Lords Sitting of 25 March 1887

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Tithe Rent-Charge (54).
Second Reading—Probation of First Offenders (No. 2) (20), discharged.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE EASTER RECESS.

  QUESTION.
  EARL GRANVILLE: Perhaps the noble Marquess may be able to state
  1450
  what arrangements he proposes to make with regard to the Easter Recess?
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE, FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY); It may be convenient to the noble Earl and to the House if I state that we propose that the House should rise on Friday next; and though it is impossible, on account of the burdens of legislation in ''another place," to make a statement with regard to the actual technical Sittings of the House, I think that if we met again on the Monday after Easter week, that would be satisfactory to your Lordships.

PROBATION OF FIRST OFFENDERS (No. 2) BILL—(No. 20.)
(The Earl of Erne.)
PROBATION OF FIRST OFFENDERS (No. 2) BILL—(No. 20.)

  SECOND READING. ORDER DISCHARGED.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF BELMORE, in moving that the Order be discharged, said, the Bill was practically the same as one which had last year passed through the House of Commons, and which he had had charge of in their Lordships' House. That Bill was no doubt opposed by the late Government, and some of the details of it were objected to, and, besides, it was considered that it had come up at too late a period of the Session. But the principle of it was approved by every noble and learned Lord who was then present. He had, therefore, been allowed to withdraw the Bill, and he had re-introduced it at the earliest period of the present Session. Since the Bill had been printed a Bill with a similar object had been introduced in the House of Commons. It was not exactly the same as tills Bill, but it would have practically the same effect; it was an improvement upon it, and from what he had learned he had reason to think that if the Bill got through the other House it would come here still more improved. He would therefore postpone this Bill, and take charge of the other one, if it reached this House; and in that case he would eventually withdraw the present one. He would, therefore, move that the Order for the Second Reading should be discharged.
  Moved, "That the Order for the Second Reading be discharged."—(The Earl of Belmore.)
  Motion agreed to; Order discharged.

TITHE RENT-CHARGE BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I have to ask your attention to a subject which I am sorry to say has become recently a subject of considerable public interest, and which requires the attention of Parliament—I allude to the incidence and mode of levying of tithes. When the Tithes Bill was passed in 1836 it was passed by common consent of both sides of the House; but the extreme difficulty of the subject was then fully recognized. Lord John Russell said, when he brought forward the Bill, that there had been three plans which he had considered, accepted, and ultimately abandoned. The difficulty was recognized by all as very great; but the result of the efforts which were made at that time was that a measure was produced which has worked on the whole with very great advantage to the Church and the public for the space of some 50 years. But that great agricultural distress which has searched the joints and found out the weak places of more than one of our political arrangements has brought to light the very serious difficulties attending this measure which was passed with so much success in 1836. At that time, although it was received with general favour, Mr. Hume, on behalf of the landed interest, very much objected to it. He said it was not fair to the landowners; that it was a great deceit upon them; that it was being passed at a time when Protectionist laws existed; that he was quite sure that those Protectionist laws would not continue, and that the arrangement which the landed interest accepted with willingness and even satisfaction at that time would wear a very different aspect when those laws were withdrawn. Unfortunately, we have lived to see Mr. Hume's prophecy become true. Free Trade, with ail the enormous benefits it has conferred upon other industries in the country, has undoubtedly dealt a very heavy blow at the agriculture—or, if I may use the phrase, the arable agriculture of this country—and the distress which has come from the lowering of prices has led occupiers and owners, and especially occupiers, to
  1452
  look with a very jealous eye at the arrangement for the discharge of the burden of tithes which they had accepted without question in more prosperous times. For political purposes, the weak point which has come out in the arrangement of 1836 is the introduction of the occupier into the matter at all. The debt is the debt of the owner in respect of the produce of his land, but the person who, as a matter of fact, pays is the occupier. I believe that the intention of the Act, if it had been carried out, was that the tenant should have power to deduct it from his rent as he did with the Income Tax. That, however, has not been the common practice. The occupier has taken the risk of what the tithe would be, and has undertaken to pay the debt in good years and bad, when the average is high and when the average is low, and to have it considered once for all in fixing his rent. No doubt, that circumstance has added very much to the discontent with which the occupier in some parts of the country has looked upon the burden of tithes. He has had to pay often a very high average at a time when prices had fallen very low, and he has felt aggrieved. Some persons have thought that the difficulties would be entirely met by so far amending the Act of 1836 as to prevent this transference of risk from the owner to the occupier—to insist that the owner should not contract himself out of his liability, but that, as in the case of Income Tax, he should always pay back to the occupier whatever the occupier has paid to the titheowner. I do not dispute that that would be an admirable plan, but it would not meet the whole difficulty of the case. It would not remove the occupier from the position which he now fills of having to discharge the debt and bear the first blows of a financial conflict in which he is not actually or legitimately interested. If he has paid in the first instance you say he has a right to deduct that from his rent. Yes; but supposing he has paid no rent? That is not an impossible contingency, I am sorry to say, in these times. It has not infrequently happened that landlords have not asked for any rent at all, but have given the tenant time, in order to enable him to dispose of his produce and pay with greater convenience. But although they may be ready to forego the rent for a certain

