Lords Sitting of 23 March 1888

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—High Sheriff, nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—House of Lords (Constitution) Reform* (51); Women's Suffrage* (52); Tithe Rent-Charge* (53); Tithe Rent-charge Recovery and Variation * (54).
Second Reading—Land Charges Registration and Searches* (40).
Second Reading—Committee negatived—Considered—Third Reading—Consolidated Fund (No. 1) *; National Debt Conversion (49), and passed.
Third Reading—Lunacy Acts Amendment * (48), and passed.

NATIONAL DEBT (CONVERSION) BILL.—(No. 49.)
(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
NATIONAL DEBT (CONVERSION) BILL.—(No. 49.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Viscount Cranbrook.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, that in the drafting of the Bill the funds of the Duchy of Lancaster had been placed within his disposal as Lord Chancellor. It was too late to alter this now; but as soon as possible the fund would be restored to the name of the noble Duke (the Duke of Rutland) the Chancellor of the Duchy.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly; Committee negatived: Then Standing Order No. XXXV. considered (according to order), and dispensed with: Bill read 3a, and passed.

IRISH FISHERIES.—RESOLUTION.
THE EARL OF HOWTH, in rising to move to resolve—
"That legislation on the Irish fisheries will not be attended with beneficial results until a reduction on the rates of carriage of fish from the Irish coasts to the English markets is assured by Her Majesty's Government,"
said, that last year a Royal Commission had been appointed to take into consideration the condition of certain industries in Ireland, prominently among them the fishing interests. That Commission had issued a Report and made certain recommendations. Lord Monteagle had given Notice, at the termination of the Easter Recess, to criticize that Report. If the noble Lord had confined himself to that, for his own part, he would not have ventured to interfere; but the noble Lord also intended to inquire of Her Majesty's Government how far they proposed to act upon the recommendations inserted in the Report of that Commission. He felt that if he were to delay any observations which he might have to make upon this matter until after the Easter Recess, Her Majesty's Government would have quite made up their minds upon the course they intended to pursue. His first object was to impress upon the Government the earnest necessity of inspection, with regard to the fishing grounds on the Irish coast, before any legislation took place on the subject of those fisheries. His second object was expressed in the terms of the Resolution of the Paper. In 1865 a Royal Commission had been appointed for the purpose of taking into consideration the fisheries of the United Kingdom, and had earnestly supported the inspection
152
of these grounds. Year after year the Irish Fishery Inspectors had been urging that they should have vessels placed at their disposal for the purpose of thorough and scientific investigation. This matter might be regarded from two points of view—Imperial and local. Those who were engaged solely in the fishing industry in Ireland were in a very bad way; and but for a prospect of increased stir in the industry, it would be better for them to take to some other pursuit in life. The question was also a very important one in connection with the great food supply of the nation. The Irish were not fish eaters themselves, and it was really the English consumer who was chiefly interested in this question. Owing to the rates charged by the railways, the transport of fish from East to West was very small. On the Midland in 1887 only 1,200 tons of fish were transported across Ireland from the West to the East Coast, and the only chance of stimulating the demand for fish caught off the Irish Coasts lay in providing cheap and easy access to the English markets. Wick, in Scotland, was 700 miles from London, and the fare for a ton of fish from Wick to London was £3 1s.; Cork, in the South of Ireland, was 550 miles, and the fare for a ton of fish from there to London was £5 1s. He, therefore, thought it clear that the Irish fish could not be profitably brought to the English markets unless its transit was facilitated by subsidies. The noble Earl, in conclusion, moved the Resolution which stood in his name.
Moved to resolve—
"That legislation on the Irish fisheries will not be attended with beneficial results until a reduction on the rates of carriage of fish from the Irish coasts to the English markets is assured by her Majesty's Government."—(The Earl of Howth.)
LORD DENMANsaid, that although railway and canal rates might be regulated, yet the passage by sea would have to be attended to in order to render the carriage of fish to England cheap. He had great confidence in his Friend Sir James Allport, but thought he had possibly erred in making first-class tickets too cheap. It cost him before railways were established £30 to go from and to London and back from Derbyshire; but now an expense of only £5 6s. for three persons was charged—

