithable parcel of land for what another tithable parcel was not sufficient to pay.

SIR R. WEBSTER

Not necessarily "tithable" land.

MR. T. H. BOLTON

The words point to tithable land. They must be taken in conjunction with the words "not withstanding any apportionment." The tithe was commuted into a money payment, chargeable on the tithable lands of the parish. The apportionment divided the amount amongst the lands, and the object of the section was that, not with standing that division and that apportionment, if a parcel of land was not sufficient to pay the tithe charged on it, resort should be had to another parcel if owned by the same person and occupied by the same tenant. There was no provision in the Actto make non-tithable land pay tithe, and you cannot resort to that land. The proposal now made is not only to extend the liability to non-tithable land, but to extend the liability to all lands owned by the same person and held by the same tenant, whether in the same parish or not. If a farm lies in two adjoining parishes the receiver appointed to recover an arrear of rent-charge in one parish might cross the boundary and levy the tithe in the adjoining parish. That gives a far wider scope and operation to this section than ever could have been intended, even by the framers of the Bill. I therefore suggest that this clause should be considerably modified, and should be restricted to tithable lands and to lands in the same parish.

(7.44.) SIR M. HICKS BEACH

We all feel it would be desirable, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has said, to maintain the liability of lands to tithe rent-charge exactly as it is. Therefore, I would propose that we should leave the clause as it stands down to "lands" in line 18, and then insert— And of any other lands which would be liable to be distrained upon for the tithe rent-charge as to which the order refers under the provisions of Section 85 of the Act of 1836. The clause would then run— In any other case the order shall be executed by the appointment by the Court of a receiver of the rents and profits of the lands, and, unless the Court otherwise directs, on the ground that it is unnecessary for recovering the rents and profits of such lands, of the rents and profits of any other lands which would be liable to be distrained upon for the tithe rentcharge to which the order refers, under the provisions of Section 85 of the Tithes Act, 1836.

(7.45.) SIR W. HARCOURT

I think we are agreed in the object, but the question is how is it to be carried out. You carried it out in a very simple way in a previous sub-section. Section 85 of the Act of 1836, contains part of the powers therein referred to, and the definition of the powers; and I do not see why you should not deal with the matter under this sub-section in a similar spirit, even if the circumstances prevent your repeating the same words. Why should you not be content to give the receiver the powers that already exist under the existing Tithes Act? That would be quite safe. I do not see that any specification is necessary; and you have done something similar under Subsection 2.

SIR M. HICKS BEACH

These powers are only powers of distress, and we must remember that the receiver has other powers, such as receiving rents and profits.

SIR W. HARCOURT

I do not quite understand how the case stands in the mind of the Government. You are no longer to proceed against the occupier. You have initiated action against the owner where he is occupier, and have made other new departures; and then you say in "other cases" the orders shall be executed in accordance with the powers conferred by the Tithe Act. What is meant by other cases?

SIR .R. WEBSTER

The "other cases" are where the occupiers are not the owners; there is no doubt about that. The right hon. Gentleman says, "Bring the same powers into this subsection," but what is the subject matter? It is different from that of the other sub-section, being the land in respect of which the rent, and profits are to be received. Accordingly my right hon. Friend has suggested that the receiver should have power to recover the rents and profits of such lands, and of any other lands which are liable to be distrained upon under Section 85 of the Tithes Act. It is said that we should apply to that out of which the rent is to issue, namely, the land, exactly the same provision as that we apply in giving power to a receiver; and it is assumed that the same drafting should be resorted to in either case. Obviously that cannot be done.

(7.53.) SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID

I hope the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade will accept the Amendment. I objected to the Bill because it extended the powers of the receiver, but that objection was met by the receiver being placed in the same position he formerly occupied. I hope the Committee will accept the proposal.

(7.54.) VISCOUNT CRANBORNE (Lancashire, N. E., Darwen)

I would suggest that the words— Unless the Court otherwise directs, on the ground that it is unnecessary for recovering the rent and profits of such lands, are unnecessary. The receiver ought to have the full power conferred on him by the Act of 1836. In certain cases where tithe has been apportioned on a small parcel of the land, the fact that the tithe owner had the right to recover from the land in the occupation of the same occupier, owned by the same owner in the same parish, was a great security to him, and it does not seem to me that he ought to be limited in these powers in reference to such land. I do not think the Court ought to be asked to consider whether it is unnecessary for the purpose mentioned. The tithe owner ought to have the full power he possessed now under Section 85 of the Act of 1836 to recover his tithe from all the land owned by the same owner in the same parish, occupied by the same occupier.

(7.55.) SIR J. SWINBURNE

If the right hon. Gentleman assures me that the words of the proposed Amendment carry out the full intention of hon. Members on this side of the House, and that the powers of the receiver will not exceed those possessed by him under Section 85 of the Act of 1836, I will, with the permission of the Committee, withdraw the Amendment.

٭(7.56.) SIR M. HICKS BEACH

I think I am right in my recollection that the insertion of the words giving a discretion to the Court to exclude the other lands was intended to be an equivalent for the omission of the limitation to the parish, but it would be fairer to both sides that we should leave the matter as it was.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

(7.57) Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 16, to leave out the words— Unless the Court otherwise directs, on the ground that it is unnecessary for recovering the rents and profits of such lands, in order to insert the words— And any other lands which would be liable to be distrained upon for tithe rent-charge as to which the Order refers under the provisions of Section 83 of the tithe."—(Sir M. Hicks Beach.)

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

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

٭(7.58.) MR. S. T. EVANS

I beg to move to leave out, in line 21, the words— The County Court shall have the same powers for the purposes of this Act as in any other case where the Court can appoint a receiver, in order to insert — In respect of receivers, and may confer on the person appointed as receiver any powers that the Court may confer on receivers. If these words I move to omit are allowed to stand they will, I think, be found very dangerous. At present the County Court has the right, I believe, to appoint receivers in any case that may come before it; therefore, the words as they stand would give the County Court the same power that it has in every other case within its jurisdiction. I think the words I propose to substitute will carry out the intention of the Government.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 21, to leave out from the words "the County Court," to the word "and," in line 23.—(Mr. S. T. Evans).

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

٭(7.59.) SIR R. WEBSTER

I have some difficulty in following the scope of the Amendment, because it is not on the Paper. It seems to me it is only a question of language. It is necessary for the Court to keep control over the receiver; and even if the words the hon. Gentleman suggests were accepted, my impression is that the powers of the receiver would not be as they are now. The words sought to be struck out are necessary to keep the control of the Court over the receiver, and the words the hon. Member proposes to insert in their place are merely alternative.

(8.0.) SIR W. HARCOURT

What my hon. Friend is afraid of is that these words, "shall have the same powers for the purposes of this Act as in any other case," may go beyond what is desirable or necessary, and he thinks that the words he suggests would provide the requisite limitation.

MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN

The objection is that you propose to appoint a receiver and give him all the powers the Act of Parliament gives in the case of the High Court of Justice.

(8.1.) MR. WARMINGTON (Monmouth, W.)

I think the intention would be best carried out by these words— And the Court shall have such control over such receiver, and may confer on such receiver such powers as an ordinary receiver is subject to and enjoys; that is to say, there shall not be given to this receiver under this Act any exceptional position; that he shall have no further powers than an ordinary receiver, and shall be subject to the same control. The words of the clause, however, go much further than that.

SIR R. WEBSTER

The words objected to have been carefully considered, and I should prefer to stand by them unless the hon. and learned Member for Monmouthshire can show that other and greater powers than are intended are given by statute, and point out the statute that gives them. I do not see any advantage that would be derived from the adoption of the words suggested instead of those in the Bill.

MR. S. T. EVANS

I would suggest these words— And subject to the prescribed regulations, the County Court shall have the same powers in respect of receivers, and may confer on the person appointed as receiver any powers which the Court can confer on receivers.