  1453
  time very few landlords would carry their philanthropy so far as to pay the tithe as well, and therefore the occupier, in the midst of his distress, finds that the titheowner is the person with whom he must deal. I do not think that that touches the worst part of the question. The fundamental vice of the system is this—that though the debt is the debt of the landowner to the titheowner, if the titheowner wants to re-cover it, he has to distrain upon the occupier's goods. Now, the remedy of distress has many advantages; it has great rapidity, but it is probably the most irritating to administer which it is possible to adopt. It is not only irritating, but it is not, in this particular case, very efficacious. The tithe-owner comes for payment on a particular day, and the farmer knows when to expect him, and every bit of stock may be driven off the farm. In old times you had a security in the crops which could not be thrashed until the winter, but thrashing is no longer relegated to the winter; thrashing machines have changed all that. Therefore, although it is an immediate remedy, it is not an effective one. For the clerical titheowner it is singularly unhappy in its character. It is subject to all kinds of difficulties, doubts, and technicalities, and the expense makes the poorest clergy naturally very unwilling to resort to it. I have heard that it has amounted to as much as 50 per cent of the sum recovered. That is the material side of the question; but there is the spiritual side, of the relations between the clergy and their parishioners. The farmer ought to look on the clergyman as his best friend. The use of that remedy is not calculated to increase the spiritual influence of the clergymen upon the farmers, or to promote, the peace of the parish; and when, in addition to all other causes of difference between the farmer and the titheowner, there is the bitter odium theologicum—when differences on doctrinal or ecclesiastical questions separate the two, and make the farmer look with a special jealousy and mistrust on a measure which is necessary to keep up an order of ministers to whose very existence he conscientiously objects—it would be easy to foresee what has actually happened; that the necessity of re-covering tithes by this machinery has in many parishes constituted an almost
  1454
  impassable barrier between the pastor and many of his flock, and created spiritual differences which it would re-quire years to heal. Those are evils which exist at the present time, and I have preferred to dwell upon them in a general way and not to bring before your Lordships special instances; but many scenes of great gravity have occurred. Not only in Wales, but in the East of England, sufferings have been endured by the clergy through their inability to obtain that which is their undoubted clue, while terrible results have followed to the peace of the parish and the influence of the pastor when this rude and painful machinery has been put in force by clergymen for obtaining their rights. The Bill which I shall now ask your Lordships to read a first time tonight is for the purpose of remedying these evils. One of the main objects of the Bill is to shift the incidence of tithe from the occupier to the owner. Perhaps I may say, in passing, that much larger anticipations have been formed with respect to this subject, and a much more extensive scheme of change has been expected. I wish, on behalf of the Government, to disavow any intention of grappling with projects of that kind. I am sorry to hear it has got abroad that tithe is excessive in amount, and that the bargain which was made in 1836 ought in the interests of the landowner to be revised. This idea, if it has at all spread, is due entirely to misconception. The bargain made in 1836 was a very good one for the landowner, and remains a very good one still. It is said that tithe must now be excessive because it is more than a tenth part of the value of the land. The value of the land is an exceedingly ambiguous phrase; but what it ordinarily means in our parlance is the rent of the land—that is to say, the profit that remains after all the expenses of cultivation in their widest sense have been discharged. But the tithe is a tenth part of the produce of the land, and it was in that sense that it was recognized by the Act of 1836. If your Lordships will consider the matter, you will see that even now the tenth part of the produce of the land would be something very much in excess of what the Church has a right to under the existing rent-charge. Present prices are very low; I suppose the value of an. acre of wheat in grain and straw is now

