SECOND READING.

HL Deb 19 February 1891 vol 350 cc1010-57

Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.

THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)

My Lords, this Bill is not a stranger to your Lordships. It has appeared for many years before this House. It has made many journeys and has been exposed to many vicissitudes since you first made acquaintance with it. Whether the results have been altogether salutary I cannot say. At all events its fair proportions have been very much diminished, and it is now reduced to an amount, not such as we should wish to pass, but to an amount which, under the existing practice and conditions of Parliament, it is possible to pass. A Bill raising severe controversial differences, although meeting with a large amount of approval and sustained by strong Parliamentary majorities, could hardly be expected to pass in the present state of Parliamentary business unless every unnecessary weight were removed from it. The most important change that has taken place in the Bill since it was first introduced here is the abandonment for the time of all attempts to legislate upon the question of tithe redemption; but it must not be supposed that by that abandonment we in the least degree renounce our opinion that tithe redemption is a subject well worthy of the attention of Parliament, or that there are evils which require remedying. But it is a very difficult and complicated subject, and we have thought it better to consent to refer it to a Commission in the first instance before inviting Parliament to consider it more carefully. The Bill is now limited practically to effecting two changes in the law. One of them is that process before the County Court is substituted for the simple process of distress by which the tithe owner now recovers the money that is due to him. The other is that the landowner pays directly instead of paying through the hands of the occupier. The first of these two changes has, I think, already commended itself to your Lordships, and I do not think that it requires much recommendation. It is evident that process before the County Court is more in harmony with the general character of our legislation than the ancient process of independent distress. The actual procedure, as far as regards the levying of the tithe, will not vary very largely, because in order to secure that the tithe payer shall not be in a worse position than he is now, the Bill limits the action of the County Court to those remedies now open to the tithe owner. By the Act of 1836, in the first instance, distress is to be levied upon such produce as is to be found upon the land on which tithe is chargeable, and if that is not sufficient, in the second place, there is to be an appointment of a receiver to cultivate the land in place of the owner. That is practically the remedy that is given by the Act of 1836, and, with small differences, that is the remedy given by this Bill. But there will be this great difference—namtely, that the processes will take place under the direct operation and sanction of a Court of Law, and will not bring the tithe owner into that close conflict and struggle with the tithe payer which is in all cases a matter to be deplored, and especially in cases where the tithe owner is, as he generally is, the spiritual pastor of the parish, with the result that an unnecessary amount of lamentable friction occurs between the pastor and his flock. We believe that a very considerable amount of the difference which has arisen in some parts of the country with regard to the payment of tithes will be gradually diminished, or, at all events, very much mitigated, by substituting the sanction of a Court of Law for the unsupported and unsanctioned act of the creditor himself. The other change is one of great importance, and is one to which we look for a more wide - reaching and permanent effect, and that change is the substitution of the owner instead of the occupier as the person on whom the tithe is levied. That was the original policy of the Act of 1836, and the present state of things, by which the payment of the tithe and the risk of all alteration in the value of the tithe fall upon the farmer—which is a state of things over a large part of the country—certainly never was contemplated by those who passed the Act of 1836. I do not say that it can be called an absolute departure from the Act, but I think it is entirely at variance with its spirit and intention. What the Act of 1836 says with respect to the relations of the cultivator to his landlord is, that any tenant who shall occupy any lands by agreement made subsequent to the cumulation of any of the rent-charge upon it, shall be entitled to deduct the amount thereby payable from the rent he has to pay to his landlord, and it shall be allowed to him in account with his landlord. Those words, although they do not actually say so, evidently contemplate that the precise sum which the occupier has paid to the tithe owner he shall afterwards recover from his landlord. But that is not the practice throughout a large part of the country. In many places the practice is that the farmer takes upon himself the whole risk of the variation in the value of the produce; that he takes the surplus when it is above par and he loses when it is below par; and that a fixed rent without variation is paid to the landlord. I do not say that the farmer loses on that account, and I do not say that in itself it is an undesirable arrangement, but the evil of it is that in bad times the farmer feels the loss very severely, and is apt to think himself very much aggrieved unless he obtains from the tithe owner