SIR R. WEBSTER

Those words seem to be practically the same as ours. At any rate, I cannot see the difference; but I will say that if we find that our words do not satisfy us on consideration before the Report stage, I shall be ready to consider the suggestion of the hon. Member.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR J. SWINBURNE

I have now to move the Amendment I have placed on the Paper, providing— That it shall not be competent to the County Court Judge to appoint a receiver where the amount of tithe rent-charge due shall not exceed the sum of ten pounds, and provided also that the receiver apppointed under this Act shall be answerable to the owner of the lands out of which the tithe rent-charge issues, for mismanagement or for injury to the produce or to the holding. As the Bill now stands, it might be used in a very oppressive manner, through a receiver being appointed if a very small amount were overdue, that receiver—being merely anxious to recover the sum due—ploughing up old grass land without regard to the injury he is doing, in order to secure a crop, and then, when he has sold the proceeds and discharged the debt, leaving the farm in a ruinous condition.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 25, at end, to add the words— Provided always, that it shall not be competent to the County Court Judge to appoint a receiver where the amount of the tithe rent-charge due shall not exceed the sum of ten pounds, and provided also that the receiver appointed under this Act shall be answerable to the owner of the lands out of which the tithe rent-charge issues for mismanagement or for injury to the produce or to the holding."—(Sir J. Swinburne.)

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

SIR M. HICKS BEACH

In regard to the first part of the Amendment, I should like to ask the hon. Member how does he suppose the tithe rent-charge could be recovered without the appointment of a receiver? With regard to the other part of the Amendment, the receiver will, of course, be answerable to the Court, and I do not see any special reason for the adoption of the hon. Baronet's proposal.

SIR J. SWINBURNE

If the receiver is made liable for improper use of the farm, he will be more careful. If the Government desire it, I will withdraw the first part of the Amendment; but I think I must press the second portion.

(8.15.) SIR R. WEBSTER

Suppose you have a receiver, he is liable for any misconduct of that character. It would be a most injurious thing in the interests of the tenant and the owner to say that he is to be otherwise liable.

MR. WARMINGTON

I understand that a receiver is nothing but a receiver. He is not the manager of the farm; that would be entirely outside his duty, which is to receive the tithe rent. If he misconducts himself, he will be answerable to the Court, and in a very summary manner.

SIR J. SWINBURNE

Suppose the occupier and owner decline to go on cultivating the farm, then the receiver would appoint a farm bailiff to cultivate it—probably some ignorant person, who would be told to make the amount of the tithe rent-charge as quick as he could. Complaint would be made, and the reply would be, "We did our best." There may be a legal remedy, but practically the owner and occupier would be without any redress whatever.

MR. C. W. GRAY

I should like it to be made perfectly clear whether, under any circumstances whatever, the land will be cultivated by the Court officer, because the owner and occupier should be safeguarded under the circumstances. If it is merely a case between the payer of the rent and the tithe owner, I have no objection to the clause as it stands. But I cannot be put off by any words which are ambiguous.

SIR M. HICKS BEACH

It was never intended by the word "manager" that the receiver should cultivate the land. He receives the rent and pays the tithe.

SIR W. HARCOURT

I should like it to be clearly understood. We know that, under the old Tithe Law, if there were arrears for a certain time, and it was impossible to get the money, then the tithe owner could go in, and he does so now. Where the tithe exceeds the rent, and it is not worth while cultivating the land, you get what is called "derelict" land. We know there are certain cases in which the Colleges of Oxford occupy farms which, have become derelict in consequence of the extreme burden of the tithe. Unhappily the cases of derelict lands are not infrequent in this country. In Berkshire and Oxfordshire there are such cases. The tithe, as in the old days the poor rates, have eaten up the profits, and it is not worth while, either on the part of owner or occupier, to go on with the cultivation. I want to know, under this Bill, what would happen in those circumstances? There is no question of the receiver receiving the rent; there is no rent paid; there is no tenant to pay it; there is no one who will cultivate the land.

٭(8.20.) SIR R. WEBSTER

Of course. Those cases do not come under Sub-section 3, which applies to cases where the land is occupied. And where the land is occupied the receiver has no power to interfere, except to receive the rents. It may be that in drafting Sub-section 2 I have not sufficiently considered the cases to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has referred, but I think the law in these cases is that the owner is the occupier. There is no such thing as a derelict farm, in the sense of its being entirely unoccupied. It is perfectly correct that under the powers of the Tithe Commutation Act the tithe owner has gone in and worked the farm; but Sub-section 3 does not apply, but under Sub-section 2 the officer of the Court would have the power of entering. That is quite clear, though it cannot be discussed now, Sub-section 2 having been passed. Still, I am prepared to consider it before the Report stage.

SIR W. HARCOURT

Under those circumstances the receiver would be the manager.

SIR M. HICKS BEACH

No; the receiver would not be manager at all.

SIR W. HARCOURT

Who is to go in? The officer of the Court, the Attorney General says. Land goes out of cultivation because it does not pay, and it is to be made remunerative by sending an officer of the Court to farm it. Are the officers of the County Courts throughout the country to cultivate these derelict farms?

SIR R. WEBSTER

I never suggested it.

SIR W. HARCOURT

These farms become derelict because it does not pay to cultivate them. We ought really to have some more agricultural exposition of what is to be done in what I may describe as desperate cases. I understand that the receiver is a man who receives rent. Now, suppose that the tithe rent-charge is £50, and only £40 is forthcoming, what is going to be done with reference to the other £10?

SIR M. HICKS BEACH

I do not know whether I can be considered an agricultural authority or not, but I think the right hon. Gentleman entirely misses the intention of this sub-Section. This sub-section cannot apply where the land is not let. It only applies where the land is let. Well, then, the land being let, the owner of the land would obtain relief under the 3rd clause of this Bill, and the tithe would be reduced in accordance with the provisions of that clause, and no more of the tithe rent-charge would be recoverable than that clause allowed. But if it is a derelict farm then it would come under the provisions of Sub-section 2; and under those circumstances the officers of the Court would enter and distrain, subject again to the provision of the 3rd clause, which would prevent the tithe rent-charge distrained for being more than a certain proportion of the assessment to the Income Tax under Schedule B.

SIR W. HARCOURT

My proposition, is that there is nothing to distrain on on a derelict farm.

SIR M. HICKS BEACH

That being so, the other provisions of the Tithe Act of 1836 would come into force, under which, where there is no distraint, the tithe owner can enter and cultivate, subject to the limitations of that Act. That, I think, answers the right hon. Gentleman.

SIR W. HARCOURT

Not quite. Would it be the tithe owner, or the County Court Officer? Is the Court Officer to farm derelict land?

MR. S. T. EVANS

The Attorney General says that Sub-section 3 does not apply to derelict farms. But I will put a case to him which would fall within Subsection 3. The landlord might say to the tenant: "If you come to an agreement with me, I will let you the farm for 7 or 14 years at a very low rent. I will, for instance, give you a lease for 14 years, and if you erect the farm buildings you shall have the farm for seven years at a peppercorn rent." What would the officer of the Court do in such a case? Receive the peppercorn?

٭(8.31.) SIR R. WEBSTER

My hon. Friend has overlooked the provisions of Section 3. Still, it seems to me that this is a matter which requires further consideration, and it shall receive it when we come to the right clause.

٭(9.3.) MR. S. T. EVANS

The Attorney General thinks that Section 3 applies to the difficult cases in connection with the clause we are now dealing with. Bat Section 3 deals solely and simply with the remission of tithe, and not with payment of tithe. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think that if there is an abatement of tithe under Section 3, that section imposes a personal liability on the landlord to pay the tithe rent-charge at the amount fixed by the Commissioners. There is no provision in the Bill to meet the cases we have put. It might very well happen that a tenant agreed to put up farm buildings on the understanding that he should pay a peppercorn rent in the first half of the period of his lease. In that case, by what method are you going to get your tithe from him?

