§ (1) The consideration money payable on the redemption of a tithe rent-charge on any land under the Tithe Acts, 1836 to 1891, or this Act, shall, in lieu of the amount authorised or directed by the Tithe Acts, 1836 to 1891, be such an amount as may be agreed by the owners of the land and of the rent-charge, and in default of such agreement as may, on the application of the owner of the rent-charge, or of the owner of the land or any part thereof, be determined by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to be fair compensation for the redemption.
§ (2) An agreement by an owner of a rent-charge under this Section shall not be valid—
- (a) if made by a spiritual person entitled in respect of his benefice or cure, except with the consent of Queen Anne's Bounty; or
- (b) if made by a person (not being a spiritual person so entitled), who is not empowered to sell the rent-charge unless he obtains the consent of some other person, except with the consent of that other person.
§ (3) This Section shall not apply as respects any tithe rent-charge which before the passing of this Act has been directed by the Board to be redeemed.1558
§ Mr. PROTHERO
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "fisheries" ["Board of Agriculture and Fisheries"], to insert the wordsin accordance with the provisions contained in the Schedule to this Act.
§ Mr. CAUTLEY
If this Amendment be proceeded with, will it not cut out my succeeding Amendment:—[In Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "fair compensation for the redemption," and to insert instead thereof the wordsThe sum necessary to purchase the amount of 2½ per cent. consolidated stock sufficient to yield a yearly income equal in amount to the net amount of the yearly rent-charge after deducting there from the average yearly payments made during the preceding seven years for land tax, if any, or for rates assessed on the rent-charge under the provisions of the Tithe (Kent-charge) Bates Act, 1899?"]
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
We must take the Amendments in the order in which they appear on the Paper, but I will put the question in such a way as to save your Amendment if this Amendment be not carried.
§ Mr. PROTHERO
The Amendment refers to a Schedule in which the Board of Agriculture prescribe the method by which it proposes to fix compensation for redemption. In fixing that compensation we have to arrive at three different sets of figures—the future receipts from tithe, the future outgoings, and the value of money at the time of the compensation being fixed. We propose to do this for the next two years on the principle laid down in the Schedule, and the reason we only do it for two years is that experience has proved what a great mistake it is to fix some stereotype figure in dealing with tithe. Tithe varies so much that a stereotype figure may be wrong within the next five years. The Debate this afternoon is perhaps a warning against any fixed figure. The figure in the Welsh Church Act of 1915 was fixed in a particular year upon the septennial average. Four years have passed and that figure has become wholly unappropriate. Similarly, we must have a certain amount of elasticity, and in fixing the figure for the next two years we are going as far as we 1559 can safely go. The receipts for seven years are now to be fixed, under Clause 1, at £109 3s. 11d. For subsequent years it can only be a matter of computation. We take the gross value to be at par as at the present time. It is made up of seven years at £109, and a subsequent average in perpetuity at something like £96. That works out at a par value of £100. Then you have to take off the various outgoings, because you want to get at the net income as apart from the gross value.
You get at the net income by calculating first of all the outgoings for rates. We propose to take the outgoings for rates at the average of the last three years. That is not, perhaps, the most scientific and accurate way in which the outgoings for rates can be calculated, but it eliminates all estimates, and we want to get rid of the uncertainty of all estimates. We therefore accept that form. The Land Tax, of course, would be another outgoing where it occurs. It is not much more than 3d. in the £ as a rule, but still where it occurs it would be an outgoing. The third outgoing is the cost of collection. We propose there to fix a limit and to reserve to ourselves also the right to say that the costs of collection are unnecessary. For instance, if a large landowner sends to the clergyman to his parish a cheque for the whole of the tithe in the parish it is very absurd that the tithe owner should insist upon that cheque being paid to his solicitor. Therefore, where we think the costs of collection are unnecessary, it is open to us to allow no costs of collection in calculating the outgoings, and in no case is it proposed that we should allow more than 2½ per cent. The third point is the present value of money. That is not so difficult to ascertain. The State at present borrows at something like 5¼ per cent., Consols are at a shade over 4 per cent., and Local Loans come between. We take it at that intermediate figure, which is about 4¾ per cent. Working on those figures, the net annual value is to be the computed value less the deductions, and the compensation is twenty-one times such value. The result is that it works out by giving to the tithe owner the net income that he at present obtains from tithe rent-charge at par. That appears to me on the whole to be a very reasonable and fair way of computing the value. It is acceptable to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to whom it has 1560 been submitted, and may therefore be said to be considered as fair and reasonable by the principal business authority on the Church side. The advantage of it, of course, is that among other things it discriminates between the lay tithe owner and the clerical tithe owner. It would be manifestly unfair to redeem tithe for both these sets of persons on the same basis, inasmuch as the clerical tithe owner pays only half the rates, while the lay tithe owner pays the whole of the rates. Working on those lines, making those deductions, and taking-twenty-one years as the multiplier, the purchase money for £100 of tithe rent-charge would be £1,879 10s. in the case of clerical tithe, and £1,711 10s. in the case of lay tithe.