the same sort of remission which a farmer under such circumstances expects to obtain from his landlord. It is not just to the poorer clergy that these remissions should be asked for. Their payment is low enough in all conscience as it is, and it was intended by the Legislature that whatever was secured to them by the Act they should receive. But in many districts they have been subjected to the pressure of opinion, which it was almost impossible for them to resist or appeal against, and which forced them, in addition to the less which they sustained by the fall in the tithe rent-charge, to make considerable remissions to the tithepayer besides, in order to meet the bad times and the suffering which the agricultural classes have been undergoing. I feel that this is one of the practical evils which has resulted from our not following the policy of the law of 1836, and departing, in fact, from the provisions which it laid down. We propose to return to the system which it was intended then to institute, and in making this proposal I must demur entirely to the language that has been sometimes held, as though we were departing from the bargain of 1836, and placing the tithe owners in a more favourable position than Parliament intended them to occupy. That is distinctly not the case. Parliament distinctly intended that they should occupy the position which is defined by this Bill, but the machinery was imperfect, and the intention has been defeated in practice by the custom which has grown up. There is only one more provision to which I need refer. There are, of course, many details and many difficult questions which your Lordships will give careful attention to when the Bill goes into Committee, but I do not think it neces- sary for me to touch upon them at this stage. There is only one thing which is, in principle, of great importance, and to which I will refer in a few words, and that is the remission which the County Court is enjoined to give where it shall appear that the tithe exceeds two-thirds of the assessed value of the land. I need not say that this will not be of frequent occurrence, but in a few parts of the country there are cases in which it does happen, and the policy which Parliament should pursue in such cases should be as carefully considered as if it was likely to be of general effect. I think that there will be no difference of opinion upon this point, that when we are adjusting the remedies which the tithe owner is to use for the purpose of recovering his tithe, we should be careful that nothing is done which will have a tendency to throw land out of cultivation. If the tithe exceeds the assessed value of the land, it is obvious that the land must go out of cultivation, because the farmer will be giving his pains and his capital to the cultivation of the land without receiving the full return for what he expends, and he naturally will not continue to incur that expense for the benefit of the tithe owner, to whom the money is to go, and therefore will cease to cultivate the land; and when the land is no longer cultivated, there will be no produce upon which the tithe can be levied. In arresting that state of things we are doing the tithe owner no wrong because that condition would deprive him of the produce on which his tithe is to be levied. We are preventing the arising of a condition of things in which not only will the land go largely out of cultivation, which is a great public evil, but there will be no produce which will be titheable, which is a great evil to the tithe owner himself. But we go a step further than that, and, although I quite admit it is open to considerable question and dispute, still on the whole I think that the course we have taken is capable of being adequately defended. We have resolved not only that if the tithe exceeds the assessed value of the land, but that if it exceeds two-thirds of the value there shall be a remission of the rent-charge. Now that difference of one-third represents the expense and the difficulty which the tithe owner would be at if he had to exercise the remedies which are placed in his hands. The remedy, which is practically given to the tithe owner in the case of land like that which is at the very edge of the cost of cultivating it, is to take the land into his own hands and cultivate it and so raise the amount of his tithe. Nobody believes that he could take it into his own hands and cultivate it with a result equal to that which the farmer already in possession, with the experience and with all the convenience which long occupation and skill would give him, would be able to cultivate it in his place. We have measured the difference between the two as being one-third of the assessment. It is a rough measurement, but I believe on the whole it is a fair one. Many persons have pressed us to go as far as one-half; but without being able to put down in exact figures the steps of the calculation, my impression is, judging from the opinion of persons well skilled in this matter which we have had the advantage of hearing, this remission of one-third will fairly and approximately represent the negative value to the tithe owner of the remedy by which alone he can recover the tithe in that case. We, therefore, give the County Court Judge power up to that point to make such remission within those limits as he shall think fit. There is only one other observation I wish to make, and it is with reference to the Amendment of which notice has been given. Of course I have no right to forecast the nature of the opposition my noble Friend will raise against this Bill. It is possible that it may be entirely different from what I