THE CHAIRMAN

The question raised is rather wide.

٭(9.5.) MR. T. H. BOLTON

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby raised the question whether the receiver proposed to be appointed under this Bill was to take possession of the farm, or whether the tithe owner, falling back upon the remedies given to him by the existing Act, was to do so. If the Attorney General will refer to Section I he will see there a distinct declaration that the tithe rent-charge shall not be recovered in any other manner than the manner prescribed—that is to say, by the appointment of a receiver. The appointment of a receiver is the only way in which tithe rent-charge can be recovered.

SIR R. WEBSTER

Sub-section 2 gives other powers.

MR. T. H. BOLTON

Yes, in reference to land occupied by the owner; but it amounts to the same thing. The receiver is the only person who can do anything, and he is to have all the powers given by the Tithe Acts for recovery of the tithe. One of the powers given by the Tithe Acts for the recovery of rent-charge is taking possession of the land. The Act of 6 & 7 William IV., chapter 71, section 82, provides that where there is not a sufficient distress to provide for the tithe rent-charge certain proceedings are to be taken, and they result in the tithe owner taking possession of the land. Therefore, the receiver to be appointed under this section may, under certain circumstances, be charged with the duty of taking possession of and, if he cannot find a tenant, I suppose of cultivating the land. If that is not intended, there will have to be some alteration in the Bill. I do not know that this is a very serious or practical difficulty, because the receiver appointed will act, I suppose, as a sensible man. He will collect the rent if there be any. He will let the land if he can. If he cannot let it he will have recourse to the Court, and the Court will give him instructions. I do not suppose he will carry on any extensive farming operations. He may expend a little money in laying down grass. I hear the hon. Member for Lichfield say that it would take a generation to produce pasture.

THE CHAIRMAN

The Amendment before the Committee is that of the hon. Baronet the Member for Lichfield Division.

MR. T. H. BOLTON

The hon. Baronet proposes that the receiver appointed shall be answerable for mis-management or bad cultivation. I am endeavouring to show that there may be a responsibility of the kind upon the receiver, but that I doubt whether the responsibility is of a very serious character. I do not think we should pass this section without realising the full effect of it, namely, that it will give the receiver a right to take possession and to carry out farming operations. That may involve putting land in pasture. The hon. Baronet says that is a long operation. I do not know that it takes 50 years. I have myself managed it in less time than that. At any rate whatever agricultural operations the receiver will have to carry out will not be of a very serious or important character. But in 999 cases out of 1,000 the probability will be that there will be a, tenant who will pay rent, a some one who will be willing to take the land and pay something for it. The last thing the receiver will do will be to take the land and cultivate it. I prefer to leave the clause as it is, for there will be great difficulty in getting a man to act as receiver, if in a certain event he has to farm the land and to be responsible in damages if he does not farm it properly.

(9.15.) MR. H. GARDNER

I do not at all agree with my hon. Friend when he says it will be a trifling matter if receivers who have no knowledge of agriculture have to work the land. But I rose for the purpose of ascertaining from the Attorney General what the situation is. I understand from the President of the Board of Trade and the Attorney General, that it is possible if lands become derelict—as many lands in Essex have-—and there is absolutely no occupier, Section 2 of the clause will come into operation, and the owner become the occupier. It is under Section 2 of the clause that all the remedies given by the Tithe Commutation Act of 1836 come into play, therefore it is obvious that the County Court when called upon will have all the remedies and power of the tithe owners under that Act. These remedies and powers include the appointment of a manager to enter into possession of the land, and work it for the benefit of the tithe owner. I want to know from the Attorney General or the President of the Board of Trade, who is to appoint this manager, and who the manager is to be? Is he to be the receiver? If so, I think we shall be landed in some difficulty. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has said, this derelict land, which is really the land about which the difficulties produced by excessive tithe arise at the present moment, will be handed over, in the County of Essex, to the receiver of the County Court.

٭(9.17.) SIR R. WEBSTER

The questions put to me are really not strictly in order, and I can only answer them by the leave of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby suggests that I have proposed that all these derelict lands should be cultivated by the receiver of the County Court. If he likes to make a joke at my expense I have no objection. I never suggested anything so absurd. I admit that before the Report stage we shall have to con- sider whether or not some addition should be made to the language of Subsection 2, in reference to derelict lands. But this Amendment does not apply to Sub-section 2 at all. It is a proviso to Sub-section 3, and to that sub-section it has no application of any sort or kind. I appeal to the Committee to proceed to he other clauses, and make progress, instead of continuing this barren discussion.

(9.18.) SIR W. HARCOURT

The hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken; this question arises on Sub-section 2. Sub-section 2 applies to land occupied by the owner, and an untenanted farm is not occupied by the owner. ["Who occupies it?"] Nobody. Such a case comes under sub-section 3—"in any other cases"—and that is why these words do not apply to land occupied by the owner. Those words include cases in which land is not occupied by the owner. Rates are levied upon the occupier. If an owner does not cultivate the land, what rates does he pay? He does not pay rates. I remember Mr. Henley telling me that land all round him was allowed to go out of cultivation in 1835, in order that no rates might be paid. To pretend that what is meant by Sub-section 2 is a non-beneficial occupation is to raise a technicality, which is not applicable to a business discussion. Let us treat this on a business footing, and I assert that there is no business man in the County of Essex who will call a man the occupier of a farm if he does not cultivate it or go near it. You may send any number of Attorney Generals down to a market town, but you will not persuade the people that a man is in occupation of a farm if he does not cultivate it or go near it. That is the distinction between practical agriculture and technicality. Let us deal with this matter in language that is "understanded of the vulgar," and not in the celeris juris of the Attorney General. Do not let us call people occupiers who do not occupy. I contend that in some form or other you can provide for the matter under this section. Under Sub-section 3 you begin very properly by making provision for the receipt of rents and profits where there are rents and profits. That is quite right. That is one of the other cases. Now we are putting to you a case where there are no rents or profits, where there is no occupation, and where under the old tithe law the tithe owner has the right to go in. I will give you a case where the tithe was much greater than the rent. The tithe owner, that is to say a college, went in and took possession under the Tithe Act of 1836. They were not going to cultivate the land themselves, not even by their bursar, who would be a better man for the purpose than the bum-bailiff of the County Court. They said—"We are the tithe owner and there is no question of the tithe." They induced a man to go into the farm. They said—"We will let you the land, and you shan't be governed by the custom of the country; you shan't be under any restrictions as to the cropping of the land." They could not get a tenant except under those destructive conditions. This is one of the "other cases" which you have not dealt with. You must explain to us who is to stand in the shoes of the tithe owner at present: when it is necessary to take possession of the land which is neither worth the rent by the tenant or worth occupation by the owner.

٭(9.28.) MR. C. W. GRAY

I cannot agree with the hon. Member for St. Pancras, that because there are only a small number of cases that will be affected by this Amendment we are not called upon to deal with them. It is just these cases which are the burning cases. We have before us two propositions. The hon. Baronet (Sir J. Swinburne) proposes that the receiver appointed under this Act shall be answerable to the owner of the land out of which tithe rent-charge issues for any injury done the holding, and the Attorney General suggests that we had better not deal with this subject now, because it could be dealt with better on a subsequent clause.

SIR R. WEBSTER

I pointed out that it must be dealt with by some words in Sub-section 2. The person entitled to possession is the occupier, if it is not held, and that has been decided over and over again.