§ 8.0 P.M.
§ Mr. CAUTLEY
I understand that the view I took about my Amendment being out of order is now practically accepted by you, and therefore the only chance of having my alternative scheme considered at all is for me to speak to it now. I think it is a preferable scheme, being simpler, more easily worked out, and holding a more even hand between the tithe payer and the tithe owner. I do not think one view of tithe as it at present exists has been put before the Committee. Since the recent Act did away with all liability of the tenant to pay tithe, we are only concerned with the land owner and the owner of the tithe, and really both, in my view, are in exactly the same position, except that the tithe owner has a further advantage in that he is secure by coming first on the whole of the land. The proposition I wish to make clear is best illustrated by taking a concrete example. If you have a holding with a rental of £50 a year on which £10 tithe is charged, the real position is that the nominal landowner only has a rental of £40. The tithe owner is really in the position of owner of the land drawing a rental on it of £10 a year. Both are liable to be rated if the owner is in occupation, but the owner is only rated on £40 and the tithe owner is rated on £10. Therefore the 1561 tithe owner has this further advantage, that he holds security on the whole £50 for his £10. Being anxious to hold an even hand between the tithe owner and the tithe payer, and seeing that both interests are fairly land-holding interests, I cannot for the life of me see why the land owner is to receive this advantage and be enabled to redeem, really to buy out the other land owner at an advantage. I cannot see why the tithe owner should not receive a full and proper value for the interest that he has in the land. A further matter which we are rather apt to overlook here is that giving this undue advantage to the land owner is very likely going to prejudice the tenant. At present the tenant is under no prejudice, because the land owner has to pay the tithe, but if the land owner redeems the tithe the rates which have hitherto been paid on that part of the land to which the tithe owner is entitled will fall on the tenant. He will still be liable to pay £50 rent, but instead of his assessment for rates being on £40, in the future it will be on £50, and it is not at all clear to me, if the intention is to facilitate redemption on these terms, that we shall not in practice be putting an extra burden on the tenant in that he will find himself saddled with greater rates than he now has to pay.
What is the reason that has actuated the right hon. Gentleman in giving this advantage to the landlord really to buy more land below its value? I can understand his desire to limit the amount of tithe in present circumstances, but I cannot see why the land owner should be benefited, and the scheme that I propose is to provide that the tithe payer should receive payment for his net income in a manner calculated to give him the best security he can be given, but which will vary according to the rate of money at the time of redemption. I know of no better security than Consols, and I know no better test of the value of money at any moment than the price of Consols. The tithe payer to-day has his tithe secured in the manner I have mentioned. He is absolutely secure, as far as I can see; and yet it is proposed, under the President's scheme, to compel him to take for the yearly sum that he now has of £109, which he is fixing by this Bill for seven years, twenty-one years purchase of the net sum he receives, not starting from the £109, but from £100. What equity or right is there in that? The great detriment and 1562 drawback to redemption in the earlier Acts is that it has been fixed by a number of years' purchase on the gross value of the tithe, and not on the net value. Except that the President, in arriving at his net value, has only allowed an average of three years for ascertaining the amount paid in rates and the amount paid in Land Tax, and I have adopted seven years as arriving at a fairer average, in other matters his principle and mine agree, and I notice that he fixes it on the same basis. I mention 2½ per Cent. Consols and he mentions Government securities, which, I take it, mean the same thing; because you could not call War Loan or ten year War Bonds Government securities for that purpose. If I have made that clear, surely my alternative scheme makes the question of redemption easily calculated. It is left to the Board of Agriculture to say what the amount is, and it is simple; and if the right hon. Gentleman would devote his ingenuity to providing a means of carrying this through without many legal formalities and at less cost, there is plenty of inducement for the landowner to redeem. But in his scheme there is extraordinary difficulty and uncertainty of calculation. The first Clause of his Schedule provides that he is to form an estimate of the future value of tithe, which is absolutely impossible. He does not tell us what principle he is going to adopt. He does not tell us for how many years he is going to estimate the value, and then take an average. It is left entirely in the dark for some official in his office to estimate, on some grounds which he does not tell us, the gross annual value to be received for tithe in the future. Is it not fairer that the tithe payer, if he wishes to redeem, should redeem on the value at the time? He can exercise his option then. It is a certain calculation within limits, and any case of difference is to be settled by the Board. The scheme I suggest is fairer both to the tithe payer and to the tithe owner than the right hon. Gentleman's proposition.