153
two first-class £4, one third-class £1 6s. He ventured to think that if, without loss to Railway Companies, more could be charged for all passengers and less for heavy goods and articles of food, it might benefit Ireland.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN)said, no one could feel surprised that the noble Earl, whose experience in regard to Irish fisheries was so great, should bring forward this question. He would not, however, attempt to follow the noble Earl through the various points on which he had touched, but would content himself with saying that it was impossible for him to accept the somewhat sweeping Resolution which had just been moved. He rather hoped that the noble Earl would content himself with the valuable remarks which he had made—remarks which would receive the attentive consideration of Her Majesty's Government—and would not press their Lordships to divide. He was glad, however, that the noble Earl had afforded him an opportunity of stating to the House the position of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the Reports of the Royal Commission to which the noble Earl had alluded. The noble Earl was aware that the Royal Commission had made two separate Reports. The reference to the Commission was in the following order—first, they were asked to inquire into the subject of fisheries and harbours; secondly, into the subject of arterial drainage; and, thirdly, into the subject of railway communication. But the Commission thought it right to apply themselves to the subject of arterial drainage in the first place, and having reported upon it, the Government thought it their duty to deal as soon as possible with that subject. A Bill on the question was now in an advanced stage of preparation; the Government hoped to lay it on the Table in a short time, and that it would receive the sanction of Parliament during this Session. Though they had received the Report of the Commission on the fisheries, they had not received either the evidence or copies of the important documents on which the Report was based. As soon as they had received the evidence and the documents, they would proceed with the task they had undertaken with reference to the fisheries, harbours, and railways also. More
154
than that he could not say on the present occasion. The subjects which had been referred to the Royal Commission were, in the opinion of the Government, of the most vital importance to Ireland. They might not, perhaps, be as exciting or sensational as other questions relating to Ireland which had occupied the attention of Parliament; but they were subjects which must be treated with the utmost care and consideration. The Government would not defer laying their proposals before Parliament any longer than they could help, and he trusted they would receive the support of noble Lords on the other side of the House.
LORD DENMANexplained that the Secretary to the Board of Trade had shown him that he was wrong in thinking that the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill did not apply to Ireland, and he was ashamed not to have studied the 4th clause of the Bill more carefully; and, as it had passed their Lordships' House, he regretted that he had said anything in doubt of its efficiency.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF MINTOasked Her Majesty's Government in respect of their forthcoming Salmon Fisheries Bill for Scotland, Whether the Bill will apply in whole or in part to the Tweed and its tributaries, which are at present subject to the provisions of special and private Acts of Parliament; also, whether it is their intention to introduce the Bill and have it printed and circulated before the Easter Recess? The noble Earl said, it was most desirable that, as far as possible, all Bills affecting Scotland should be produced before Easter. The County Meetings were held on the 30th of April, and opportunity for the consideration of such measures ought to be given them.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN)said, Her Majesty's Government did intend to bring in a Salmon Fisheries Bill for Scotland, and that that Bill would include the Tweed and its tributaries, except those tributaries which were in England. As to whether the Bill would be printed and circulated before the

  155
  Recess, he thought the noble Earl would see that that was not possible now. This was not a simple subject, and it would be by no means easy to draw up a Bill that would be satisfactory to all the parties concerned.