MR. GRAY

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for the correction. I desire that the point shall be dealt with in the best practical manner possible, but I do not quite understand what is the meaning of the word "must." Will the Government undertake that this matter shall be dealt with in a business-like way on the Report stage? The whole reason shown to the House for the Bill is connected with the collection of the tithe. We are told that circumstances have so altered since the passing of the Tithe Commutation Act that some of the tithe owners are in such a plight that this House should pass a Bill to strengthen their position, and give them the means of collecting their tithe with more certainty than hitherto. But, on the other hand, circumstances have changed also with landlords and tithe-payers, and they are in a different position since the passing of the Commutation Act. And just as the one contention on the part of the tithe owners has force, so I maintain the other contention on the part of tithepayers ought to gain attention here. There is no doubt whatever that a number of farms are derelict, or nearly so, that landlords are seriously considering whether it would not answer their purpose better to make them derelict, and so be free from the imposition of tithe and taxes, which are collected so long as cultivation continues. This being so, I may ask the Government to say not only that this question shall be considered on the Report stage, but in what sense they will be prepared to consider it.

(9.32.) MR. W. B. ROWLANDS (Cardiganshire)

I concur with the hon. Member for Maldon in asking the Government to give some more definite indication of the spirit and sense in which they will consider this point. Apart from the matter of cultivation, there is the greatest possible room for danger to be apprehended from an officer of the Court being turned loose as receiver or manager of a farm. I also think the Attorney General has been unconsciously a little impatient in his appeal to us to pass on to another clause, considering the manner in which the Committee have dealt with the Bill, and the progress we have made.

(9.33.) SIR M. HICKS BEACH

All that my hon. Friend the Attorney General meant was to restrain the Committee from an unpractical discussion. I am sure he did not for a moment desire to suggest that there had been any delay in the progress of the Committee. In fact, we have to thank the Committee for anattentiveanda business like sitting. It occurred to my hon. and learned Friend that this point does not arise on this sub-section. In our belief, where land is not let to a tenant the owner of it must be the occupier. In other words, he must be rated as the occupier. I have had some little experience on Assessment Committees and matters of that kind, and I am sorry to say I am owner of some unprofitable land, and I know it is impossible to escape rating as such. But the right hon. Gentle man the Member for Derby contends that is not so, and that the case would fall under Sub-section 3. This I will say, that under whatever section it may come, we are quite in accordance with the view the hon. Member for Lich-field suggests, and which I think the Committee will agree with, that the officer of the Court should not waste the land. Now, we believe that he is prevented from doing so by the provisions of the existing law. We will look into the matter, and if the provisions of the existing law are not clearly sufficient under the law controlling the ordinary work of the County Court officials, and we find that additional provisions are necessary, then these additional provisions shall be inserted. I do not think I can give a more definite pledge, and with that understanding I hope the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment. I am inclined to think the provisions of Sub-section 2 on the point ought to make it clear that where the land in the absence of distraint is taken possession of by the tithe owner under the provisions of the Tithe Act that the tithe owner should cultivate, and not the officer of the County Court. But the matter shall be carefully considered.

(9.37.) SIR J. SWINBURNE

With this assurance I am content. I want to be assured that officers of the Court shall not pocket the money and allow the land to be spoilt and wasted, doing more injury, perhaps, than can be repaired in half a century. I cannot enter into a controversy upon fine legal points. But from a practical agricultural or pastoral point of view, I know that in many cases small farms have been rendered utterly valueless by the ploughing up of old grass fields. But with the assurance that the point shall be considered I withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

(9.39.) MR. S. T. EVANS

The object of my next Amendment is clear, and I think I need only move it.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 29, after the word "Acts," to insert the words— But such sum shall not be deemed a preferential debt or payment in bankruptcy."—(Mr. S. T. Evans.)

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

(9.40.) SIR M. HICKS BEACH

I think the hon. Member is regarding this as if it were a personal debt, but it is not that; it is a charge on the land, and therefore must have priority over other debts. If the tithe rent-charge were to be dealt with as the hon. Member supposes it should, then it would merely rank pari passu with the interest on a mortgage. But it is really a charge on the land before any debts of that kind can be dealt with, and we do not propose to alter it.

(9.41.) MR. S. T. EVANS

It would also prevent the wages being paid of the persons who created the produce which goes to the tithe owner.

(9.41.) DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)

I really think an answer is required. Irish Members have not intervened in this discussion, for as Irishmen they are not interested; but, really, I think that some substantial reason should be advanced in support of the contention, and that the matter ought not to be allowed to go by default in such a great issue as this. There is too little fight on this side of the House in support of the English tenantry. I hope hon. Members will rise to their responsibilities, and try to gain more for those they represent in Great Britain than they seem disposed to do. Something more is wanted from the Government than this brief, rather curt, and obtuse answer.

(9.45.)The Committee divided:— Ayes 67; Noes 143.—(Div. List, No.15.)

(9.54.) MR. S. T. EVANS

At present the occupier of the land is made to give notice before an order can be made in which he is interested, but I think the occupier ought not to be put to that trouble and expense. My object is to place on the owner, and not the occupier, the duty of giving notice. I hold that as the owner is made liable the duty of giving the notice should rest on him.

Amendment, proposed in page 2, line 34, to leave out the words "he may," and insert the words "the owner of the lands shall."—(Mr. S. T. Evans.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'he may' stand part of the Question."

(9.56.) SIR R. WEBSTER

I should have thought that where the occupier has an interest in the matter he would protect that interest by giving the notice. Personally, however, I have no objection to the method suggested by the hon. Member, but it is a matter for the Committee to decide.

(9.57.) MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN

The occupier may not know, but the owner must know, and it must be remembered the occupier may be a poor and ignorant man.

SIR M. HICKS BEACH

To save further discussion, I am willing to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

(10.0.) MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN

The object of the next Amendment on the Paper, standing in my name, is to carry out what we are all agreed is the intention of the Act. The words I have put down are borrowed from one of the Tithe Acts. I understand, however, that the President of the Board of Trade has come down prepared to move an Amendment, which will make the clause clear. I will, therefore, only formally move the Amendment, for the purpose of giving an opportunity for discussion

Amendment proposed, in page 2, after line 37, to insert the following subsection:— Nothing in this Act contained shall create any personal liability for the payment of any tithe rent-charge in any owner or occupier or other person, or in the executors or administrators of such owner or occupier or other person."—(Mr. G. Osborne Morgan.)

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

(10.2.) SIR M. HICKS BEACH

I am advised that the words of the right hon. Gentleman would not do, because they would include all other persons, and, therefore, they would include the receiver, who of course must be personally liable for the tithe he receives. An Amendment on the subject would, I think, come in better after Sub-section 6, where the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. S. Evans) has put down his Amendment, and I will read to the Committee the words we suggest for dealing with the point. They are as follows:— Nothing in this Act shall improve or constitute any personal liability upon any occupier or owner of land for the payment of any tithe rent-charge or any other sum which by this Act shall be payable as tithe rent-charge, and the Court shall not by virtue of this Act have power to imprison any occupier or owner by reason only of any such non-payment of any tithe rent-charge or other sum.

MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN

As far as I can see at present that will meet the point. But I should like to have an opportunity of considering it more carefully.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

٭(10.5.) MR. S. T. EVANS

When we were discussing Sub-section 1 of Section 2 the Attorney General said he was willing to consider any suggested clause respecting the occupier's liability. I think this is the proper place to move an Amendment on the point, and I therefore propose to add to the sub-section— Where in any case any property, right, or interest of the occupier may be affected by any order to be made under this Act, then before that order shall be made there shall be such service of the order on the occupier.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 57, to insert at end— Where in any case any property, right, or interest of the occupier may be affected by any order to be made under this Act, then before that order shall be made there shall be such service of the order on the occupier."—(Mr. S. T. Evans.)

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

٭(10.6.) SIR R. WEBSTER

The subsection is inadequate for the purpose suggested, and I would suggest that it should be more carefully considered. We have no objection whatever to the occupier coming forward in cases where he gives proper notice; but the subsection does not provide for the occupier giving notice that he will appear. I would suggest that the hon. Member should submit his Amendment before the Report stage.