§ Sir C. HOBHOUSE
I should like to ask my right hon. Friend to lengthen the period over which the rates are to be calculated. In a great number of rural districts the rates have been deliberately reduced during the War by non-expenditure on essential objects, and it is quite certain that after the War, for a period of only two or three years, the rates will not represent the real expenditure which will be incurred by local authorities upon the 1563 rates, and, therefore, the sum deducible from capital paid on the yearly income and referable to the capital payment will not Be as large as it ought to be, if the real payment involved in rates in the future is to be taken into account. Therefore if the period of three years could be extended to five or seven, I believe you would get an approximation to a more real state of payment than is achieved by the three years. Then I do not understand why this scheme of calculation is only to last until 1921. Is the succeeding Government to bring in another Bill in that year to extend the operation of this Schedule? My right hon. Friend talked about fluctuations in the price of money. A great many people who would like hereafter to redeem their tithe cannot possibly know what the state of their income will be during the next few years. The whole world is upside down. No one knows what his income is, or what his means of redemption will be. It would be well, in order to achieve the purpose which we have in view, namely to facilitate redemption, to extend this period of years, from 1921 up to certainly 1926. It may be necessary to make fresh calculations after two years. The power of application runs up to 1926, but the power of adjustment under the schedule terminates in 1921. If the application is made before 1st January, 1921, the compensation will not be twenty-one times, but some unknown number of times. Therefore the fixation of this twenty-one years' period lapses after two years from now, while the power of adjustment under Clause 3 will continue, and settlement by the Board of Agriculture will go on being determined, certainly up to the year 1926, on a valuation of twenty-one times 109. Under this Clause their power of settling it at twenty-years' purchase will be determined in 1921.
§ Mr. PROTHERO
Permanent power in each year after the period named here to publish a standard scale according to gross value.
§ Sir C. HOBHOUSE
If that is so, I am sorry I should have made that criticism, because that will carry out the object I 1564 have in view. With regard to fees, could not something be done in this Schedule to fix the fees of these transactions? At present the cost of redemption is very considerable, and I suggest that the opportunity should be taken to fix a very low scale of fees. I understood my right hon. Friend to say money can be invested at 4¾ per cent. on the average. At present you can get 5¼ per cent. for War Loan, which runs up to 1947. Surely the calculations which he makes might be fixed upon a more liberal scale than 4¾ per cent. If he does that, he will satisfy all the demands which the payers of tithe rent-charge can reasonably ask from him. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to confirm what I believe to be an interpretation of his Schedule, which is rather different from that put on it by the the last two speakers. I ask for this confirmation from the point of view of correctness or otherwise because it would make a great deal of difference in the view from which I am able to regard it. As I understand it, paragraph 3 of the Schedule is merely a statement of the Board's decision with regard to the first period of two years, and that it will be renewed from time to time. I had on the Order Paper a series of Amendments-which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, were prepared after long consideration by the Central Landowners' Association and were finally approved by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the Chambers of Agriculture, and other miscellaneous bodies, and I had proposed up to this morning to press them with all the force that I possess. But for the first time this morning the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment appeared on the Paper, and so far as the general encouragement of facilities for the redemption of tithe rent-charge by a lump sum payment are concerned I am entirely satisfied with the arrangement the right hon. Gentleman makes in his Schedule. I say at once that I would withdraw the scheme which stands on the Paper in my name and that of several of my hon. Friends, but before doing so I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider favourably two points covered in my scheme—the Central Landowners' Association scheme—but which are not in his own, and if, as I hope, he can hold out a prospect of dealing favourably with these points there would be no need of my troubling the Committee by going into detailed points of the scheme in my name. My two questions are