TWEED FISHERIES ACTS.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  THE EARL OF MINTO, in moving for Returns for each of the years 1886 and 1887 of the number of cases that have been the subject of trial for alleged offences under the Tweed Fisheries Acts, distinguishing those that occurred during the open season for rod and line fishing from those that occurred during the close season for rod and line; also the number of acquittals and the number of convictions, and the punishment awarded in each case of conviction; also distinguishing the cases (so far as the nature of the charges admits) that have occurred in respect of alleged offences on the main stream of the Tweed from those that have occurred on each of its tributaries, and giving the name of each such tributary; the Returns to be prepared in sections as follows:—Section 1st to comprise the Tweed and its tributaries from its mouth up to Coldstream Bridge; 2nd, from Coldstream Bridge to Kelso Bridge; 3rd, from Kelso Bridge to Melrose Bridge; 4th, all waters above Melrose Bridge; also, as regards the Teviot (the chief tributary of the Tweed), the Returns to be prepared in sections as follows:—1st, from Teviot Foot to Ancrum Bridge; 2nd, from Ancrum Bridge to Hornshole Bridge; 3rd, all the waters above Hornshole Bridge. The noble Earl said these Returns would be useful in showing not only the whole number of offences and offenders against the Tweed Acts, but in showing with some particularity the parts of the country and the streams which furnish the largest proportion of illegal fishers. It was often argued that if the public were allowed free liberty of rod fishing, the public would become the most effective protectors of the rivers against illegal fishing. He himself would greatly like to believe that this was the case, though he greatly doubted it. Anyhow these Returns would throw some light upon that point. He rather anticipated that the Returns would
  156
  prove these two things—first, that the number of offenders against the Tweed Laws was in inverse proportion to the value of the respective rights of fishing in different streams; second, that the number of offenders was proportionately largest in respect of those streams which were practically open to the public already, and where the riparian proprietors abstained from exorcising their proprietary rights.
  Moved, for "Returns for each of the years 1886 and 1887 of the number of cases that have been the subject of trial for alleged offences under the Tweed Fisheries Acts, distinguishing those that occurred during the open season for rod and line fishing from those that occurred during the close season for rod and line:
  Also the number of acquittals, and the number of convictions, and the punishment awarded in each case of conviction:
  Also distinguishing the cases (so far as the nature of the charges admits) that have occurred in respect of alleged offences on the main stream of the Tweed from those that have occurred on each of its tributaries, and giving the name of each such tributary:
  The Returns to be prepared in sections as follows:
  Section 1st. To comprise the Tweed and its tributaries from its mouth up to Coldstream Bridge.
  2nd. From Coldstream Bridge to Kelso Bridge.
  3rd. From Kelso Bridge to Melrose Bridge.
  4th. All waters above Melrose Bridge:
  Also, as regards the Teviot (the chief tributary of the Tweed), the Returns to be prepared in sections as follows:
  1st. From Teviot Foot to Ancrum Bridge.
  2nd. From Ancrum Bridge to Hornshole Bridge.
  3rd. All the waters above Hornshole Bridge."—(The Earl of Minto.)
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND The Marquess of)said, the Government were prepared to give the Returns asked for, but he was afraid that they would take some time to prepare and cost considerable expense. He would like to call the attention of his noble Friend to the fact that he had altered the terms of his Motion three times. When Motions of this kind were altered and added to from time to time, it was extremely difficult to obtain that information which was necessary before assenting to the Motion. He agreed with what the noble Earl had said, that poaching was not so great on the main streams as on the tributaries. This fact was known, he thought, to everyone, and therefore he could not understand why the noble Earl required a Return with regard to that. He had, however,

  157
  no doubt the Returns when prepared would be interesting and useful. He did not know whether the noble Earl wanted the Returns for the purpose of making any changes in the Salmon Fisheries Bill when introduced. If he did he was afraid it would delay the Bill considerably, and he did not wish to do that.
  Motion agreed to.
  Returns ordered to be laid before the House.