  1455
  about £7. the tenth part of £7 is 14 s., but you will not find any tithe even in the most heavily burdened part of the country amounts to 14s. an acre. I will not go through barley, clover, and other i articles of produce, but I think you will find that the result is much the same. Take an acre of hay. I suppose an ordinary acre of hay will bring in between 70 s. and 80 s., and the tenth part of that is 7s. or 8s. I think it will be found to be much the same for turnips and barley. On the other hand, it is undoubtedly true that an acre of wheat, which under the old system might have yielded the Church 14 s., would not, if the Church were held to be entitled to a tenth part of the value of the land—the rent—yield it anything like that sum. It should be remembered that the old right of the titheowner was to take no account whatever of the cost of production. It was a right to take a tenth part of the produce of the land, with deduction for the cost of bringing to the market. Therefore there is no ground for saying that any revision of the tithe would in any degree benefit the land. I have seen it stated, although I have not gone into the calculation, that even now, according to present prices, more would be yielded than was the case before 1836. The prices of barley and wheat have fallen heavily; but I doubt—though I cannot speak with certainty—whether the prices of animals are not higher now than in 1836. Therefore, my Lords, unless you propose on this occasion to take from the Church the rights that belong to her, you could not revise the bargain made in 1836 without very considerable damage to the landowner and without damaging the tithe-owner. Owing to agricultural improvements the value of land has very considerably advanced, and in any such revision of the bargain the Church would have the right to reap the advantage of that change. There is another grievance with respect to which I cannot use the same absolute language. I do not wish to disguise it, though I do not propose to deal with it by the present Bill. The grievance arises out of the seven years' revision of the tithe. Supposing four good years and three bad to occur, the effect has been that the unfortunate tithepayer has, perhaps, during the first two years had to pay on an average calculated on the very pro-
  1456
  sperity that has gone from him. I believe it would be much wiser to arrange to make the tithe payable on prices adjusted from year to year. But anyone who undertakes to make such a change will find that he has all his work before him. For the difficulty will be to find the exact point of transition, and I doubt whether you will ever get the two parties to agree as to the precise amount at which the tithe should be fixed. What this Bill proposes to do is to make the landowner responsible for the tithe; the titheowner will recover it from him as a simple debt. As long as the land yields more than the amount of the tithe, that is a change which I believe will be attended with no difficulty. An arrangement of machinery will be necessary, which will not tax our ingenuity; but there is a difficulty arising out of a state of things which, I am sorry to say, is by no means unknown, in which the rent of the land—the rent that can be claimed for the land—is less than the tithe due upon it. That state of things exists to some extent in the Eastern Counties now, and it raises rather a difficult problem. If the land grows anything at all the titheowner is entitled to his tithe; but if we look forward a step we shall see that that is a very illusory privilege. Directly the farmer finds out by experience that after he has paid his tithe he is not able to pay the cost of cultivation, it is obvious that next year he will cease to cultivate the land. The land will go out of cultivation, and the titheowner next year will lose his right altogether. I acknowledge that, technically, it may be said that at least for one year the titheowner has a right to get his tithe out of land which yields no profit if it yields anything at all. Of course, if the land is out of cultivation, the question does not arise; but out of land which yields no profit, but which will still yield some produce, then for the first year I will admit the titheowner has a right to obtain his tithe, but it is a right which he will obtain at the cost of throwing the land out of cultivation. With that hanging over it the claim of the titheowner would rest as a burden upon the land which would prevent its being brought into cultivation again. It appears to me to be more just to the landowner, and more just to the tithe-