these: 1565 Will the right Gentleman be able to hold out any alternative method of redemption to the payment of a lump sum; in other words, can he make any provision for a scheme of payment, a sinking fund arrangement, for a period of years? I have proposed a fifty-year period which involved the payment of £113 a year for fifty years which would have cleared redeemed tithes and redeemed every £100 of tithe. Those to whom I am speaking attached a great deal of importance to that alternative, and although it is quite true that in some cases it might be possible for the tithe payer who wished to redeem, by annual payments, over a period of years to make some arrangement with an insurance company or other body to provide the capital sum and to receive from him the annual payment over the period, still it is not always possible for the individual to make that arrangement, and I hope some definite scheme may be adopted by the right hon. Gentleman of accepting payment in redemption over a period of years. The other point for which I ask his favourable consideration is the continuance of the relief in respect of deficiency of rates arising from redemption. At present the Tithe Rent-charge (Bates) Act of 1899 provides that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue shall make good the half-rate from the payment of which the beneficed tithe owner is relieved, and I ask, in the interests of the rural community, that that subsidy shall be maintained after redemption takes place. That is the second point which is covered by my Amendment, but not by the right hon. Gentleman's. If he is able to hold out any hope that he can meet these two points favourably I shall not trouble the House by going into any details of what I may call the Central Landowners' Association's scheme.
§ Viscount WOLMER
Like my hon. Friend, I noticed the President's Schedule with very great pleasure, but I do feel, like him, that it would have been very desirable if the Government had made some provision in regard to the redemption payment being extended over a period of years. There is another point on which I should have liked, if possible, to have seen some provision made in regard to redemption. I think that, unless the effect of this Bill is to bring about an enormous amount of redemption of tithes its ultimate effect will be rather hard on the clergy. If my right hon. Friend can, by this Bill, succeed in inducing tithe payers 1566 to redeem their tithe largely, then I think he will have done a great service to the clergy, as well as to the rest of the community. Therefore I am very anxious that everything possible should be done to encourage and facilitate redemption. My hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down indicated one way in which it might be done. There is another which I would like to bring to the attention of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture, in his speech in introducing this Bill, said:But on the other hand tithe payers have got to consider, even if they are willing to redeem, whether it is wise to risk more of their capital by buying up further interests in the land in which they may already hold too much. Many of them may be afraid to put all their eggs in one single basket, and therefore, on the whole, a one-sided form of compulsion seems to be fair. It is always easier to compel men to receive cash than it is to compel them to pay it. That seems to me to be the governing principle here."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th October, 1918, col. 32, Vol. 98.]On that point I should be very glad if some means could be found for enabling landowners and tithe payers to redeem their tithe in kind by selling either to the Government, in the shape of the county council, or to the tithe owner, some of their land so that they could redeem the tithe by the value of the land that they sold, and by that means tithe would be redeemed without the landowner increasing his stock in land. That point is not provided for in the Schedule which the right hon. Gentleman has tabled, and therefore I had hoped that he would tell the House whether he thinks there is any possibility of some scheme of this sort being worked under the Bill as it now stands. The House will remember that a scheme such as I have mentioned was very elaborately sketched out by the Report of the Agricultural Sub-committee on Reconstruction. This Report pointed out that the opportunity to redeem tithe afforded a great opportunity, if means could be found, by which landowners could redeem their tithe in kind, because it would facilitate largo landowners parting with portions of their property to the county councils or to the Board of Agriculture or to some other public authority, and thus the land could be used for settling ex-soldiers on. I hope the President of the Board of Agriculture will be able to hold out some hope that a scheme of that sort can be worked under the Bill as it now stands, or when his Amendment is carried.