SALE OF IMPORTED MEAT.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD LAMINGTON, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether they will not introduce some measure to prevent the fraudulent practice of selling foreign imported meat as home produce, a practice which inflicts serious injury on the agricultural interest and on all producers and consumers in the United Kingdom? said, he had received so many communications on this subject from all parts of the country that he was convinced that it was regarded as one of very great importance to the agricultural interest. The noble Marquess at the head of the Government had recently stated that there was no chance of any reversion to Protection. He was very glad that the noble Marquess had made that distinct announcement; but if there was no chance of Protection, it was all the more incumbent on the Government to see that justice, at any rate, was done to the agricultural interest. The Prime Minister had the other day expressed the desire of Her Majesty's Government to do all they could to ameliorate the condition of the agricultural interest,; and one step in that direction was taken by this House when, a few days ago, it carried the Amendment of the noble Earl (the Earl of Jersey) upon the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, and struck a blow against the preference given in railway rates to foreign produce. When, some years ago, foreign meat was first imported from Canada and the United States the meat was openly sold as such, the public were informed of what they were buying; and got it at extremely cheap prices—at 4½d. or 5d. a-pound, and frequently it was sold at shops specially opened for the sale of such imported meat. But now the foreign
  158
  meat was sold with home meat, and no distinction was made between the two. Instead of the poorer classes getting the imported meat at 4d. or 5d. or 6d. a-pound they paid 8d. or 9d., the money taken from the price of the home meat being added on to the price of the foreign meat. Unfortunately, there was nothing in the law to prevent this. He was informed that a quantity of horse flesh was also sold in this way. A remedy for this state of things which he suggested was very simple, and could be effected by the insertion of two clauses into the Adulteration Act of 1875. One clause should provide that every person selling foreign meat should take out a licence; and the second clause should impose severe penalties on any person who sold foreign meat without having over his shop a board stating that the shopkeeper was licensed to sell foreign meat. This would have the effect of putting purchasers on their guard against having foreign meat palmed off upon them as home meat, and at the high prices of home meat. It would be the greatest boon not only to agriculturists, but to consumers throughout the Kingdom. It might be said that this was a side-wind of Protection. It was Protection, but protection of the poorer classes rather than of the agriculturists in the first place. It was a strange fact that if the question was put to a butcher whether or not he sold foreign meat he always said he did not, yet immense quantities of foreign meat were being annually imported. Last year the amount of foreign meat brought into London was double what it was in the preceding year. What became of this foreign meat if it was not sold by the butchers? Were the Government willing to allow this practice of deception to continue? Parliament had shown itself alive to the importance of matters of this kind by passing the Adulteration Act, the Margarine Act, and the Merchandize Marks Act. It interfered to prevent the sale of margarine under the name of butter, although margarine was as good as butter. But no one could deny that foreign meat after the miles it had to travel by land and sea was, when it reached this country, inferior in quality to home meat. He hoped that Her Majesty's Government would not hesitate to step in and interfere to stop the deception now practised, and if they did

  159
  so they would confer a boon on both agriculturists and the poorer classes.
  LORD TRUROsaid, the noble Lord probably did not anticipate a satisfactory reply to his Question, for the point he had raised was part of a much larger subject. Trade frauds should be dealt with more severely. There was no country in Europe in which trade frauds were so prevalent as in England, and they would never be stopped until some personal disgrace was inflicted upon the men who habitually defrauded the public in the way that was now frequently done. In France the law was much more severe, and the Penal Code provided that persons found guilty of trade frauds might be punished not merely with penalties but by imprisonment, extending from 15 days to three months. The consequence was that those offences were much fewer in France than here. He should like the Government to lay a Return on the Table of the convictions obtained in this country merely for the adulteration of milk. The penalties that had been inflicted were much too small to deter offenders. In France a man could be fined and sent to prison for 15 days, and the Court could order the publication of placards announcing the sentence imposed.
  LORD WANTAGEsaid, he thought that the proposal of the noble Lord would cause great inconvenience. The most respectable butchers bought and sold good foreign meat with advantage to themselves and to their customers. If they were compelled to take out a licence and proclaim themselves buyers of foreign meat they would, he feared, he prejudiced. Foreign meat was sometimes better than English meat, and farmers themselves often sold it. What would really do good would be to encourage farmers to take advantage in greater numbers of the retail trade. Four or five farmers by associating together could carry on the trade of butcher with much profit to themselves. He was afraid the proposal of the noble Lord would be prejudicial to the traders, and in no way beneficial to the buyer.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Earl of ONSLOW)said, he was surprised that the noble Lord who had introduced this subject should have appeared to complain of an absence of sympathy in the Government for the agricultural interest, he should have
  160
  thought that the reference to agriculture in the Speech from the Throne and the observations which had recently fallen from the noble Marquess at the head of the Government ought to have impressed everybody with the fact that there was no ground for any such complaint. The interest taken by the Government in subjects affecting agriculture had been shown by the passing of the Margarine Act, the introduction of the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, and the proposal made in "another place" for the relief of local taxation. With reference to the particular question brought forward by the noble Lord, he should like to ask him whether those who complained of not getting English meat when they wanted it, really asked the butchers to give them English and not foreign meat. His advice to buyers was, in the words of the advertisements, "When you ask for it see that you get it." The noble Lord wished the Government to introduce a measure for preventing the fraudulent practice of selling foreign moat as home produce, but if the practice was a fraudulent one he presumed it could be reached by the law as it stood. The Merchandize Marks Act laid down that any one who applied any false trade description to any goods should be held guilty of an offence. Then the 6th section of the Act of 1875 relating to the sale of food and drugs, enacted that "no person shall sell an article of food which is not of the nature and quality asked for." There were also Acts of Parliament under which people could be punished for obtaining money under false pretences. Until the noble Lord and those whom he represented had tried whether the object which they had in view could not be attained by the operation of some of those laws the Government could hardly be asked to introduce fresh legislation. The Return asked for by the noble Lord opposite he would be happy to consider; but he did not himself think that it would be desirable to impose heavy penalties and imprisonment for offences such as the noble Lord had referred to. There were cases in which the infringement of an Act might almost be thought laudable; for instance, when a man mixed a little water with the gin which he sold.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, that the 6th section of the Sale of Food and