  1457
  owner, to say that when the land does; not yield the value of the tithe to that extent the titheowner should lose his right. And we propose by the Bill to give power to a County Court Judge to ascertain this state of facts from the landowner, and if he pleases make such allowance as he thinks just. I admit that the arrangement, in point of argument, is open to attack; but we have taken into consideration not only the rights of the respective parties, but their future rights and future prosperity. I think, therefore, we shall do well to adopt an arrangement which is not only just, but most favourable for encouraging the cultivation of the land. There are two other points of smaller importance. One is whether the tithe-owner should pay anything for the greater convenience he obtains by taking his tithe direct from the landowner. The question is difficult to decide, be-cause the convenience which titheowners receive differs. In many cases there are 10 or 20 landowners in a parish, while in others there are only two or three landowners. It is, however, very much better for the titheowner to go direct to the landowner instead of the occupier for his tithe, and we propose to recognize this by allowing the landowner to deduct 5 per cent discount. It appears to us that it is almost impossible to draw any definite dividing line between lay and clerical titheowners; and, therefore, we propose that the Bill shall apply equally to titheowners of all kinds. I feel sure that if, by the waving of a wand, we could get rid of tithes altogether, without injuring any particular interest, Members of both Houses would be prepared to abolish them; but all that we are justified in doing at the present moment is to do our best to encourage the redemption of tithes. Your Lordships are aware that in cases where the land has been cut up into very small portions the landowner can force the titheowner to accept 25 years' purchase of the tithes, and we are of opinion that in the existing state of things 20 years' purchase at the par value is a fair rate for redemption. This proposition may, at first sight, appear rather startling; but, on a careful examination, it will be seen that it will do good rather than harm to the titheowner. In the first place, the tithe-
  1458
  owner will benefit by having his money every half-year instead of having to press a reluctant farmer for payment; and, in the next place, he will be saved from the costs of collection, while there will be an entire absence of litigation and of ill-will, which, under existing conditions, without imputing blame to anyone, inevitably arise. Allowing 10 per cent for the average fall in the par value, 15 per cent for rates, and 5 per cent for cost of collection, the £100 of par value is reduced to £70, which, at 3½ per cent, would be the precise interest yielded by the 20 years' purchase of the rent-charge. I do not know how far Parliament is prepared to accept such a measure as this, and undoubtedly it is open to criticism; neither do I know how far we may be able to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to help us, although he has hitherto shown us very good will in the matter. I need not go into any details as to the extent to which the redemption of tithes could be assisted by loans from the Public Loans Commissioners, only we must remember that we cannot offer as security for any such loans the land itself, but merely its produce. There are, I admit, many difficulties in the way of carrying out this scheme; but I trust that they may eventually be overcome. I do not know whether, in the present state of Parliamentary Business, we can have any very great hopes that a Bill of this kind, which certainly' presents considerable surface for attack, will become law during the present Session. But I am sure that Parliament can pass no measure that will do more to put a stop to differences that are rending asunder communities in different parts of the country, or do more to secure the foundations of the most essential institution of our land. I beg to move that the Bill be read a first time.
  Bill to amend the law with respect to the recovery and redemption of tithe rent-charge in England—Presented (The Marquess of SALISBURY).
  EARL DE LA WAREsaid, it was not very usual in their Lordships' House to enter into a discussion on the first reading of a Bill, but rather to defer such discussion till the second reading, in order that time might be given to con-

