(NO 174.) SECOND READING. (Hansard, 21 June 1886)

§ LORD SUDELEY
(for the Home Department), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the subject of Extraordinary Tithe had constantly been before Parliament, and in 1881 a Select Committee of the House of Commons went very fully into the whole subject. They reported in favour of the abolition of those charges; but up to this time it had been found impossible to pass any Bill. This year three Bills were introduced in the House of Commons, and were referred to a Select Committee. The result of that Committee was that they reported in favour of that Bill. It was agreed to as a fair compromise amid many difficult and complicated questions connected with it, and contained many of the good points in the other Bills. He believed that the Committee, which was a very strong one, and represented all the different interests in this matter, were almost unanimous in favour of that compromise. As the House was aware, great interest attached to the question, and the state of feeling which occasionally arose in the counties of Kent and Sussex made it most important that that settlement should not be delayed. The greatest possible friction existed, and riots had often occurred, and men had been sent to prison; while there prevailed a general feeling throughout 27 those two counties that it was an unfair burden which should be settled in a reasonable way. The Committee of 1881 said— Most of the witnesses had agreed in the opinion that the imposition of extraordinary tithe is an impediment to agriculture, hampering new cultivation, and that it should be removed if possible. …. They were also in favour of redemption on equitable terms, but there was great difference of opinion as to the mode of such redemption and the terms on which it should be made compulsory. The Act containing the provisions respecting Extraordinary Tithe was imposed in 1836 as a compromise between the view taken by Lord John Russell and that taken by Mr. Hume. The result was tithe on hops, fruit, and vegetables was separated from the ordinary tithe, but was attached to the crop, so that when that particular cultivation ceased the Extraordinary Tithe ceased to be payable. Sir James Caird pointed out, in his evidence before a Select Committee in 1881, that the great difficulty in the question of redemption was due, in a great measure, to this vanishing quantity, since the tithepayer might discontinue the cultivation and cease to pay. The object of the present Bill was to commute the present Extraordinary Tithe into a fixed rent-charge, at what might be considered fair market value by the Land Commissioners on each farm. The mode of estimating that was carefully set out in Clause 3. Although hops could not be grown on one piece of land more than 10 or 12 years, another piece of land was generally substituted, and that was to be taken into consideration; while, on the other hand, the right of the cultivator to discontinue that special cultivation was to be considered. The object had been to state the case in a thoroughly fair manner, and it would be impossible to find a fairer tribunal than the Land Commissioners. Clause 4 fixed the interest at 4 per cent. There were powers of redemption and other matters of detail with which he would not trouble their Lordships. He was told that all the Members for Kent were in favour of the Bill, which he thought proved it was a fair compromise. Of this there could be no doubt—that it was greatly to the interest of all concerned, landlords, tenants, clergy, and the public at large, to have that much-vexed question settled. He was informed, at the last moment, 28 that the Commissioners of Queen Anne's Bounty objected to the Bill being passed on the ground that they were seriously affected, and had not had an opportunity of giving evidence before the Select Committee. He hardly knew how that could be; but, at any rate, he trusted that no objection would be raised at that stage. As he had already said, that was practically the outcome of two Select Committees, and he asked their Lordships to give the Bill a second reading as a fair compromise to all concerned.

LORD HARRIS
said, that the Bill would crystallize and make unalterable that which at present was possessed of elasticity. By this Act they were going to make compulsory a perpetual payment for the cultivation which might not exist in 10 years' time. They had also to remember that in this matter of hops they were likely to be subject to much foreign competition, and he should not be surprised to see in a few years a largely increased amount of foreign hops, whether from America or elsewhere, coming into competition with the product of this country. The result of this state of things must be a curtailment of the acreage of land growing hops; and, in view of this contingency, they were about to fix a perpetual charge on land which might not, in the course of a few years, be able to compete with land not in cultivation. As a tithepayer, he was glad that the Bill had been introduced, if only to put an end to those unfortunate scenes of violence and riot which had taken place in certain portions of our Southern counties. He did not blame those persons who resisted the tithes so much as those other persons who, possessing education and intelligence, were guilty of inciting them. The Bill was based on agitation; but still he trusted that its results would be beneficial.