٭(10.7.) MR. S. T. EVANS

What struck me was this: that it might appear to the Court that the occupier was interested, and the Court in such a case would not make any order until there had been such service on, and hearing of, the occupier as is described. I will, however, assent to the suggestion made by the Attorney General.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

(10.8.) SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE

The object of the next Amendment which stands in my name is to secure uniformity in the Rules of Court throughout the country.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 38, after "(6)," to insert the words— As soon as may be after the passing of this Act the Lord High Chancellor shall make, and may afterwards vary."—(Sir Roper Lethbridge.)

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

SIR M. HICKS BEACH

I may say that there is uniformity already under the County Court Act. The rules are made by the Judges, and are subject to the sanction of the Lord Chancellor.

SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE

I should like to remark that the Law of Distress (Amendment) Act, 1888, points to the Lord Chancellor himself making these rules from time to time. It does seem to me that there might be advantages in the Lord Chancellor taking the initiative in the matter, instead of merely accepting the suggestions of a committee of Judges.

٭(10.10.) SIR R. WEBSTER

The two matters are not the same. The County Court Judges first make the rules of their own Court, they being conversant with the practical working of the Court. The rules so prepared are then submitted to a Committee, composed of some of the members of the Court and the Lord Chancellor. I venture to think, therefore, that it would be better to leave the matter where it is at present.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

٭(10.11.) MR. SYDNEY GEDGE

I would suggest that the word "shall" be substituted for "may," in line 38.

٭(10.11.) SIR R. WEBSTER

The word "may" is invariably used, because it points to the making of the rules from time to time. I have glanced at several of the rule-making sections, and I find that that is the word used. I think the section is right as it stands.

٭(10.12.) MR. S. T. EVANS

I beg to move the insertion of the words— Provided that the total cost of orders and proceedings in any case within sub-section (2) of this section, shall not exceed the amount of costs recoverable in a like case under the Tithe Acts now in force. The principle of the Bill, we are told, is that the landlord is to be liable for the payment of the tithe. I do not know that it would not have been as well to allow the remedy of distress without the intervention of the County Court in the cases of occupying freeholders. A man tilling his own land ought not to be in a worse position as to costs than he would be in case of distress at present. I do not know what the scale may be, but I think this proviso ought to be put in so that the occupying freeholder should not have to pay more costs than he is liable to at present.

Amendment proposed, at the end of the clause, to add the words— Provided that the total cost of orders and proceedings in any case, within sub-section (2) of this section, shall not exceed the amount of costs recoverable in a like case under the Tithe Acts now in force."—(Mr. S. T. Evans.)

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

٭(10.14). SIR M. HICKS BEACH

I do not think it possible to agree with this. The procedure under the Bill will be entirely different to that under the existing Statutes. There are different scales, and we propose that the fees should be settled precisely in the way they are settled in ordinary cases in the County Court. The question of the scale of fees in the County Court is important, but, considering the difference of procedure, to say that the County Court costs shall in no case exceed the amount of costs under distraint is a thing I could not agree to.

(10.16.) MR. H. GARDNER

I do not know whether the Government apprehend what the costs will be. This matter does not only affect large landowners, but also small occupiers, of whom there are many in England and Wales. Under the Tithe Commutation Act of 1836, the Attorney General knows the whole costs of recovering a debt of tithe rent-charge amounts to the cost of the statutory notice, which is only 2s. 6d. But if the recovery is to be in the County Court, a small owner, who owes a tithe of £20, will probably have to pay £10 instead of 2s 6d.; therefore, I wish it to go forth to the small owners of the country, that if the Government will not accept the Amendment, they will, by this Bill, be imposing on the tithepayers a fine of something like £9 18s. 6d.in the matter of recovering the tithe rent-charge. I maintain that the Amendment is very important, and it is one which I hope will be pressed to a Division.

٭(10.18.) MR. T. H. BOLTON

I hope it will not be pressed to a Division. Under present circumstances I admit that the expense is very small if the amount is less than £20; but where the distress is for more than £20, there is a very wide latitude allowed with reference to expenses. "Reasonable" expenses may mean a good deal. In cases of distress for tithe of £20 and upwards the expense is very considerable, and if you refer to the costs and expenses in cases where possession is taken— where the land is derelict—the costs will be found to be much larger. I have within reach a copy of a bill of costs relating to taking possession of land, and it shows that where the tithe was £5 or £6 the costs were £46, or something of that sort. The present procedure is distress, and failing sufficient to distrain upon, taking possession. That is a different process altogether to recovery by action in the County Court and the appointment of a receiver. In the case of the County Court, tithe actions will have to be fitted in with the ordinary business, procedure, and expenses of the Court. Having every sympathy with my hon. Friend, I cannot go with him in a proposal which is only calculated to embarrass and throw difficulties in the way of the working of the Act.

(10.21.) MR. H. GARDNER

The hon. Gentleman speaks with great authority in the matter, but he has wholly misstated the case. The fact is, that the expenses to which he refers would be incurred in both cases—in the case of the tithepayer under the Tithe Commutation Act and under this Bill. The case I referred to was one in which the expenses under the former were 2s. 6d., and would be under the latter 50 per cent. of the tithe. The contention of my hon. Friend has nothing to do with that case.

٭(10.22.) MR. T. H. BOLTON

We are to have the system of applying to the County Court and appointing a receiver, and, of course, must be governed by the rules and proceedings of the County Court, and necessary expenses in the County Court must be provided for.

٭(10.24.) MR. S. T. EVANS

My hon. Friend has entirely misapprehended the matter. I would remind him that the clause says that where land is occupied by the owner the order of the Court shall be executed by the appointment of an officer who shall have powers corresponding with those now exercised, so that the proceedings are analogous. There will not be the appointment of a receiver at all in such cases, as he seems to think. There will only be a change in the authority which appoints the bailiff. Now the tithe owner appoints the bailiff who makes the distress, and under the Bill the County Court will appoint the bailiff, but the distress will be the same. All I seek by the Amendment is that the costs shall not exceed those which are now recoverable.

٭(10.26.) MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN

I contend that the costs will be the same, because the processes will be the same.

٭(10.27.) SIR R. WEBSTER

There are two objections to the proposal. It has been said that under the Bill the costs will be at least £10, but there is no warrant whatever for that statement. Assuming that the amount of the tithe was under £5, the ordinary County Court costs, including the hearing fee, would only be a few shillings, half of which would be returned. Coming to tithe of £20, £30, or £50, the costs would only be a fraction of what under ordinary circumstances would now be incurred. And there is this further objection: that the proposed Amendment sets up no standard of fees of any kind. The Rule Committee will consider .the matter; and having regard to the simplified procedure, the Rule Committee may be safely trusted not to impose extravagant or absurd costs. Everyone who knows the procedure of County Courts must be aware that as regards notices and such things the outside cost will only be a few shillings. The cost should be according to the work done. I cannot sympathise with the action of the member of the legal profession who succeeded in build- ing up the heavy bill of costs referred to by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Bolton).

٭(10.29.) MR. S. T. EVANS

If the amount of tithe were £6 10s. there would be an entry fee of 8s. and a hearing fee of 14s., without any professional or other charges.

(10.29.) MR. AMBROSE (Middlesex, Harrow)

The Amendment would practically kill the Bill, because if the recovered costs were to be limited, the remainder might exceed the value of the tithe. One of the difficulties at present is that the owner finds the cost of recovering tithe exceeds the value of the tithe. If by Act of Parliament the costs of recovery are limited, resistance to the recovery of tithe will be at once encouraged, and that will defeat the object of the Bill, which is to facilitate the recovery of tithe.

(10.32.) MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS (Glamorgan, S.)