  1459
  sider it. But as the noble Marquess had thought it well to deviate somewhat from the more usual course, he should not, perhaps, be out of Order if he made a few remarks in accordance with the Motion of which he had given Notice—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, in view of the depressed state of agriculture and the heavy burdens upon land, it is desirable to afford greater facilities for the redemption of tithe rent-charge in England and Wales; and that the attention of Her Majesty's Government should be called to the question."
  He might, perhaps, first be allowed to explain the reason which induced him to bring under their Lordships' consideration the subject of the redemption of tithe rent-charge. the existence of very great agricultural distress throughout the country must be, unhappily, too well known to need any proof. In some parts of the country there were hundreds, he might say thousands, of acres out of cultivation; in some the land, if cultivated, would barely pay the tithe rent-charge; in many others it made no return at all, and was often cultivated at a loss. It was generally admitted that wheat could not be grown much under 40 s. a quarter in this country. The average price for some time past had, he believed, not much, if at all, exceeded 32 s. a-quarter. Many other kinds of produce had also materially depreciated in value, and it was calculated by those who were competent to give an opinion that 70,000,000 a-year did not overstate the loss in agricultural produce as compared with 15 years ago. That sum, it was estimated, represented more than the actual rents received by the owners of land in this country. There were many more details which might be given, but their Lordships as landowners, having tenants and labourers dependent on the produce of the land, must too well know that the land was fast being reduced in very many places to a condition which would render it impossible to maintain those who had hitherto lived upon it. It was with much disappointment that he read the letter the noble Marquess the Prime Minister not long ago addressed to the Marquess of Bristol, in answer to a Memorial of the owners and occupiers of land in Suffolk. After expressing great sympathy with the Memorialists, the noble Marquess added—
  "We will take into our earnest consideration your prayer for measures of relief, but I should
  1460
  be misleading you if I used any language to indicate that I entertained any hope of being able to cope with an evil of this kind by any sort of legislative action. I heartily wish it were otherwise; but it would not be justifiable to hold out hopes for which no trustworthy grounds exist."
  He was quite sure that that statement had been received with great disappointment by agriculturists throughout the country. They naturally said—"Look at the burdens upon land in the shape of taxation. If these were imposed by Parliament, can they not be at least modified or adjusted by Parliament?" There were Imperial taxes; could not Parliament deal with those? There was a high Income Tax—a tax formerly unknown in times of peace; there was a Land Tax which pressed heavily in many places, could not some relief be given in respect of this? There was a local taxation, which was an increasing burden. There were school rates enforced by Act of Parliament, and highly-paid schoolmasters, far beyond what were required in agricultural districts, but which were rendered necessary by the regulations of the Education Department. There were School Boards and Local Boards, and Sanitary Boards and Highway Boards, with highly-paid officers. There were poor rates, highway rates, and police rates; there were Boards of Guardians, with their paid officers. All charges such as these were thrown in a great measure upon the land, which was expected to maintain the landlord, the tenant, the clergyman, and the labourer. One especial way of relief seemed to present itself. He did not say there were no others; he believed there were many. Personal property should be assessed for local as it was for Imperial taxation. It would be difficult to see how the fairness of that method could be disputed. He had pointed out where it seemed to him some relief might be afforded as regarded Imperial and local taxation. It remained for him to show that a great and permanent benefit might be conferred by a well-considered scheme for the redemption of tithe rent-charge. It had been suggested that the present difficulties might be removed if the land lords were made wholly liable for the payment of the tithe rent-charge. It would, no doubt, relieve the clergyman from the inconvenience of any collision with the tithepayer; but as the land-