anticipate. He may be the enthusiastic advocate for the tithe owners. He may think that this is a Bill for the confiscation of tithes. He may think that much greater advantages ought to have been given to the tithe owner than are given to him; but if I am to found myself on the language he has previously used, I gather that he wants in any Bill of this kind to re-open the settlement of 1836. Now, if it is intended to do this on just principles, that is to say, if it is intended to give to the tithe owner substantially that which by the common law he has a right to the law which has existed for many centuries—namely, one-tenth part of the gross value of the land—the proposal which has been submitted by my noble Friend would be the most disastrous proposal to the landowners that could be made. In the settlement of 1836 the Church agreed to the loss of a great deal for the sake of getting permanence and peace. It is very easy to ascertain that that was the case. The reckoning may be difficult if you follow it into all the possible Varieties of crops that can be grown; but very few figures and a slight consideration will show you that tithes, as calculated according to the principles which prevailed up to 1836, and tithes as levied now at present prices, would be very much in excess of anything that the tithe owner receives. Take corn. The practice up to 1836 was to let the straw represent the cost of threshing and dressing for market. The tithe owner had a right to the corn as soon as it was cut, but for the further process he had to pay, and his practice was to pay for them by surrendering the straw to the occupier. That was a very good bargain for the occupier then, but it would be even better now, for in consequence of the increased facilities in locomotion, straw is a very valuable agricultural product. I do not know whether I have the assent of the noble Lord opposite.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

It is not so with us.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Then I pity you. But at all events that was the practice throughout the greater part of the country. I do not know that I shall command the assent of the noble Earl if I say that the price at present rates of an acre of grain of all kinds, leaving out the straw, may be very fairly taken at £5. I think if the noble Earl will make the calculation he will not find I am very far wrong, though, perhaps, I have underrated the price of barley a little. If that be the case it requires very little calculation to find that the tithe of that sum is 10s.; but it is seldom indeed that the occupier now has to pay a tenth, and 10s. an acre would be enormously in excess of what he has now to pay. That there are cases where 10s. would be paid I am well aware, but they are exceedingly rare; and in most cases throughout the country 10s. would be enormously in excess. But even if you go to the opposite end of the scale and take a less remunerative crop, the crop of hay. The tithe owner before 1836 had a right to the hay when it was put in cock—he had a right to have it made up to that point. I suppose I am not exaggerating prices when I say that 60s. an acre for hay in cock would be very readily given in most places, and 6s. an acre, though not an unknown tithe is a very large tithe in any part of the country. The more you look at this by the light of the figures the more you will see that the tithe payer made a very good bargain in 1836, and that even now he would make a very bad bargain if he invited a reconsideration of the covenants. What I think misleads people is the fact that parsons in those days were satisfied with much less, and there were all kinds of agreements and practices and customs which had grown up by which the parsons received really and substantially less than a tenth part of the gross value of the produce of the land. But those were agreements to which no person was bound who had not made them. In the then difficulty of communication, in the difficulties which the parson had in disposing of the produce when he had it, it was no doubt to his interest to make agreement of this kind. But it was decided, in a case before the Court of Exchequer, just before the passing of the Act of 1836, and I think that was one of the causes which led to the passing of that Act, that such engagements were not in the least degree permanently binding, that they were purely voluntary acts on the part of each successive clergyman, and that the clergyman could always, if he chose, resort to his Common Law right of having the tenth part of the gross value of the crop. Therefore, for those reasons, the tithe owner would gain very much if there was a re-valuation. And also, you must remember, that if there was a re-valuation, something according to all fair principles would have to be paid for the growing value of the land. That was an element which was entirely neglected and passed over in 1836; but if you intend to behave fairly in the matter, and to deal with it on the principles on which you buy land for any public purpose, I think you would have to take that circumstance also into consideration. But I have no doubt my noble Friend behind me will not condescend to any calculations of this kind. He will simply rely on the distressed state of agriculture, and the right of owners and occupiers to be relieved. He will rely upon the fact that this is a powerful interest, and that the Church is comparatively weak. My Lords, arguments of that kind which have been put forward in more or less disguise are really nothing but throwing your sword into the scale. They are departing from the principle of justice in dealing