§ EARL BEAUCHAMP
said, he did not object to the second reading of the Bill on the same grounds as his noble Friend who had just spoken. It was said that the Bill was a compromise; but he should like to know who were the parties to the compromise? The persons really interested in this question were the clergy. He had but recently received communications from clergy- 29 men, stating that the clergy, as a body, had not had an opportunity of examining the Bill, and how far their interests were affected by it. He deprecated attempts of this kind being made to hurriedly pass, at the close of a Parliament, a complicated measure of this character, especially when it had not received that attention to which it was entitled.

§ THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Duke of BUCKINGHAM and CHANDOS)
said, he would refrain from entering into the merits of the Bill, or from discussing the principle of the compromise. He wished to draw attention to the fact that the Bill affected, to a very considerable extent, the income of the clergy. It dealt with charges which had been created by Parliament under the sanction of Parliament on the security of income arising from tithe rent-charges. Parliament had authorized the clergy to borrow, for certain purposes, on the incomes of their incumbencies. In doing so it also limited the amount which should be raised, fixing the amount at four years' income of the incumbency. A large number of mortgages now existed. Among the hop parishes he found that there were no fewer than 150 mortgages, towards the payment of which £5,000 was received last year from the incomes of the benefices. If the income of the clergy were reduced, if they received no adequate compensation for what they were about to give up, they would suffer great hardship for many years in the endeavour to pay off these charges. Had the Bill not been so hastily pressed forward, this question, it was hoped, would have received adequate consideration. The adoption of that course of procedure had also caused great inconvenience, for until the 15th instant the clergy could not obtain a copy of the Bill as amended in Committee, and up till Saturday they were not able to get a copy of the Bill as it passed the other House. He hoped the Bill would not be hurried forward until fair opportunity was given to the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty to state their case.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY (Dr. BENSON)
said, he quite agreed that the difficulties of the question were very great, and they had been greatly increased by the speed with which the present attempt to legislate on the subject had come before their Lordships, 30 and before the House of Commons also. The present arrangement with regard to that portion of tithe which was called "extra-ordinary" was introduced in 1836 in the interest, not of the clergy, but of the tithepayers, and at their own request; and if the tithepayers wished now that a change should be made, he might safely say, on the part of the clergy, that they had no objection, provided a just and equitable arrangement were made. The Bill did provide a tribunal to which none of the clergy objected. If the Land Commissioners were unable to say what the real value of the tithe was, and to carry out the arrangement with perfect equity, no tribunal could do so. Some good points had been introduced into the Bill, such, for instance, as the estimation of each parcel of land affected. Regard being had to its antiquity, it would be only right that priority should be distinctly assigned to that charge over all incumbrances; and if ordered to be paid by the landowner a great stumbling block would be removed out of the way of the clergy. He had consulted many authorities on the subject, and he was assured by them that this was as fair a compromise as could be expected under the circumstances. He had had no opportunity of consulting his clergy who were most interested, and he ought to have had an opportunity. But they all knew, and deeply felt, that the spiritual work of the Church was greatly hindered, not only in particular parishes, where the disgraceful scenes of disorder had occurred, but in other parishes, and in the whole Church. The sore had been kept open many years, and was likely to continue open, unless the compromise were agreed to. He was disposed, therefore, to think that this was such a compromise as it would be wise for the clergy, as well as the laity, to accept. He should consent to the second reading if they were assured that the Government would give a fair and candid consideration to the objections which were being urged by the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty. The payment of the mortgages was to them the key of the position, and if they received the pledge he had mentioned they would offer no opposition to the Bill; but he hoped a distinct assurance would be given on that point.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY)
said, 31 he understood there would be a deputation from the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty to-morrow at the Home Office, and the objections which they had to urge would be seriously weighed and considered. He could only hope that they would be able to arrive at such an understanding as would enable the Bill to become law in the present Session.