  1461
  lord must raise the rent if he had to pay the tithe, the occupier would practically be in the same position as regarded the amount of payment. But if the tithe were redeemed the occupier might be freed from all liability, and the landlord, in consideration of the advantage which his property would ultimately derive by the redemption of the tithe, would be induced to make easy terms with his tenants with regard to raising the rents until the whole charge was paid off. The scheme, it might be urged, was a large one. The annual amount received from tithe divided between parochial incumbents, lay and clerical impropriators, and collegiate bodies, amounted to about £4,000,000. But although the financial details for effecting the redemption might require experienced handling, it was by no means deemed impossible by those who were competent to form an opinion on the matter. He had figures which he could lay before their Lordships; but he thought it would be more convenient on that occasion if he referred to the Irish Church Act of 1869 and the Amendment Act of 1872, one of the objects of those Acts being the redemption of tithe. By Section 7 of the Act it was enacted that—
  "The Commissioners may at any time after the passing of this Act sell any rent-charge in lion of tithes vested in them under the principal Act to the owner of the land charged therewith in consideration of a sum equal to 22½ times the amount of such rent-charge, less such sum in the pound as such owner shall he ascertained by the Commissioners to have been, on an average of five years preceding the passing of the said Act, entitled to deduct for poor rates from the tithe rent-charge payable by him, and upon any such sale being so made the Commissioners shall by order declare the rent-charge to be merged in the land out of which it issued."
  By this it appeared that a landowner in Ireland since the year 1872 could redeem the tithe chargeable upon land at 22½ years' purchase, less the sum paid by him for poor rates; and it further added—
  "The Commissioners may by order declare his purchase money to be payable by instalments, and the land out of which such rent-charge issued to be accordingly charged as from a day to be mentioned in such order for 52 years thence next ensuing with an annual sum calculated at £4 9s. per cent on the purchase-money.
  The result of this arrangement would be
  1462
  that the tithe could be altogether redeemed by the annual payment of a sum very similar to what was now paid for the annual rent-charge, less the rates and the charge for collection. But by being spread over a greater number of years, it might, in proportion, be still further reduced, and thus give greater present relief to the landowner. he believed this Act was in operation in Ireland, and landowners there, especially in Ulster, had to a considerable extent availed themselves of it. It could readily be shown that this transaction could be carried out without at all affecting the Revenue of the country. It might, perhaps, be advisable that the measure should not be compulsory, but that the landowner should have the option of redeeming the tithe or of taking the onus of paying it himself. A re-adjustment of the present rent-charge might probably be necessary before the redemption was effected, in order to adapt it as far as possible to the present value of agricultural produce. It could hardly be doubted that the advantages of a measure of this kind would be great, for it would, he believed, set at rest a question which was becoming one of great friction and uneasiness. The tenant occupier of land would no longer be liable for tithe in any shape. The owner of land would repay the money advanced for the redemption by easy instalments spread over a number of years, and at the end of the time the land would be freed from all charge. He was happy to hear that Her Majesty's Government would take into their serious consideration this important question, which was assuming large proportions, in order that by timely legislation a remedy might be applied to circumstances, the burden of which was increasing at a time of almost unparalleled agricultural distress. He would not move the Resolution of which he had given Notice, understanding that the noble Marquess at the head of the Government would consider the question of tithe redemption during the passage of the Bill through the House.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE TOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, he wished to state, with respect to a letter of his to which the noble Earl had referred, that he had

  1463
  not the slightest intention of drawing back from any expression which he might have made of a desire to effect reforms for the advantage of the agricultural community of the country. He believed that much might be done, though the task might be extremely difficult, to adjust the burdens of taxation on land and personal property. What he wished to impress on the noble Earl and on agriculturists was that distress of the character referred to could not be met, could not be coped with, by measures of that kind, and that it was not to legislation they could look for any effective relief. He wished to reply to another point. He was very anxious that his agricultural friends, with whose sufferings he had the greatest sympathy, should not imagine that it was within the range of practical politics that Protection could be restored in this country. He believed that the injury caused would be great if they imagined that such a thing could be done. Before Protection could be restored it would be not merely one Party, but both Parties in the State, that would have to be converted. Let them suppose, for instance, that the Conservative Party were converted and became Protectionists; that would not make it safe for agriculturists to rely upon obtaining Protection. Men could not venture to invest their money on the chance of Protection unless it was so thoroughly received by the country that it would be accepted by both Parties in the State. He thought his noble Friend would agree with him that that was as unlikely a contingency as it was possible to contemplate. It was very natural that agriculturists, in the sufferings they were undergoing, should look for a remedy; but he feared that some public evil might be caused by their looking forward to a remedy which he sincerely believed to be impossible.
  Bill read 1a. (No. 54.)

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Standing Order No. XXXV. to be considered on Monday next in order to its being suspended.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quartet before Eleven o'clock.