with others, and that departure will be subject to all the penalties which every departure from the principle of justice involves. The practice of throwing the sword into the scale is one that when once it begins is very contagious, and it is one winch certainly the owners of property would not be prudent, by their example, to encourage. I submit this Bill with some satisfaction to your Lordships, because I hope that at last we are in sight of harbour; but I earnestly trust that it may pass through your House without any alteration sufficiently grave to make its success in the other House doubtful. I am well aware that your Lordships will carefully consider the Bill, and I have no doubt that many valuable Amendments will be introduced. We shall have an opportunity of considering it in Committee of the whole House, and afterwards in the Standing Committee, and I earnestly hope that when those deliberations are concluded we shall have produced a measure which will secure the assent of the other House of Parliament, and which will introduce a very much needed amendment in the administration of the law. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2^a."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

٭ LORD BRABOURNE

My Lords, the noble Marquess, in the eloquent speech which he has just addressed to us, has congratulated us upon the fact that his ship is at last within sight of harbour; but at the beginnning of his speech he told us that this measure is only a part of the tithe reform that is contemplated, and therefore I fear that though the harbour may be reached on this occasion, the ship will have to put out to sea again, and that her future setting out may be accompanied by disaster. I know that I am engaged upon a very thankless and hopeless task in opposing the principle of the Government measure on this occasion, but I am emboldened to do so by two considerations. In the first place I cannot forget that, however unanimous Parliament may appear at this moment to be on the subject of this Bill, only fire years ago they were equally unanimous in passing a Bill upon the kindred subject of extraordinary tithe of which no one whom I have ever heard speak of it has had a good word to say since. That was a measure which related to the addition made to ordinary tithe on lands upon which crops of a specially lucrative character were being grown, which ceased when the crops were no longer grown. Well, Parliament abolished that tax for the future, but in respect of the past it appointed Commissioners to ascertain in some extraordinary way the gross value of that tithe, and then imposed upon the owners of the lands (who had received no benefit from the crops in question) an everlasting burden by way of rent-charge, and made them pay for setting the law in motion. But there is another reason why I hope Parliament will yet deal with greater caution than it has done with this matter. This is not the first Bill the present Government has introduced upon this subject. I am bound to admit that the second Bill was an improvement upon the first, and that this Bill is somewhat an improvement upon the second; but judging by that happy result I am also inclined to think that if the Government will take back their Bill, make a little further inquiry into the matter, and make it somewhat more like the one previously introduced, it is possible that at last we may have a Bill that is nearer perfection than the one before the House. Now I put it to your Lordships—was there ever in the history of Parliament or of this country a measure brought forward with so little inquiry, or with so little demand for it? Who has asked or petitioned for this Bill, and what statistics have your Lordships had placed before you—what evidence to show that the present system is not working well in England? I may be told—I have seen it stated in the public newspapers—that the reason for the introduction of this Bill is the difficulty of collecting the tithe in Wales. Well, that may possibly be an argument for confining the operation of this Bill to the Principality; but if you are going to change your system, whether it be in England or in Wales, you ought first to show that there is some fault in the present system, and that has not been proved or even alleged upon any statistics which have been presented to this House. I myself asked the noble Marquess last year if he could furnish some statistics in the matter; but he replied that he did not know how or where they could be got. If, since 1836, when this Act was passed, there have been no complaints in this country,—as I maintain has been the case—of the manner of collecting this tax, why is the whole of England to be disturbed and existing arrangements upset because there has lately been a difficulty experienced in Wales? So far as I understand it, though I do not pretend to be very conversant with that agitation, it is due to a different cause altogether. It is not a protest against the manner in which the tithes are levied, but to the application of them after they are levied; and therefore, whatever you may do, however you may alter the manner in which the collection is made, that objection will remain. But there seems to have stolen into the imagination of the Ministry some idea that people who resist and detest distraint at the present moment are going to be entirely satisfied the moment that distraint is put in force by the County Court, and not by the owners, the clergy themselves. That is an entire surmise, and for my part I believe the dissatisfaction arises from the distraint itself, and that the resistance would be the same in vigour and vivacity