Mr. DUNDAS WHITE
I want to raise one point. There is, I think, general agreement as to the desirability of redemption, and the hon. Member for East Grinstead has raised a most important point, and a point which it would be well if those who redeem tithe would have in mind—namely, that when they redeem tithe they may be increasing their rates to no inconsiderable extent. If I may take the simplest case where the owner of land is also an occupier and pays tithe. Suppose the tithe—and I am not taking an extreme case—absorbs about half the value of the property, when he redeems the tithe he will not only have to pay redemption money, but will find himself further burdened, because when he has paid the money his estate will be increased by the capital value of the tithe rent-charge by this redemption, and he will have to pay half as much rates again as he paid before. The proportions taken by my hon. Friend were: value of property £50, of which the tithe rent-charge absorbs £10. I think he will agree with me that there are many cases in which the tithe rent-charge represents the larger proportion, and I need hardly remind the Committee that so much is it in some cases that Section 8 of the Tithe Act, 1891, provided that where it exceeded two-thirds of the annual value of the property under Schedule B of the Income Tax the excess should be remitted. I only mention that as showing that tithe rent-charge absorbs a very considerable proportion in many cases, and that the man who redeems tithe rent-charge should be prepared, as a result of that redemption, to pay higher rates. I would like to call the attention of the Committee to the statement that the President of the Board of Agriculture has made. There has been much said about the Tithe Rent-charge (Rates) Act, 1899, under which the taxpayers pay one-half the rates on tithe rent-charge attached to a benefice. When it comes to redemption we see how that works out in practice because these differences in the Tithe Rent-charge (Rates) Act makes a difference in connection with the payment of rates by the Exchequer on tithe rent-charge attached to the benefices, and the owners of those tithe rent-charges are to be benefices, and the owners of those tithe rent-charges are to be compensated on a different scale from other owners of tithe rent-charges. It seems to me right to call attention to that, in order to show how 1568 these grants of public money in payment of half the rates on this tithe rent-charge have eventuated in increasing the capital of this tithe rent-charge as distinguished from the other. One is inclined to think that the interest which has been considerably scheduled has been far too much the interest of the tithe receiver who has to pay the redemption, and allowance has not been sufficiently made for the case of the tithe-payer who redeems, and who, for the reasons I have pointed out, will not only have to redeem, but will find that when he has redeemed, his other burdens have very substantially increased.
§ Mr. CAUTLEY
May I ask where in the Bill is the power to issue after two years the terms of redemption?
§ Mr. PROTHERO
The first Clause of the Schedule gives the Board the power to fix the gross annual value on certain terms. In each year we shall issue a Schedule. The last part of the present Schedule is an example of what is going to be done in the next two years.
§ Mr. CAUTLEY
That does not answer what I mean. In Section 3 the said Schedule says there is power for the redemption of a rent-charge application for which is made within two years, and the gross annual value is to be the original commuted amount, the compensation to be fixed at twenty-one years' purchase of the net amount. There is provision for redemptions within the next two years, but for applications to redeem made after two years or made after the 1st January, 1921, there is no provision at all as to the inclusion of the redemption.
§ Mr. PROTHERO
If the hon. Member will look at Section 3, Sub-section (1), he will find that the Board of Agriculture in default of agreement has power to fix what is to be fair compensation for redemption. Having got that power, they then proceed to use it, on the terms of this Schedule.
§ Mr. CAUTLEY
It will be open after two years for the Board to fix fifteen years' compensation. It rests entirely at their discretion.
§ Mr. PROTHERO
It rests in their discretion subject to these rules of estimation. A number of questions have been raised on this Schedule. I have been asked questions about the fees for redemption. These were increased not very long ago in deference to the Committee upon Retrenchment which recommend us to do so, and they go to defray some of the expenses of the Board 1569 of Agriculture. If the Committee will turn to the new Clause which we propose to move respecting the power of Queen Anne's Bounty to pay expenses of redemption I hope the fees will not be an important obstacle. As to the question whether we will include in the Bill provision for purchase by instalments the position which I take up on that point is this, —that if there is an agreement with the tithe owner that it is to be paid in instalments lasting over fifty years, if he likes to make that arrangement by agreement with the tithe payer, we are willing that such agreement should be sanctioned by the Board, but we consider that the tithe owner ought not to be compelled to accept an agreement of that kind. It brings no pecuniary advantage. It exposes them for fifty years to all the friction and trouble which follow from his existing position, and if tithe prices twenty years after the system began were to drop to 80, while the men who are paying off by instalments have to pay 113, there would be intolerable pressure put upon the tithe owner to meet the difficulties of the case. Therefore we do not think that it would be fair to make that system compulsory upon the tithe owner, but in cases where tithe owners and tithe payers agree and Queen Anne's Bounty and the Board consent then we should be quite willing to accept the principle.
