§ Amendments reported (according to Order).
1569§ Clause 2 (Liability of owner of lands for rent-charge).
§ LORD BRABOURNEsaid, he rose to move, in page 1, line 17, after ("cease,") to insert—
("Provided that if the owner of less than one hundred acres of land, without any proceedings under this Act, and within three months after any rent charge becomes payable, pays the same in the parish or parishes in which his land is situate, he shall be entitled to deduct there from five per cent in consideration of the personal liability imposed upon him by this Act.")He proposed to restore, with some little alteration, the Proviso at the end of Clause 2, which the noble Lord at the head of the Government introduced, but which was subsequently withdrawn. Their Lordships would bear in mind that there was this singular feature in the Bill, that whereas it was avowedly introduced on account of the difficulties which had arisen in connection with the incidence and mode of collection of tithes, there was not one clause, nor one line of a clause, which afforded the slightest relief to the tithepayers, whose complaints had brought those difficulties prominently before the public. He desired that the Bill should not go down to the other House without showing that their Lordships had at least some little consideration for the tithepayer, who was complaining so much. At present this was emphatically a titheowners' Bill. He observed that at a Diocesan Conference, held at Lambeth the previous day, under the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury, a number of earnest but, as he (Lord Brabourne) thought, short-sighted Churchmen had come to an unanimous resolution that, "in the interest of the titheowners, it was desirable that this Bill should at once become law without amendment." No doubt, this was the titheowners' view. The Bill was aimed at owners of land, and especially at the class of small owners, the number of whom they were all agreed it was desirable to increase; and he feared that the inevitable result of the Bill, if it passed in its present shape, would be to intensify and extend the agitation against tithes, and also to enroll among the supporters of that agitation men who, by a little wise and well-considered legislation, would have been kept in a different camp. The first blow would fall upon these small owners; but, to his mind, 1570 the eventual result of that Bill must be a great blow to the tenant farmers of England. He earnestly urged their Lordships to consider how this would be brought about. They were going to repeal the Law of Distraint in regard to tithe, whilst, in the same breath, the supporters of this proposal declared that tithe was more sacred than rent, and was a prior charge upon the land. If this was the case, how could they logically refuse the demand, which would infallibly follow, that they should repeal the Law of Distraint in regard to rents? The moment they did that they would create an entire revolution in the management of the whole of the landed property of England. Landowners would no longer be able to grant to their tenants the indulgence now constantly granted of holding their rents in hand during that portion of the year in which no returns came from farming, and of clearing up their rents several months after they had become actually due. The repeal of the Law of Distraint would compel landowners to require rents to be paid at less intervals of time, and would oblige them to enforce more exactness and punctuality, and to see that rent was paid, or adequate security given, within a limited time. All this would in its working inflict great inconvenience upon the body of tenant farmers. But at the present moment he was dealing only with the small owners of land. Had they or had they not reason to complain? The other day his noble Friend at the head of the Government taunted him with not having shown the shadow of a case for the revaluation of tithe. He (Lord Brabourne) always bore the taunts and jeers of his noble Friend with great equanimity, because they showed that he was in good health and spirits, which no one more devoutly than he wished for his noble Friend. But the taunt was misplaced in this instance, because he had not been attempting to make out a case for the re-valuation of tithes, but had only incidentally remarked that if his noble Friend had. found himself able to propose any such measure, he would have done more to meet the public feeling than by the present Bill. The tithe payers had a good deal to complain of on account of the amount of the tithe rent charge, its inequality, the manner in which it had been commuted, and the principle in re- 1571 spect to tithe lately avowed by the Head of the Government. His noble Friend of other day said that he had not brought forward any figures; but he could have quite overwhelmed their Lordships with figures, if he had desired to do so, as regarded the amount. Anyone who had inquired into the subject must be well aware that in many instances that amount was excessive, exceeding, as it did, the rent, and pressing hardly upon the land. As to the inequality, that also was beyond doubt. In his own case he had, at that moment, on his hands a large field situate in two parishes. In the one parish the tithe was commuted at 10s., in the other at 7s. per acre, and, as a matter of fact, the latter was the best part of the field. In another case the rent was 19s. per acre, of which 10s. went to the landowner and 9s. to the titheowner. These instances could be indefinitely multiplied. The fact was that the manner in which tithe was commuted in 1836 caused great inequality. The average of the receipts of the seven previous years was taken at the time of commutation. Consequently, if the tithe-owner had been exacting, a heavy tithe was put upon the land; if he had been careless or liberal, the tithe was lighter; or, take it another way, the man who had farmed well up to the mark and had his land in good condition paid a heavy tithe, while the man who farmed badly and neglected his land paid a light tithe. All these things tended to show that, after 50 years, there was justice in the demand for re-valuation. But, above all, the principle lately avowed by the noble Marquess made it very desirable that we should know the ground on which we were standing. The noble Marquess at the head of the Government said tithe was the tenth of the produce of the land, totally irrespective of the cost of production. That was the ancient Law of Tithe, at a time when the cultivation of the land cost little; but now, when the cost of cultivation was so great