  161
  Dougs Act could not serve the purpose of the noble Lord (Lord Lamington), because it was clearly directed solely against adulteration.
  LORD LAMINGTONasked whether it was to be understood that the sale of foreign as English meat was punishable under Clause 6 of the Adulteration of Food and Drugs Act?
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid, that he wished carefully to avoid expressing any legal opinion upon this subject. All that he would say was that, until the noble Lord's friends should have tried unavailingly prosecution under the existing law, there could be no good ground for asking the Government to initiate legislation.

LUNACY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
(No. 48.) THIRD READING.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
EARL SPENCERsaid, he believed it was now perceived that the Bill did not meet a case which he adduced when the Bill was in Committee. He was not now prepared with a clause, but he trusted that if it were found practicable to frame a clause, the object he had in view would be attained when the Bill was in Committee in the other House.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, there was some doubt in the matter; but he was inclined to think that the noble Earl was right, and if it turned out to be so he should have no objection to the necessary amendment of the Bill.
LORD BALFOURsaid, the communications that had taken place had reduced the matter at issue to a small point, which should be fully considered before the Bill reached the stage of Committee in the other House.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly; Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

TITHE RENTCHARGE BILL, AND TITHE RENTCHARGE RECOVERY AND VARIATION BILL.
BILLS PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY), in rising to call attention to the mode of levying tithes, and to present a Bill, said: I wish to bring before your Lordships a Bill with reference to the incidence of tithes and the lamentable occurrences which are taking place, especially in the Western part of the country. It was not possible last Session to pass the measure which passed through your Lordships' House, because it did not commend itself to the judgment of the House of Commons. A good deal of discussion took place upon tithes, and we were able to see where the difficulty with respect to them lay, and we are now able to introduce a measure to modify the difficulty. I must first call your attention to what the difficulty is. Tithe is a very peculiar property. It is not a burden on the land; it is not a burden on the landowner; it is a burden on the produce of the land. But the produce of the land is in the hands of the occupier; while by law the person responsible with respect to the tithe is not the occupier but the owner. The result of that state of things is this—that in order to get at the produce of the land you must levy distraint upon the occupier. Yet the occupier, who is not the debtor, has to suffer the inconvenience of distraint for a debt that is not his own. And the difficulty arising from that state of things has been a good deal envenomed by its being mixed up with social and theological discussions, into which I need not further enter. The first consideration which occurs to us, on reviewing the discussion which took place both last year and before, is that the difficulty has arisen because the Act of 1836 has not been exactly obeyed, or rather that the landlords, in their contracts with the tenants, have been able to contract themselves out of the operation of the Act of 1836. By the 80th clause of that Act the tenant is indeed liable for the payment of tithe; but having paid the tithe, whatever it is, he is at liberty, just as in the case of the Income Tax, to deduct the payment that he has made from the rent he owes to the landlord when he comes to pay the rent to the landlord. But the difference between the case of the tithe and the case of the Income Tax is that the Act of Parliament establishing the Income Tax guarded that tax from being imposed upon the tenant by a subsequent contract between the

