Lords Sitting of 8 May 1888

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Rochester Bishopric* (98); Glebe Lands* (100).
Second Reading—Suffragans' Act Amendment (83); Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, Amendment (91).
Second Reading—Committee negatived—Customs and Inland Revenue (95).
Referred to Select Committee—Land Charges Registration and Searches* (40), referred to Select Committee on Land Transfer Bill.
Committee—Tithe Rentcharge Recovery and Variation (54).
Committee—Report—Tithe Rentcharge* (53).
Third Reading—Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act, 1878, Amendment* (68), and passed.

TITHE RENT-CHARGE RECOVERY AND VARIATION BILL.—(No. 54.)
(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to order).
Recovery of Tithe Rent-Charge.
Clause 1 (Abolition, except in certain cases of distress for recovery of rent-charge) agreed to.
Clause 2 (Procedure for obtaining order of County Court for payment of tithe rentcharge).
LORD HERRIES, in moving to amend Sub-section 3 by inserting words to limit the right of the titheowner to three-fourths of the net profit of the land, thus giving the landlord some compensation for the expenses of management and maintenance of the laud, said it might be objected that the Tithe Commutation Act of 1836 was a final settlement of the question; but to that he would answer that the Legislature had frequently interfered and had altered the incidence of tithes, and the introduction of this measure itself proved that the tithe commutation was not considered to be a settlement of the question. It was always supposed that the land would be three times the value of the rent-charge; but he had been informed that in some cases the landlords had to pay as tithes more than their interest in their land was worth; and it certainly was extraordinary that the person who was entitled to only one-tenth of the produce of the land had a right to take the whole of the profits derived from the land. It was a fact that the natural productiveness of the land was gradually diminishing, and that it had to be supplemented by the use of stimulating and expensive manure. Was it fair in such circumstances that the tithe-owners should take the whole of the profits of the soil? In the interest of agriculture he moved. this Amendment, because he thought the landowner should be allowed to take some part of the profits, and that the tithe-owner should not take the whole. Land had diminished in value, and his Amendment went to this—that in a case where the rent charged so nearly approached the net profits, the landowner should be allowed to retain one-fourth of them to pay his expenses of cultivation. He begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, he could not assent to the Amendment. He did not think that the definition of profits given by the noble Lord was quite correct. He understood the noble Lord to desire to make this deduction from the profits in order to repay the landowner for his manage-
1596
ment. But the object which the noble Lord had in view would be satisfied by the clause as it stood. In point of principle, however, profits had nothing to do with the rent-charge, which had never been a charge upon the profits of the land. It was open to the noble Lord to say that the rights existing should be taken away; but if the noble Lord advocated that principle, it should be adopted after a very full inquiry, and then their Lordships might consider whether they would accept the results to which that inquiry would lead them. If land should go out of cultivation there would be no profits, but there would be a right to tithe notwithstanding.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he could not see that the clause reserved any profits to the landowner. No doubt, the noble Marquess was quite right in saying that to deal with this question as the noble Lord proposed would be a large matter; but he thought that this clause as it stood would lead to the question being re-opened, because it never could have been the intention of any individual to give to the Church the whole profits of the land. He fully admitted that as the law stood the right of the titheowner was as the noble Marquess had stated; but it was not always advisable or even possible to exact your pound of flesh although entitled to it. It seemed to him that the arguments that as the law stood the titheowner might absorb the whole of the net profits of the land pointed irresistibly to an alteration of the law.
THE EARL OF SELBORNEobserved, when tithe was commuted a Parliamentary settlement was made between the landowner and the titheowner by which tithe was made a rent-charge on the land and took priority of the landlord's interest. The present was not a proper occasion for going into the question, whether that was a satisfactory settlement; if such a question were at any time raised, he did not doubt that it could be shown; and he thought it had been already demonstrated that, on the whole, taking everything into account, the landowner had been a large gainer by that arrangement. It was perfectly clear that the titheowner's rent-charge now took precedence over the landlord's interest on the land as much as any other rent-charge would do. To say that because the landlord might get nothing