that, according to fair calculation, the value of £7 per acre for wheat, as stated by the noble Marquess, was only obtained by an expenditure of £6 per acre, to abstract a tenth from the value of £7 so obtained, was a doctrine which he believed would not be accepted by the people of England. If such a principle was to be acted upon, their Lordships would witness a revolution against 1572 tithe which would shake the fabric of the Establishment. He thought it would be a wise thing, at this moment, to consider whether they could not sweeten to the tithepayers, in some small measure, the Bill, before sending it down to the other House. It appeared to him that there was a great case for reduction with regard to those poor owners, because they were the men who had suffered largely by the legislation of the last 50 years. Seeing that their Lordships were landowners themselves, he wished to avoid the possibility of their being charged with selfishness in this matter, and, therefore, he asked them to extend this relief only to those small owners who were most in need of it. It might be asked, however, why he chose the figure 100? It was obvious that they must take some figure, just as £2 was taken in Clause 10 as the amount to which compulsory redemption under that clause should be applicable, and he believed that 100 acres would cover the bulk of the small owners throughout the country. In any case, their Lordships were going to impose a personal liability where none now existed. They ought to give some compensation, and the compensation which he asked for was a small one. In his own opinion it was too small. He believed that if their Lordships consented to the restoration of this Proviso they would be showing their sympathy with a class who emphatically deserved it, affording an inducement to the speedy payment of tithes, and making, at the same time, a concession in the direction at once of justice and of wisdom.
§
Amendment moved,
In page 1, line 17, after ("cease,") insert—("Provided that if the owner of less than one hundred acres of land, without any proceedings under this Act, and within three months after any rent charge becomes payable, pays the same in the parish or parishes in which his land is situate, he shall be entitled to deduct there from five per cent, in consideration of the personal liability imposed upon him by this Act.")—(The Lord Brabourne.)
§ LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he must express his surprise at the speech of the noble Lord who moved the Amendment. In his judgment, the great reason for this Bill was the difficulty of making the occupier of the land understand that the 1573 question was not one between him and the titheowner, but one between the owner of the land and the titheowner. The noble Lord's case was founded on the idea that the landowner incurred some additional responsibility. He did nothing of the sort. The landowner was the person liable for the tithe. The Tithe Commutation Act expressly said so. It was true that he could not be directly got at for non - payment of tithe by the occupier, but he could be indirectly got at in this way—that if the landowner appointed his tenant to pay he received less rent from his tenant than he otherwise would, and if the landowner did not agree with his tenant that the latter should pay, the landowner was liable, if he did not pay, to the tenant if distrained on. The landowner was at present as much liable to the tithe as he would be by this Bill. By it it was proposed that he should be got at directly by a suit to be brought against him for the recovery of tithe; but it was a mistake to suppose that he incurred a pennyworth of liability more than he was subject to at the present time. In these circumstances, the foundation of the noble Lord's case seemed to fail. It was urged by the noble Lord that they should sweeten the Bill for the acceptance of the other House. Let their Lords sweeten it if they chose; but he asked them not to sweeten it by a sort of plunder of the titheowner.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell) complained that there was no distinction in substance between this Bill and the law as it present stood. But the noble and learned Lord had stated the distinction himself with admirable clearness. No doubt, it was a question between the titheowner and the landowner. At present the relationship was an indirect one, but this Bill proposed to make it a question of direct relationship; and surely the noble and learned Lord would not say that this was not a difference.
§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOE FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, that the only thing which the occupiers would suffer from by the passing of this Bill would be that they would no longer be liable to have their goods distrained upon—a process to which they were subject now. He doubted whether the occupier would conceive that to 1574 be a hostile act on the part of Parliament. It was said that a great change had taken place in regard to this matter, but he confessed that he was unable to see it. It seemed to him that that which was liable for tithe now, as in the past, would be the land. Those people who were owners of 100 acres of land were, if not invariably, certainly in the large majority of instances, the occupiers of their own land, and they had been paid tithes all along without any change whatever in their position. They were the last persons in the world who had any relief to claim, because their position was in no way changed. There were some parishes where there were a great many owners as compared with occupiers, and in those parishes, where, no doubt, there would be many owners of less than 100 acres, the clergyman would not be in the least relieved by the passage of this Bill from the trouble he incurred, and he would have nearly as many persons to deal with as before. Therefore, the reason for deducting the 5 per cent commission to him would disappear. On the whole, it seemed to him that the proposal was not one that the House ought to accept; and he must object to the idea of making the Bill sweet for the consumption of the other House. The other House was perfectly capable of taking care of itself, and whatever it thought necessary it would probably insert and send back to this House in the Bill. But he thought their Lordships had better send the Bill down in the shape they thought it ought to be, and leave the other House to suit its own palate.
§ LORD BRABOURNEexplained, that he had not expressed a wish to sweeten the Bill to the other House, but to the tithepayers.