from whatever quarter the distasteful operation may be enforced. Now, the noble Marquess stated fairly enough what the object was of the Bill of 1836. He said very truly that the object was to make the landlord liable. That is true; and what I contend is that the landlord always has been, in fact, liable ever since the Act of 1836. It is quite true that in many instances the tithe is paid through the occupier, but how does that affect the position? If I give my butler £5 in addition to his wages in order that he may pay bills to that amount for me, I am not increasing his wages by £5; and in the same way if I let a farm for £80 instead of —100 in order that the farmer may himself pay some charge to the estimated amount of £20 upon the land, I am not putting upon that tenant any burden. He is not bearing the burden upon the land; and what the noble Marquess has really done I will describe in a moment. Here let me say how astonished I have been at hearing the claim which has been put forward, not, I own, by the noble Marquess, but by some of his supporters, that this is a great benefit to the tenant farmers of England. A Member of Parliament, more or less distinguished, no doubt, came down to my part of the country the other day and made a speech to an enthusiastic audience of 56 persons, of whom ten were clergymen—in which he said that the present Government had done a great many good things, which I do not dispute, but the greatest boon ever conferred on the tenant-farmers was shifting the burden of the tithe to the shoulders of the owner from the shoulders of the hard working tenant-farmer. The error of that statement is only equalled by its audacity. If there was any gratitude due to anybody it is due to the Whig Government of 1836, who put the burden upon the shoulders of the owner. Everybody knows that the owner is liable. The process gone through where a tenant is about to leave his farm and has not paid his tithe is very simple: the agent of the landlord goes to the valuer, who is valuing him out, and tells him that he must not pay over the valuation until a receipt has been produced for the rent and tithe. The Government know that they are not benefitting the tenant-farmer at all. What they are doing in this Bill is to say that certain arrangements which have existed, and have answered since 1836, shall no longer be allowed to exist—that is to say, they who have so often on other occasions protested against the violation of private contracts are going to declare that this particular description of private contract shall no longer exist. But I leave the noble Marquess, if he will so far condescend to ask himself one single question—why is it that the rent-charge has been so constantly paid through the occupier, and not directly through the landlord? The question answers itself. This arrangement has grown upon account of its convenience; it is not a thing which has been imposed upon trembling occupiers and fearful tenant-farmers by cruel landlords. It is a simple arrangement which has grown up because it has been found so convenient. This Bill is going to find out the owner everywhere, but I venture to say you will find a little difficulty sometimes in doing that. I do not think the noble Marquess has realised the enormous difficulty of it. Let him go into any house here in this Metropolis, or in the suburbs, and try to find who is the owner. He may find that there is, first, the occupier, then a sub-lessee, probably several, then the long lessee, then a mortgagee, and at last he arrives at the man who has what the lawyers call the "equity of redemption." You may know that he exists but you have to find him, and the difficulty of finding him will be immense. My belief is that without intending it, the noble Marquess will in many instances plunge the tithe owner into a sea of litigation and difficulty of which he has no conception at the present moment. I have said that it is a misstatement to say that the Government are conferring a benefit upon the tenant-farmers. If I thought they were doing so I should be among the first to give the Government credit for it, for I am always willing to give them credit if I can, but in this instance I must deny that there is any credit due to them. The noble Marquess told us that the Act of 1836 was an immense benefit to the landowners, and that great sacrifices were then made by the Church. Now, I utterly dispute that proposition, and I ask noble Lords to read the history of that time as contained in the Debates upon that Act if they wish to know the real state of things. In the first place, from the manner in which the tithe was collected, the system had become so unpopular that many people thought it was time to sweep it away altogether, and the whole system of tithes and the position of the Church were never in greater danger. That Act was conceived in the interests of tithe owners and tithepayers alike. I have here a quotation from a speech of Lord John Russell upon the subject. Lord John Russell's own words were— The income of the clergy will ultimately flow from the landowners, and not from the tenants or farmers, and the clergyman will be relieved from an alternative that now often exists, either of making a personal enemy by pressing his demand or injuring himself by abandoning it. But what, has been the loss? I have explained how it was that the system grew up by which the tithe was often paid through the occupier. Let us now ask ourselves how about this great sacrifice on the part of the Church? It was stated in the Debates at that time, and without contradiction, that the opinion of that Bill throughout the country was such