The effect of the Bill will be to penalise every yeoman in England and Wales in costs. The old remedy is cheap and easy, although it sometimes imposes costs on the tithe owner to set it in motion. The object of the Amendment will be attained, and the difficulty suggested by the Attorney General will be avoided, by the Rule Committee being instructed to draw up a scale of costs which shall not exceed those under the present system. If the Amendment is not carried tithepayers in Wales will have to make a protest under the coercion and penal pressure of costs.

(10.34.) MR. W. B. ROWLANDS (Cardiganshire)

The argument of the hon. and learned Member for Harrow is that the object of the Bill is to simplify the collection of tithe, and then he goes on to say that the process of increasing costs will facilitate the collection of tithe, which seems to the uninstructed mind a singular conclusion. The costs will either be more under the new system or less. If they are likely to be more, it is our duty to take care that they shall not be; and if they are likely to be less, there can be no harm in accepting this Amendment. As to the argument of the Attorney General, I think he has been answered by my hon. Friend who spoke before me. If we impose on the Rule Committee the power of making a scale of costs we should do so with the instruction that the scale should not be higher than under the present system. Under these circumstances, can any harm be done? I do not think there can. On the contrary; I hold that, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for South Glamorganshire (Mr. A. J. Williams), in the interests of the Welsh people, this is a most important Amendment, and one which I venture to hope will commend itself to the favourable consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

(10.31.) SIR W. HARCOURT

Sir, I believe that the practical working of this Bill will very much depend on how we deal with this question of costs; for, after all, its practical effect will be not so much how it will affect the large landowners as what effect it will have on the small owners where the amount of tithe payable may be small and the cost of collection proportionately great. This question of costs will, I think, be found, when we have had experience of its working among the smaller owners to be the most material of all. It has been found that in criminal cases as before the Magistrates, where a fine of only Is. is inflicted, it very often happens that the costs amount to as much as 25s., and that is a circumstance which very seriously compromises the whole question. My great objection to the former Bill was the manner in which it was likely to affect the question of costs. In the former Bill the costs were put upon the occupier. That was a great objection, which of course cannot occur here, because the question is one which now affects the owner. Nevertheless, it is one which may have a serious effect upon the small owner. I venture to warn Her Majesty's Government that the question whether the Bill will do any good or not depends a great deal on how they deal with this question of costs. I would venture, with all respect, to advise the hon. Gentleman the Attorney General, in the conduct of this Bill, to entreat his legal supporters not to argue in favour of anything that is likely to add to the costs or to do too much in the way of crossing the "t's" and dotting the "i's" of this measure, in such a manner as to exhibit the magnitude of all the blots in the Bill. We have had some experience of this sort of thing in the course of the discussions that have taken place this evening. The hon. and learned Member for Harrow has told us that this is a Bill for the collection of tithe, and that we cannot carry this object out better than by increasing the costs. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has dealt with this Bill in a very reasonable spirit; and if we could only induce his legal supporters not to point out these things in so embarrassing a manner, I think it would be all the better for the progress of the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Harrow has shown us the animus of the Bill from his particular point of view. He says that at present the costs are light, and the tithepayer is not much terrified by them; but he went on to say that, as compared with the existing system, there will be an increase. That is a course which we on this side of the House will resist to the uttermost. It is contrary to the whole spirit in which we regard this Bill. We have agreed to change the incidence of payment, but have not agreed to make that incidence heavier, whether the amount is paid by the occupier or the owner. And yet here we have it avowed from the other side of the House—from what I may call the tithe owners' party—that their object is that which I have just stated. Let us see how that question regarding costs really stands. Everybody knows that under the existing system there are no costs whatever, except the costs of distress. The costs, therefore, are naturally very light. The question arises, Are the costs of recovering the tithe in the future to be more than the present cost of a simple distraint? If they are, then the tithe-payer is by this Bill damnified in his relations to the tithe owner. By Subsection 2 it is provided that the powers of recovery are those of the present Tithes Act. That, I suppose, means the power of recovery by distress; therefore, pro tanto, it remains in that respect as at present; but before you go to distraint you have to take proceedings in the County Court. That is a process which you do not go through now; therefore, plus the cost of the recovery, you must have the antecedent cost of going to the County Court to enable the distress to be executed; therefore by this Bill you have added to the system of costs by the necessity of going to the County Court. I confess that until I heard the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Harrow, I was not fully alive to the magnitude of the question before us; but now it is made perfectly plain that you will have not only the existing costs in addition to the amount of debt, but also the costs incident to the proceedings that will have to be taken in the County Court. Therefore this Bill, instead of lessening the cost to the tithepayer, necessarily makes it more expensive. I think we ought to make as strong an objection as we can to this, part of the Bill, and not have the position of the two parties altered by making the costs heavier.

(10.47.) MR. AMBROSE

The right hon. Gentleman was once a member of the legal profession, and that being so, I think he cannot be serious in saying that the costs were a penalty or fine to be obtained, either by the defendant or prosecutor, as in legal proceed-dings. The right hon Gentleman has clearly forgotten the original meaning of these costs. They are not a fine or a penalty in any sense. They are an indemnity to the party proceeding, for loss sustained by the defaulter of the party proceeded against. Who causes the costs, to be incurred? Not the tithe owner, but the tithe payer, who is absolutely master of the situation. He can pay his, tithe and avoid costs altogether. [Laughter and Cheers.] I am glad hon. Gentlemen appreciate that point. If the tithe owner, because of non-payment of tithes, has to incur costs, surely it is equitable and just that he should be indemnified. If you alter that principle in any degree you put it in the power of the tithepayer to make the cost of obtaining the tithe so great as to destroy the value of the tithe altogether.

(10.50.) MR. H. GARDNER

I cannot take so pleasant a view of the costs as the hon. and learned Gentleman. As to the statement I made with reference to the amount of the costs, I based it on information given me by a solicitor practising in the County Courts in my own county. Taking the recovery of a debt of £20 on a small farm, he put down the various items, which brought the costs up to £10. I showed the statement to my hon. and learned Friend, who said that the charge was small. I think the Government would do well to follow the golden rule laid down by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, that we ought not to add any fresh penalties to those which already existed under the Tithe Commutation Act of 1836. We should endeavour in this measure not to lay any fresh burdens on the tithepayer.

(10.53.) Mr. ABEL THOMAS (Carmarthen, E.)

Sir, the cost under a distraint for tithe is 2s. 6d. for the ten day notice, the possession money, so much per day, and a small sum for the auctioneer's charges; but by the Government's present proposal of proceedings in the County Court, where possibly counsel or a solicitor would be engaged, the costs would be very largely increased. You have all the costs of an ordinary County Court action added to the former costs. Therefore, whether you call it an indemnity or a penalty matters not, for I would point out that the tithe owner, under this Bill, is put in a better position than before. It is perfectly evident that this section puts the tithe owner into a better, and the tithepayer into a worse, position. I trust the Government will be consistent throughout, and that they will accept my hon. Friend's Amendment, which is to put the tithe owner exactly in the same position after the passing of this Bill as he is now, and which the Government have again and again alleged to be the object of their Bill.