Obviously, for the purpose of redemption, what we want is a payment which would put the tithe owner outside the question, outside all the trouble of the existing relation to the tithe payer, and the tithe payer can, through an insurance company, raise the money and effect this same sort of purchase by instalments at his convenience, while he pays off the tithe owner. If we had had compulsory redemption on the tithe payer, then I think that this system of instalments would be perfectly fair and reasonable. I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend will confirm me in this, but I believe that this proposal was originally made as part of compulsory scheme. Then I was asked about the question of rates. I am afraid that in the form in which the hon. and gallant Member's proposal is made I could not possibly accept it, but I hope that we will be able to meet him on Report stage with a proposal which might in certain ways satisfy what he wishes. As to the proposals of the hon. Member for Grin stead, his Amendment and his scheme as drafted apply to agreements as well as to 1570 decisions by the Board. This, I think, is very undesirable. In any case I think it undesirable to propose limits which will operate indefinitely. He imposes a limit of twenty years, and if that were the only objection I should object to his proposal. I need hardly say that I very much prefer my own Schedule. I think that his proposal as it stands would not be workable on the ground that, as drafted, it includes agreements between the tithe owner and the tithe payer.
§ Mr. PROTHERO
I think that as drafted it does so. There was a question as to whether land should be taken in lieu of tithe rent-charge, and the tithe rent-charge should be extinguished as it were by an equal value in land. I am all in favour of that proposition. I believe that I was the unfortunate author of it a great many years ago. However, when I came to deal with the question as a matter of legislation there were substantial difficulties, and I hope that the same object can be attained in a simpler way. It is too early yet to say what the Cabinet decision will be as to land settlement. But I think that it is extremely likely that county councils will be enabled to buy land on permanent annuities. In that case Queen Anne's Bounty will be willing to accept those permanent annuities in lieu of cash for the extinction of tithe rent-charges. A land owner therefore, may sell so much of his land as will extinguish the tithe rent-charge to the county council for a permanent annuity, and Queen Anne's Bounty will accept that permanent annuity in lieu of cash.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. PROTHERO
I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2a) to insert the words,or, in the case of a rent-charge affected by the Welsh Church Act, 1914, of the Commissioners of Church Temporalities in Wales.This Clause as it is drawn in the Bill might operate more widely than was in tended. What we meant was to reserve the rights of intended redemption, but as it stands it will apply to a certain number of old cases in which redemption orders had been made but not proceeded with for various reasons. It is really a drafting Amendment which I think the Committee may pass.
§ Amendment agreed to.1571
§ Major COURTHOPE
I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert(3) Sections seven, eight, and nine of the Tithe Act, 1846, shall apply to the payment of any consideration money and interest payable under this Section, provided that where a rent-charge which is redeemed under this Section is settled land within the meaning of the Settled Lands Acts, 1882 to 1890, the consideration money and interest may be paid to the trustees of the settlement for the purposes of those Acts, and the receipt of such trustees shall be a sufficient discharge therefor, and such consideration money and interest shall be held and applied as if the same were respectively capital moneys arising under these Acts and income of such capital moneys.(4) If at the time at which any consideration money in respect of the redemption of a tithe rent-charge is payable to Queen Anne's Bounty the Treasury are authorised to create and issue any securities for raising money for the purposes of the present War, the Board by their Order may direct that such consideration money shall be invested in the said securities or some or one of them, or that in lieu of payment of the consideration money in cash the same shall be satisfied and discharged by the purchase by the owner of the land from the Treasury in the name of Queen Anne's Bounty of such of the said securities as may be specified in the Order to the amount equal in value (at the issue price or the market price of a day named therein) to the amount of the consideration money, and any such Order may contain such directions and provisions as the Board may think fit for securing compliance with the Order and giving effect thereto.I put these Amendments down to make my scheme of Amendments complete; without them, otherwise it would be open to strong objection by Inland Revenue unless these two paragraphs were inserted. I am inclined to think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that there is merit in them, but as this scheme is now in his Schedule and mine is dropped out, I only move my Amendments formally in order that the right hon. Gentleman may say whether he accepts them or not.
§ Mr. PROTHERO
I should be very glad to leave them, if I may, until the Report stage to see if there are any legal points raised by either of them. We do not think that the second one is worth inserting, but the first one, beginning with Sections 7, 8, and 9 of the Tithe Act, we would like to have an opportunity of considering, and seeing whether any amendments can be made.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. PROTHERO
I beg to move, in Sub-section 3, to leave out the words "which before the passing of this Act has 1572 been directed by the Board to be redeemed," and to insert instead thereof the wordswith respect to the redemption of which proceedings are pending at the passing of this Act.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.