1597
out of the land he was entitled to have transferred to him one-fourth part of the titheowner's rent-charge, seemed to him to mean simply appropriation by the tithepayer of part of the titheowner's property.
LORD HERRIESsaid, he could not admit that under all circumstances the tithe rent-charge must remain as at present. It might be that, owing to change in the value of money, 100 years hence the tithe rent-charge might be worth more than the land itself. Could it be contended that under those circumstances the titheowner was to be allowed to have the whole property in the land? He did not wish to press his Amendment to a Division unless it was likely to be supported by the House.
Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 9 inclusive, agreed to.
Reduction of Averages.
Clause 10 (Calculation of tithe rent-charge on triennial instead of septennial average of prices).
On the Motion of the Marquess of SALISBURY, an Amendment made to the effect that the substitution of a three years' average for the seven years' average should not affect extraordinary tithes.
An Amendment moved providing that the computation should be made as respects the average prices for the three years' ending on the 25th of December, 1889.—(The Lord Addington.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he could not admit that the clause as it stood did any injury to the titheowner, because it was impossible to say what the prices within the next few years would be, although the indications were rather in favour of a rise. He was, however, quite willing to accept the proposal of his noble Friend.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he wished to express his gratitude on behalf of the clergy, to the noble Marquess, for acceding to a proposal which might tend to ameliorate their condition.
Amendment agreed to; other Amendments made; the Report thereof to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 99.)

SUFFRAGANS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord Bishop of Carlisle.)
(NO. 83.) SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE (Dr. HARVEY GOODWIN), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, explained that it was intended to remedy the defects of an Act of Henry VIII., which had proved to be a very useful Act, enabling Bishops to be consecrated to assist Diocesan Bishops. That Act, unfortunately, contained a list of towns from which the titles of Suffragan Bishops could be taken, and some of these towns, as might be imagined, were totally inapplicable to the altered conditions of society. For example, the Bishop of Bedford was really a Bishop for East London, and the Bishop of Marlborough had no connection with the town from which he derived his title. What, however, brought the anomaly most vividly to his mind was the proposal to appoint a suffragan to the Bishop of Ripon by a title derived from Penrith, which was in his own diocese. But since he had introduced his Bill he had discovered that a Bill with a similar object was introduced in "another place" three months ago. This other Bill, however, went further than the one for which he was asking a second reading, and proposed to enable bishops with incongruous titles to change their names into more suitable ones. It also differed from his own Bill in allowing gentlemen already in episcopal orders to be appointed Suffragan Bishops. When he made this discovery he rather hesitated whether he should go on with the Bill, but inasmuch as no progress had been made in the House of Commons with that Bill, he resolved to proceed with his Bill and then to take counsel with the members of the other House who had been good enough to interest themselves in the question. He, therefore, hoped that their Lordships would be good enough to give his little Bill a second reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Bishop of Carlisle.)
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.

LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887, AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 91.)
(The Lord Fitzgerald.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD FITZGERALD, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said that this Bill was intended to remedy an omission of the Act of last Session. By an Act of 1860 it was provided that where the lease prohibited assignment without the lessor's assent, no assignment should be valid unless sanctioned by the lessor's consent in writing, or by his being a party to the assignment, or endorsing his consent on the instrument. It frequently happened that the assignment was made with the verbal consent of the lessor or established by his subsequent acquiescence and dealings. Such assignees were excluded from the operation of the Act of last Session, unless the lessees had obtained the written consent of the lessor, or a memorandum sanctioning the assignment had been engrossed on the lease. The Bill proposed that whenever the lessor, by the receipt of rent or in any other way, had virtually recognized the assignment, the assignee might come into Court and claim the benefit of the Act. As the Act stood, the same result might be brought about indirectly by the lessee's claiming the benefit which his assignee would enjoy, and the Bill, therefore, provided that what might be now done circuitously should be done in a more straightforward manner.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Fitzgerald.)
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN)said, that the Government would offer no opposition to the second reading of the Bill, which would remedy a defect that undoubtedly existed in the Land Act of last year.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.—(No. 95.)
(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the noble Marquess had stated, the other day, that the House of Lords had no practical power to deal either with the formation of Government or with the Revenue; and although we had an undoubted right to discuss and to vote on such matters, the noble Marquess was right as to our practical power; he, therefore, did not desire to raise any debate upon the facts of the case; but he might remark that he had observed a telegram in the newspapers stating that the French Ambassador, M. Waddington, had been instructed to make representations to Her Majesty's Government on the subject of their proposal in regard to bottled wines, and had informed his Government that the negotiations were proceeding favourably; and he, therefore, now wished to know whether, in the negotiations which had taken place, any satisfactory result had been arrived at through the modification made by Mr. Goschen in his proposals in the House of Commons as to the Wine Duties.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, that undoubtedly there was a recognized and a very real grievance in the anomaly pointed out by the noble Earl—namely, that in deciding such a question as was debated with so much animation in "another place" lately as to whether realty or personal property was unjustly treated in the present balance of taxation, all their Lordships put together had less direct influence than the humblest ratepayer in the country. It was certainly a very strange and curious anomaly; and the only thing which could be said in its favour was that it dated from the time of Richard II. Therefore the noble Lord would not expect him to defend it. As to the particular matter in the Bill to which the noble Earl had referred, he could only say that he did not recognize in the newspaper telegram—to which he presumed the noble Earl alluded—any resemblance to any facts with which he was acquainted. No doubt there had been discussions on that subject between the French and the British Governments. Her Majesty's Government had recognized that on one point the object of the

1601
French Government was the same as their own. Her Majesty's Government desired by that impost to touch rather the well-to-do than the poorer class. In fact, the tax, to use an ordinary phrase, was one upon luxury. The French Government pointed out that it would affect, and very severely, a class of wines which could hardly be called luxurious—namely, the lower class of sparkling wines. Mr. Goschen had undertaken to consider the question, and to see whether any provisions could be proposed which would have the effect of relieving that class of wines from a burden which it was desired to put upon them. Undoubtedly the question was a difficult one; and he did not like to use any language which might make it quite certain that the difficulty could be satisfactorily overcome, but the subject was engaging Mr. Goschen's best attention; and his right hon. Friend would make every endeavour to meet it. It had been thought better in the House of Commons that any arrangement which might be made should take the form of another Bill rather than that they should reserve a discretionary power of altering it by this Bill—a course which might be thought inconsistent with precedent. He hoped, therefore, that the matter might be arranged. He could not say that he considered the tax itself one to which any objection could reasonably be offered; but, of course, it was always a matter of regret to the Government if any tax affected the feelings and interests of any of their allies.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly: Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Friday next.

LUNACY LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether it is their intention, as far as it lies with them, to forward, and pass into law this Session, the important Bill for the amendment of the Lunacy Laws which, having already passed that House on three previous occasions, was sent down to "another place" on the 22nd of March this year?
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he would also express an earnest hope that the passing of the Bill mentioned in the
  1602
  Question of the noble Earl might not be longer delayed.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, it was difficult to answer the Question of the noble Earl, because he could not answer for the progress of Business in the other House, which must very much exercise the patience and discretion of his right hon. Friend the Leader of that House. He agreed that this was a topic quite removed from Party politics; and, although there was not perfect unanimity, yet he thought they might hope soon to settle it one way or the other.
  ROCHESTER BISHOPRIC BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for the better administering of the Diocese of Rochester—Was presented by The Lord Bishop of Rochester; read 1a. (No. 98.)
  LAND CHARGES REGISTRATION AND SEARCHES BILL [H.L.]
  Moved, "That the Bill be referred to the Select Committee to which the Land Transfer Bill stands referred;" agreed to.—(The Lord Hobhouse.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, to Friday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.