(10.56.) SIR W. HARCOURT

Before we go to a Division we ought to make the position quite clear. If they do not agree that the costs of the County Court shall not be excessive, we must to the best of our power resist Clause 2, which creates the County Court jurisdiction in substitution of the present process. Unless you mean to act adversely to the tithepayer you have no right to introduce a more expensive procedure against him. That is the clear principle upon which we shall, so far as we can, fight this out. All the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Harrow goes for nothing at all. Suppose you took the most expensive tribunal—the House of Lords—where the costs would be several hundreds of pounds. Would not that be an injury to the man whose position you would change in that respect? In a minor degree, if you substitute for the simple process of distress litigation which involves costs to the amount of even £3 or £4, that amount, though apparently little, is large to little men. Unless yon will give us a guarantee that this County Court procedure is not going to cost the tithepayer more than the present procedure, you are doing him an injustice. That is a perfectly plain principle. If you will not give us this security, we shall do our best to resist the second clause. The first principle of putting the liability on the tithe owner may remain in the first clause, because that is only a return to the present law, which has been pirated by owners who have contracted themselves out of it. That principle can remain, and the tithe owner—dropping the second clause—can recover as at present. If you want to alter the method of recovery it is only fair to demand that the alteration shall not be such as to throw any additional Cost on the tithepayer. That is the plain principle on which I think we ought to go. Is your new method of recovery going to cost more than the old? If it is, then we say it is unfair to the tenant, and we must do our best to prevent such a provision being enacted.

٭(11.1.) SIR M. HICKS BEACH

That no doubt is a very formidable threat. As my right hon. Friend has made his position clear, it is only right that I should try to make our position clear. In the first place, we decline to accept the Amendment. It seems to me, with all deference to the hon. Member, absurd to say that when you were changing the procedure in a matter of this kind the costs of the new procedure shall not exceed the costs of the old. If the procedure is different the items of cost must necessarily be different. They may be more or less, but when the right hon. Gentleman asks the Government to guarantee that the costs of the new procedure shall not be more than those of the old, the Government can give him no such guarantee. But this guarantee we can give—that we have no desire to use this new method of procedure as a means of penalising any one. We propose it as a better mode of procedure, but we have no desire that the costs shall be run up. Our wish is that the costs shall not be one farthing more than is absolutely necessary for the plan to be efficiently carried out. One thing, however, we will not be so foolish as to do—namely, to propose a new procedure, and then to whittle it away by a limitation on the costs which may deprive it of efficiency. I will guarantee that this matter of costs shall be considered by the proper authority—the Rule Committee of the County Court Judges in conjunction with the Treasury —and that the influence of the Government shall, as far as possible, be brought to bear with the view of reducing the costs to the minimum point consistent with efficiency. Below that point we will not go, and we must ask the Committee to support us in that.

(11.4.) SIR HENRY JAMES

Allow me to make a suggestion, which may, perhaps, meet the arguments which have been urged with such force on both sides of the House. I understood that the substitution of the County Court process for the old process was for the benefit of all concerned—of the tithe owner, of the person upon whom the tithe ought to be levied, and of the public, who would be relieved from the pain of witnessing scenes which every one regrets. Please recollect, as a matter of justice, that you are compelling the tithe owner by this Bill to go to the County Court, in his own interest no doubt, but also in the interest of the public. How, then, are the costs to be borne? The argument of my right hon. Friend is that you must make the tithe owner pay the additional costs, and that the increased burden shall not be cast upon the poorer person. But it is unjust to make the tithe owner go to a tribunal for the benefit of the public, and then to make him bear the increased costs; to say, in fact, "You are to go for the benefit of the public to the tribunal we appoint, but the increased costs shall not be borne by the tithepayer." I feel, however, that one thing might be done to mitigate the hardship. The Government might say that the costs shall not exceed the sum mentioned in the schedule, and in that schedule they ought to make plain what the costs will he. If they cannot be reduced to 2s. 6d. they might be reduced o a very low standard. If the Govern- ment will bring up on Report a Schedule showing that the costs will be reduced to a very low standard, I do not fear that any great burden will be cast on the tithepayer.

٭(11.6.) MR. H. H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)

I join issue with my right hon. Friend as to for whose benefit this Bill has been brought in. The tithepayer did not ask for it, the country has not asked for it, but the Bill is one solely and entirely in the interests of the tithe owner. Under the Act of 1836, the tithe owner had no person liable to him—neither the landlord nor the tenant—for the payment of tithe. He simply had a charge on the produce of the land, recoverable by distress, and nothing more. We are quite content to go on under the Act of 1836, but the tithe owner says—"No, I want security, and I want the mode of collecting my tithe facilitated." One hon. Member has stated in the course of the Debate—I do not know with what accuracy—that the introduction of this Bill has already had the effect of nearly doubling the value of tithes in the market. That may be right or it may not; but, undoubtedly, the position of the tithe owner has been much improved, because he gets some one responsible for the payment, and that he never had before.

Mr. SYDNEY GEDGE

No.

Mr. H. H. FOWLER

Well, I do not know if the hon. Member opposite thinks the landlords of England are not responsible. I believe that those gentlemen will send the cheque for the tithe as regularly as they pay their butchers' bills. But we are not dealing with them; we are dealing with the case of the small yeoman owner, who is himself the occupier. You are going to make him liable to this additional procedure, and the proposition now before the House is that that the costs of the new procedure shall not be greater than those of the present system. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury suggests there must be more costs. Why?

SIR H. JAMES

The change is for the benefit of the public.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

This is a question between the Treasury and the tithe- payer. At present there is a profit on County Court fees which goes into the Imperial Exchequer. I agree that you do not want to employ lawyers in cases of this kind any more than you do in Courts for the recovery of small debts. But there is no reason why you should impose fees which will add to the revenue of the country. You are putting the tithe owner in a far better position than he ever held before, and you are making his property practically safe. You ought not, then, to impose an additional burden on the tithepayer. Unless the Government are prepared to proceed on the lines suggested by the right hon. Member for Bury we must go to a Division.

(11.10.) MR. RANDELL (Glamorgan, Gower)

This question of fees, in the light of those now charged in the County Courts, becomes very important. Take the case of a man suing for a sum under five guineas. The total costs which are allowed amount to £2 17s. 6d., and in addition many other costs may be incurred for witnesses and travelling, as the plaintiff may have to travel miles to the Court. I maintain that unless the Government give a special scale of fees in all cases where the tithe-charge is small, the costs will equal, and even exceed, the amount of the tithe.

٭(11.12.) MR. SYDNEY GEDGE

I should like to explain that I did not say the landlords were not a responsible body; all I said was that they were not personally responsible for the tithe. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton showed his ignorance of the Bill by suggesting that it would throw the responsibility personally on the landlords. I say it does nothing of the kind. With regard, however, to this particular matter of fees, those of the County Court are undoubtedly too high. I hold there ought to be a Schedule to this Bill fixing the fees at a very low figure. But it must be remembered it is impossible for the tithe owner, when endeavouring to recover the tithe, to control the amount of costs; that depends on the manner in which the defendant resists the claim, and if it were to go forth that in all cases the tithe owner would have to pay the costs above a certain amount, it might lead to an increase of costs by the defendant obstinately fighting what was a just demand, and it would thus prevent the recovery of the tithe, because the costs would exceed the amount of the tithe owner's claim.

(11.15.) SIR W. HARCOURT

My right hon. Friend the Member for Bury has proposed that there should be a Schedule attached to the Bill. But what is it to contain? Extra costs—costs other than those of levying a distress. The whole of the costs of the County Court will be costs which are not now incurred, and therefore we have the fact that whether the fees be large or small you are putting an additional burden upon the tithepayer. I must recognise with gratitude the assistance given by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport. He showed that the costs must be raised to a very large extent under this Bill. If these extra costs are incurred in consequence of the introduction of this County Court procedure they ought to be paid by the men who benefit by the change of procedure, and those men are the tithe owners. That is the simple issue before us.