163
landlord and the tenant; and the Tithe Act overlooked that precaution. If the precaution had been taken this difficulty would not have existed now. If that precaution is taken now the difficulty will only exist as regards the existing contracts; it will not exist as regards contracts which come into existence after the passing of this Bill. It appears to me, therefore, that if there is a question as to what it is best to pass, we have to economize our time; the first thing we ought to do is to pass an Act remedying that defect in the Act of 1836, avoiding contracts between landlords and tenants which throw the burden on the tenants instead of leaving it, as the Act does, upon the landlord—in fact, putting tithes on a level with the Income Tax in that respect. If we do that the evil will be remedied as to future contracts, and all existing contracts will in due time die out. I propose, therefore, to split up the Bill of last year into three separate Bills. The first Bill I submit to your Lordships is one for simply putting tithe on a level with the Income Tax in respect to that precaution, and avoiding for the future contracts which prevent the tenant from recovering tithe he has actually paid by enabling him to deduct it from the rent due to the landlord; That will only operate in the future. What are we to do with contracts that exist now? The evil is too great, the injury done to the relations, especially between the spiritual titheowner and the landowner and occupier, are too serious to allow us to wait till the slow operation of the change of which I have spoken shall make these conflicts for the future impossible. Last year our proposal was simply to transfer the liability from the occupier to the owner, to put an end to the remedy of distraint, and, with certain elaborate precautions, to enable the titheowner to recover his tithe from the owner of the land. I believe that is a perfectly sound and innocent remedy. But I am bound to say that, though the Bill passed this House with great case, the landowners, of whom we have not a few here, accepted it apparently with goodwill; but when it came to "another place" of more jealous and exacting scrutiny there was a very considerable number of landowners who were not at all prepared to submit to this new responsi-
164
bility being placed upon them. There is no doubt it laid a considerable responsibility upon them, because it made the whole property of the landowner liable to tithes, which it is not now. We should have contended that the new liability was so surrounded by precautions that no practical harm could result to the landowner. However, we are very anxious if we can—I do not know whether it is possible—to find a mode of effecting the change which shall neither injure nor frighten the landowner, and, therefore, we propose to take another course this year. We shall leave the case of the owner who occupies his own land just where it is; the grievance does not arise with him, only that there is a remedy which is already in the Act of 1836 which we shall slightly develop and apply to cases of land occupied by the landowner and other lands—I mean the remedy that is given by the Act of 1836 in cases where there is not sufficient to distrain upon on the land. The Act of 1836 provides that where there is not enough produce on the land to pay the tithe, the titheowner may stop into the place of the landowner and become ad hoc the landowner, receiving the rent until the tithe shall be paid, and the costs incurred shall be paid, when the land shall revert to its proper owner. We propose to re-enact that remedy in a more modern form by enabling the County Court to appoint a receiver of rents where the tithe is not paid. The receiver will be appointed at the suit of the titheowner when the tithe is a certain period in arrear, and that receiver will have the right of either farming the land, if it is in the occupation of the owner, or of receiving the rent, if it is in the occupation of another person. As soon as the tithe is discharged and the costs paid the receiver will hand the land back to its true owner. I think that remedy, though effective, will possibly be costly; and we propose another remedy in the cases where the occupier is not the owner of the land. Distraint in that case, which is the present remedy, will be forbidden; and in place of it the County Court will, on the petition of the titheowner, issue an injunction to the farmer warning him to pay the tithe out of the first money that comes into his hands as the produce of his farm. If, after the receipt of that notification, the farmer