§ On Question? Resolved in the negative.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 4 (Attachment of rent).
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he rose to move the insertion of words to the effect that the County Court Judge, before making an order for the attachment of rent due to the landowner for the payment of tithe rent-charge, must be satisfied that recovery could not be had with reasonable despatch in any other way. He had had some hesitation in determining how to meet the objections which had originally been brought 1575 against this clause. But, on the whole, he thought the best way would be to limit it, and not to permit the titheowner to seek the remedy given by it unless he could satisfy the Court that he could not get his money with reasonable despatch in any other way. There was the danger that the section providing summary execution might produce the very evils which it was desired to guard against, and he thought that they had done enough for the titheowner in putting it into the Act that he had the right to attach the rent.
§ Amendment moved, in page 4, line 9, after ("unsatisfied,") insert ("and that recovery cannot be had with reasonable despatch in any other way.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he agreed entirely with what had fallen from the noble Marquess. There had been ground for apprehending that the effect of the clause as it stood would have been to do away with much of the benefit to be derived from the operation of this measure.
§ On Question? Resolved in the affirmative.
§ On the Motion of The Marquess of SALISBURY, Sub-sections (2) (3) and (4) were struck out.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 6 (Effect on existing contracts of tenancy).
§
On the Motion of The Marquess of SALISBURY, Amendment made, in page 6, line 12, at end of Clause 3, inserting as a fresh paragraph:—
("Where, by reason of the redemption of the tithe rent-charge on any lands, the tenant or other person holding such lands under the owner by virtue of any contract existing prior to such redemption is liable to pay any increased sum on account of rates, he shall, during the continuance of such contracts, be entitled to deduct such increase from his rent.")
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 9 (Provision for redemption of rent-charge).
§
On the Motion of The Bishop of LONDON, Amendment made, in page 8. line 13, by adding at the end of Sub-section 1—
("Provided that in the case of disagreement, where the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are themselves the payers of the tithe rent charge,
1576
the amount and term of the annuity shall be referred to the Lord Commissioners, who shall hear both parties and shall also take the opinion of the bishop as required by the preceding clause of this Act, and whose decision shall be final.")
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ On the Motion of The Marquess of SALISBURY, the following new Clause was inserted, after Clause 10:—
§ (Redemption of tithe rent charge on lands divided into plots for building.)
§ ("Whore lands charged with tithe rent charge are, after the passing of this Act, about to be divided for building or other purposes into numerous plots, it shall be the duty of the owner of such land to redeem the tithe rent charge on such land before such division, and, if he fails so to do, he, his heirs and assigns, shall be liable to pay the costs incurred in any subsequent redemption of such tithe rent charge. Where lands charged with any tithe rent charge have been or are about to be divided for building or other purposes into numerous plots, whether houses have or have not been built upon such plots, the provisions of this Act with respect to the redemption of tithe rent charge to an amount not exceeding two pounds shall apply to the said tithe rent charge, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, on the application of any person interested either in the tithe rent charge or in any part of such lands, may require the owner of the lands to redeem the same in accordance with those provisions, and where the lands have been divided the tithe rent charge may be apportioned among the divisions in such manner as may be just, either by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or by the Land Commissioners on the request of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and for that purpose the Land Commissioners shall have the same powers of apportionment as they have under the Tithe Rent-charge Acts specified in the First Schedule to this Act.")
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to insert the following new Clause, after Clause 10:—
§ (Money applicable for redemption of tithe rent charge.)
§ ("Any money which may by law be applied in the redemption of tithe rent charge charged on any lands may be applied in payment of a capital sum for the determination of any annuity charged under this Act on such lands by way of redemption of such tithe rent charge.")
§ LORD BRABOURNEsaid, that it did not appear to him that it had been sufficiently taken into account that a titheowner who received a capital sum by way of redemption would escape rates which he (Lord Brabourne) found in his own experience to amount to about 12 per cent on his assessment. This burden would be transferred to the owner who redeemed the tithe. He had not, 1577 however, taken part in the discussion, because he was convinced that the terms offered for redemption were so one-sided that no sane landowner would be likely to redeem.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Schedule 1.
§ LORD BRABOURNEcalled attention to the proceedings of the first inquiries instituted under the Extraordinary Act as reported in local papers. It appeared that a claim had been advanced on behalf of the tithe owners to inquire into the value, not only of the hop or fruit gardens in cultivation as such at the time of the passing of the Act, but into the whole farm of which such gardens formed a part, as to its capability for being converted into such gardens. If this were so, and the request of the tithe payers for a general re-valuation of tithes was at the same time refused, there would be a manifest injustice. He had understood that the inquiry and charge to be placed on the land was limited to existing gardens, and he begged to call the attention of the noble Marquess to the facts reported.
§ Schedule agreed to.
§ Remaining Schedules agreed to.
§ Bill to be read 3a on Thursday the 30th instant; and to be printed as amended. (No. 115.)