٭(11.17.) MR. S. T. EVANS

The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury says the proceedings are totally different, but they are not different in the case in respect of which I propose this sub-section, except so far, that the County Court Judge will appoint the bailiff, instead of, as now, the tithe owner. The only costs now recoverable are the costs of distress. The legal advisers of the Government ask—Who are to pay the extra costs? I think that people who benefit by the new procedure ought to. Now it is clear that the tithe owner is the only person who will benefit. The landlords do not like the Bill and the tenants do not want it. It has been brought in solely in the interests of the tithe owner. The Prime Minister when he introduced his Bill in the House of Lords in 1887, proposed that inasmuch as the tithe owner was getting an easy, instead of an awkward, method of procedure, he should abate his claim 5 per cent. The Prime Minister went on to say that it was very much better for the tithe owner that he should go direct to the land owner for the tithe instead of to the occupier, and it was proposed to recognise that by allowing the land owner 5 per cent. discount. I believe the proposal was once to make the discount to 10 per cent. Surely, it might reasonably be arranged that the County Court fees should be paid instead of the discount? The hon. Member for Harrow suggests that the costs should be made so heavy as to frighten a man into paying without the necessity of having recourse to the County Court. But let me remind him that a discussion has already taken place about the County Court Judge being allowed to order payment of the tithe by instalments. We hear a great deal of agricultural depression, and is it not possible that some of the small owners may be desirous of going to the County Court simply to get an order that the tithe may be paid by instalments? Why in that case should the costs be made heavy? As to the suggestion that a Schedule should be attached to the Bill, I would withdraw in favour of that, providing that the principle is acceded to that the costs under the new procedure should not be heavier than those under the old.

(11.21.) MR. F. S. STEVENSON

We have as yet had no reply from the Government to the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury. It is a remarkable fact that as the Debate proceeds the objections urged against the Amendment gradually disappear. In the first place the difficulty was raised of want of uniformity of standard, and it was suggested that each County Court Judge would take a different view on the question of costs. But it has since transpired that the County Court Judges are to meet together as a Rule Committee, that they will report to the Lord Chancellor, and that thus uniformity will be secured. Is it not possible for the County Court Judges to ascertain the average costs incurred under the present system, and to draw them up in the form of a Schedule to be submitted to this House? That is, as I understand, the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury. I should be inclined to sup- port that, but the Government show no sign of agreeing to it. The obvious inference is that if they refuse that offer, and if they increase the costs by changing the procedure, our contention is justified that the Bill was introduced in order to confer tremendous advantages on the tithe owner. The Government, when that contention was first raised on this side of the House, denied it but their conduct shows how well founded the charge is. There is the prospect that in some cases the costs will be in excess of the tithe, and it is to guard against that contingency that this Amendment is proposed. I still hope that the Government will accept the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury, and make it clear that in no single instance will the costs imposed on the tithepayer be enhanced or increased by this Bill, which has been introduced for the advantage of the tithe owner, and is in every way to the disadvantage of the yeoman farmer.

٭(11.25.) SIR J. SWINBURNE

Let us try and see clearly how things stand. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury has tried to persuade the Committee that this is a magnanimous act on the part of the Government; that it is a great gift to the public, to the tithe owner, and to the tithepayer. But who wants the Bill? The tithepayer does not, neither does the landlord. It is the parson and the Prime Minister who want it. And in order to secure these great benefits to these two parties the tithepayer is to be mulct in heavy fines in the shape of costs on every possible occasion. And that is not all. The tithe owner is to have the tithe collected for him free of cost, whereas he now pays 5, 6, and sometimes 10 per cent. to an agent for collecting them. His rates, too, are to be paid in advance by the landed proprietor or occupier, and some three or four months will elapse before the tithe owner is called upon to repay them. He has the highest security conferred on him, and I am informed by competent authorities that if this Bill passes the value of the tithe will be increased from 75 to 100 per cent. It appears to me that the Government, knowing that they have a strong majority, decline to listen to reason or argument, but intend to force the Bill through.

٭(11.28.) MR. W. B. ROWLANDS

I hope the Committee will bear in mind that there are some small owners and occupiers who really cannot pay the tithe, and who ought not to be punished by the infliction of heavy costs. It seems as if hon. Members are arguing this matter on the assumption—a most mistaken one—that every man who will be taken to the County Court is a wicked person who declines to discharge his just obligations. I say that the majority who do not pay are actually unable to do so, and that makes it imperative that the costs of the new procedure should not exceed those of the present system.

٭(11.30.) MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN (Merthyr Tydvil)

It is to my mind apparent beyond all question that the Government have in view two objects—one being to create costs, and the other to put the tithe owner in the position of prosecuting the person who is liable to pay the tithe for any assault or battery or any disturbance which may take place in the course of carrying out the process of a Court of Common Jurisdiction. The Government say in effect: "If you will not pay these tithes willingly, whether you are in a position to pay them or not, we will at least double them." I have in my hand the scale of fees recoverable in County Courts in cases exceeding £10 and not exceeding £20, which I apprehend would be about the average under this Bill. I find that for preparing particulars of claim 4s. may be charged; for preparing further particulars, 2s., or 8d. per folio; for a summons to each witness, 2s.; a summons in chambers, 2s.; preparing notices, 3s.; preparing all affidavits, 5s.; preparing all interrogatories to witnesses, 5s.; instructions for counter-claim or to sue or defend, 3s. 4d., or 5s. 8d.; brief to counsel 30s. and fees to counsel £3. Now all these costs are to be incurred when there is no earthly necessity for it, because, after all these proceedings in the Court, it is necessary to fall back upon the remedy that exists to-day of putting a distress in. Let the person who is to be benefited by this legislation—the tithe owner—pay for it, and do not saddle the unfortunate tithepayer with double the amount he is liable to pay already, because if you do you will be going far beyond the intention of lawmakers in times past when these tithes were created.

٭(11.34.) MR. J. BRYN ROBERTS

This Amendment does not appear on the Paper, and I think the Committee have lost sight of this point. It only deals with the costs in cases where the owner is also occupier. It does not extend at all the general class of cases contemplated by the Bill where a receiver is appointed of the rents and profits. The process in this case will be the same as at present, except that the receiver will be appointed by the Court. I have not heard any argument at all why in such a case the costs should be increased, and I think there should be some provision against an indefinite increase of the costs.

(11.35.) MR. W. ABRAHAM (Glamorgan, Rhondda)

We were all very glad indeed at the commencement of this Debate this evening to think that the Government were endeavouring to do justice to the people. One thing, however, has been made evident—namely, that the Government have either forgotten or neglected any provision for that class of men who fail to pay their rents, although they have provided for the case of men who refuse to pay tithe. Some Members have used strong language as to the injustice of refusing to pay just, legal debts, but there has been nothing said at all of the injustice of imposing these debts on men who receive nothing for them. The House ought to appreciate the opposition of the Welsh Members to this clause when it considers that it is bad enough as it is to have to pay tithe without receiving any equivalent, and it makes it still worse to have the costs increased.

(11.38.) DR. TANNER

The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir H. James), who has been one of the saviours of Her Majesty's Government, one of the crutches on which Her Majesty's Government leans, has addressed a remonstrance to them to-night, and they have remained dumbly silent. They were content to remain silent, as they could not trust to the force of their arguments, or to the strength of their position as regards common sense. I do not like to see Her Majesty's Government so supinely ridiculous. I should at any rate have hope that when the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury got up and asked them a proper and fair and legal question he would have been properly replied to by the Attorney General. We have listened to many arguments to-night. We have heard the hon. Member for Harrow who, when he was tackled, gave up his position. I sincerely hope he will go into the lobby with us. At any rate I think the Committee are entitled to some reply to the question addressed to them by the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Derby and Bury. The Prime Minister has shown his attachment to this Bill, his foundling, by putting it before the Irish Land Bill. I object to it being carried nolens volens through the House without sense and without argument, and in order to give the Government an opportunity to reply to the arguments advanced from these benches I beg to move that you, Sir, do now report Progress.

Dr. TANNER moved, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again; "but the CHAIRMAN being of opinion that the Motion was an abuse of the Rules of the House, declined to propose the Question thereupon to the Committee.

(11.45.) The Committee divided:— Ayes, 102; Noes, 170.—(Div. List, No. 16.)

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.