165
shall pay any rent to his landlord before he has paid the tithe to the titheowner he will have accepted the tithe as his own personal debt; in other words, we attach the rent. I do not know whether that will be held to be a more satisfactory remedy than the one we proposed last year. At all events, it is theoretically a much sounder remedy, for it limits liability absolutely to the produce of the land and imposes no liability on the landowner himself. The produce of the land will be liable, as it is now, in the first instance, to tithe before any rent is paid, and when that tithe has been paid the rent will be paid as before. It will be obvious, of course, that this remedy will be of no use in those cases, of which I am afraid we have some instances in the country at the present time, where the produce of the land after all expenses are paid is not enough to pay either the tithe or the rent. In these cases, of course, it is of no use to attach the rent; to attach the rent when there is no rent is an illusory remedy; there is no possible remedy except the remedy of a receiver in that case. Although the titheowner has a right to get whatever the land yields; I believe in reality in those cases that, practically, the right no longer exists; and where the land has failed to yield produce the titheowner, as well as the landowner, is practically dispossessed of his property. That, putting it simply, is the nature of the remedy which we offer in this Bill for the purpose of getting rid of the grievance of distraint. It is bad to leave the law as it is even if it would work; but the friction and animosity produced are so great that we are bound to find some other means of conveying to the titheowner that share which is his due in the produce of the land. One thing more. Great complaint has been often made of the operation of the seven years' average. It is said, and said justly, that where a depression and consequent fall in the prices of agricultural produce set in, the first years of the seven years' period continue by their high prices to bear down the farmer long after his farm has ceased to yield the high results on which those first averages were based. We believe it would be more just to take a three years' average, and that that would be sufficient. The Bill of last year had yet
166
another part which I do not propose to introduce to-night, although I should be glad if it were possible to come to some arrangement with the Episcopal Bench in regard to it—I mean that part of the Bill which concerns the redemption of tithes. I had the honour to introduce into the Bill of last year clauses which would have facilitated the redemption of tithes, I believe, in a practical manner; but the terms, which were favourable enough to induce the landowner to redeem, were thought too favourable to the landowner, and those who represent the Church pressed for some modification of those terms. Whether we shall be able to effect such a modification I do not know, but I must express a strong conviction that if redemption is thought by those who represent the Church to be a desirable object, it will not be brought about with out a sufficient concession to the landowners to induce them to undertake it. However, that is a matter hardly relevant to my present purpose. I propose now to present the Bills which I have described to the House, and after the Recess I will ask your Lordships to read them a second time.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he did not propose at the present stage to discuss measures which were not in terms before the House; but still he should like to say a few words on the observations of the noble Marquess. He was glad the noble Marquess had recognized that a change in the mode of recovering tithe should be made; but it was a matter which might cause landlords a loss. With regard to the first Bill, he was inclined to say that the provision that the landlord should not be able to contract himself out of the obligation to refund the tithe to the tenant was a fair and just provision. In a great number of instances it was the practice for landowners to permit the tenant to deduct from the rent the tithe which he had paid, and he believed in those cases no difficulty had been experienced. In that respect the Bill would establish throughout the country a practice found to work smoothly in places where it was in operation. With regard, however, to the provision for the recovery of the tithe from tenants holding under existing contracts, he confessed to some doubt—he hoped it might prove otherwise—lest

167
the proposed remedy should turn out to be too complicated, and after all should not remove the difficulty with regard to the tenant. That was to say, they would still have to go to the tenant, and the tenant would, no doubt, in many cases continue to act unreasonably. He was afraid that any system by which it was necessary to make application to the tenant would be apt to produce friction. On the question of redemption he entirely agreed with the noble Marquess that unless the Church was prepared to make some concession it was practically impossible to effect the object. It was not that it was desired to take away from the Church her due share in the produce of the land; but the present was a case in which, in the interests of the Church herself, he believed redemption would be desirable. There was another subject which the noble Marquess had not touched upon—that was the re-assessment of some portion of titheable lands. It could not be contended that they should persevere in a system with regard to certain lands where the tithe actually swallowed up the whole profit of the land and operated as a confiscation of the whole income of the land. This was no light matter. Surely it was not a mere question of pounds, shillings, and pence, because the result would be that land would go out of cultivation. Great injury would be inflicted in districts where the land ceased to be cultivated. In making these observations, he wished to be understood as reserving his opinion till he saw the Bills; but he felt sure that the desire of his Colleagues on the Front Opposition Bench was to co-operate, as far as possible, with the noble Marquess in the object he had in view.
EARL STANHOPEsaid, that he was glad the Bills had been brought forward, and hoped that they would be pushed through Parliament as rapidly as possible. The resistance to the payment of tithes in Wales had assumed an acute stage. He was glad, too, that the seven years' averages would be reduced to three years. It would be much more equitable to all parties.
LORD HARLECHsaid, he agreed that there was a great call for legislation on this question; but, considering the opportunities for obstruction in "another place," he was not sure that the noble Marquess was pursuing a judicious
168
course in dealing with the subject in three Bills. He suggested that it would be more convenient to make one Bill of it divided into three parts, and thereby afford less opportunity for obstruction.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he was of opinion, on the contrary, that to adopt the suggestion of his noble Friend would be to run the risk of destroying the whole of this legislation. The advantage gained by having three Bills was that if two went to the bottom the third might float. The Government hoped, however, to be able to pass all three Bills.
Bill to amend section eighty of the Tithe Rentcharge Act, 1836.—Presented (The Marquess of SALISBURY.)
Bill read 1a. (No. 53.)
Bill to amend the law with respect to the recovery and variation of tithe rentcharge in England.—Presented (The Marquess of SALISBURY.)
Bill read 1a. (No. 54.)

LAND CHARGES REGISTRATION AND SEARCHES BILL.—(No. 40.)
(The Lord Hobhouse.)
LAND CHARGES REGISTRATION AND SEARCHES BILL.—(No. 40.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD HOBHOUSE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it was intended to remove some of the dangers which beset purchasers in the shape of charges upon the purchased land. By the Statute of 1837 judgments had to be registered in the Common Pleas Office; but that had necessitated a number of expensive searches, and in 1860 an Act had been passed to give further security to purchasers, requiring not only the registration of judgments but also that of writs of execution, and that such writs should be enforced within three months. In 1864 another Act was passed to give further protection; but, unfortunately, instead of giving further protection to the purchaser, it took away that which he already had. This miscarriage of the Legislature was found out in the recent case of Re Pope, and it created great alarm among purchasers of land and their legal advisers. It necessitated expensive searches, which were simply prohibitory in the case of small purchases. He proposed to require again

  169
  that no judgment or order should have effect until registered. Another point related to Receivers in Bankruptcy. He was told that, owing to the want of a central office, searches for Receiving orders were enormously expensive and long, and in small purchases were quite prohibited by the cost. He proposed that all charges must be registered in the central registry. A third point dealt with in this Bill was that of the numerous class of Acts passed in late years enabling charges to be made upon the land for drainage and improvements of various kinds. The present system required a large number of different searches, in spite of some consolidation having been effected. They should all be registered in the central office. He thought that everybody must agree with the objects of this Bill. What he now proposed was to ask their Lordships to read it a second time, and then that it should be referred to the same Committee which would sit upon the Land Transfer Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Hobhouse.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.

NATIONAL DEBT (CONVERSION) BILL.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY: I have given the noble Marquess private Notice of a Question upon two points connected with the Conversion Bill upon which it is desired that a public authoritative statement should be made. The two points are these—in the first place, is it to be understood, as provided in the Bill, that trustees are to treat the 5s. bonus as income to be paid to the life tenant, or will it be merely optional for them to do so? A distinct provision in the former sense would greatly simplify matters and relieve trustees. Secondly, where a solicitor has to be employed but does not happen to be the "agent" recognized by the Bank as the party entitled to receive the 1s. 6d. commission, is there anything in the Bill to preclude him from making his usual professional charges?
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): Having received private Notice of the Question, I referred it to my right hon.
  170
  Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has enabled me to answer it. The Bill authorizes trustees to treat the 5s. bonus as interest; but it was not possible to compel them to do so. Strictly the bonus should have been regarded as capital; but in view of the great inconvenience of compelling trustees to reinvest, especially in the case of the smaller holdings, it was thought right to give them the option of treating the bonus as income, and relieve them from responsibility if they so treated it. With regard to the second Question, solicitors, bankers, and brokers will be recognized as agents by the Bank. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent any man receiving his usual professional remuneration. But the commission of 1s. 6d. was allowed in order to save holders from the necessity of sacrificing a part of their bonus in order to pay such professional remuneration, which the commission itself was provided to supply.

  SWEATING SYSTEM.
  The evidence taken before the Select Committee from time to time to be printed for the use of the Members of this House; but no copies thereof to be delivered, except to Members of the Committee, until further order. (No. 50.)
  HOUSE OF LORDS (CONSTITUTION) REFORM BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the constitution of the House of Lords—Was presented by The Lord Kenry (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl); read 1a. (No. 51.)
  WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for extending the right of voting at Parliamentary elections to duly qualified women—Was presented by The Lord Denman; read 1a. (No. 52.)
  PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 92 and 93 be suspended; and that the time for depositing petitions praying to be heard against Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House at Easter, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the recess.

  HIGH SHERIFFS.
  Select Committee on: The Lords following were named of the Committee:—

  L. President (V. Cranbrook).

  L. Clinton.

  L. Saye and Sele.

  E. Stanhope.

  L. Leconfield.

  E. Camperdown.

  L. Hothfield.

  The Committee to appoint their own Chairman.
  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.
  The Lord KINTORE (E. Kintore)chosen Speaker in the absence of the Lord Chancellor and the Lords Commissioners.
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.