that it was popularly called the "Clergyman's Bill." I will not go so far as to say that was correct, but it is certain that one great point which had to be faced by them in the matter was the expenses of collection. The noble Marquess tried two or three times to show, from the manner in which the tithe had to be collected, that undoubtedly a great sacrifice had been made by the Church. I find, however, from the Debates of the time that, while in some instances it was alleged that the costs of collection did not exceed 5 or 10 per cent., in a great many more they constantly came to 40 or 50 per cent., and as the cost of collection was entirely saved to the Church it is not so unnatural, I think, if the noble Marquess will consider what the circumstances of the case were that the measure should have been considered as favourable to the clergy. They had to get the produce from the land and prepare it for market; and to house that produce necessitated the erection of those large tithe-farms which many of us remember, find the maintaining and repairs of these buildings of course involved considerable expense. The Government of that day took evidence upon the matter; they acted with impartiality, and they came to the conclusion that upon the average the tithe owner got, perhaps, £75 out of £100 supposed to be due to him. That is to say. £75 per cent. was the net amount received. Now all that cost of collection was entirely saved to the Church. But there was something besides that. The clergyman besides had the immense advantage of having the land instead of the produce of the land from which to take his claim, and he had the security of the landowner behind him. When the produce of the land had to be looked to, and the clergyman had to take his tithe, every tenth sheep and so on, if any disease attacked the flocks, or if a blight happened to the produce, he was of course a sufferer; but instead of that he then had the hard cash secured to him, which was no trifling benefit to him, and beyond all that he had the security of the landowner who was responsible for the tithe. Therefore to say that the Church made such an enormous sacrifice, and that that Act was for the benefit of the tithepayers is an assertion which in the interests of that justice which the noble Marquess invoked so pathetically just now I cannot allow for a moment to pass. Now, I want to know what is to be the great gain which you are to obtain from this Bill? In the, first place, as I understand it, the owner is to pay direct. Has the noble Marquess thought of the effect of that? As far as regards the tenant farmer, there is an idea that he is to be benefited in some extraordinary manner by this arrangement, and that as far as the clergy are concerned friction is to be avoided. I never could quite understand what is meant by the friction between clergymen and their parishioners. I can understand the existence of friction in Wales, because there the people object to the tithe itself; and I can understand friction existing in some parts of England where the tithes are so heavy that, however patient men may have been under them, they will not be patient much longer. But I deny that in most parts of England there is any friction between the clergy and their parishioners. I believe there is the greatest possible good feeling between them; and whether a man is a small owner paying on his own account or not I believe there is little difficulty from one end of England to the other in the collection of the tithes. I think it is strange that those who pose as the friends of the Church should entertain so bad an opinion of the relations between clergymen and their parishioners. I think that argument of friction is an argument insulting to both, and I do not believe there is that friction. And besides, what is it that is objected to? The occupiers are still to pay the tithe yearly, but I am not to be allowed to say to my tenant, "You are to have your land for so much less rent, and you are to continue to pay the charge yourself," I am to pay the charge, and it is specially enacted in this Bill that a receipt shall be given me specifying that so much of the amount paid is "tithe paid to the Rev. Mr. Smith." Of course, you thereby earmark the payment. The farmers are not going to be deceived. This Bill is really an attempt to humbug the tenant fanners into the belief that you are giving them some advantage which you are not giving them; but they will soon be undeceived, and the effect will be to increase the dissatisfaction in regard to tithe. Whether the Rev. Mr. Smith distrains in respect of the tithe, or whether I distrain in my own name on account of the payment which I am obliged to make to the Rev. Mr. Smith, the tenants are far too sharp not to know exactly how it arises, aid the friction will be as great as ever it was. The noble Marquess has told you what good this transfer to the County Courts is to establish. Well, I am not so certain of it. The County Courts were introduced, I suppose, to afford the public an easy manner of recovering debts and to give cheap law to the community. They have worked well and are popular; and the noble Marquess should consider whether he is not likely to make them unpopular by converting them into engines for extracting tithes from unwilling people. I am not going into the question of what the effect of a re-valuation might be; but I think it is most mischievous to allow the present state of things to exist. Perhaps many noble Lords have read certain publications which have been recently issued, which state the enormous proportion which tithe in a great many instances bears to rent. I happen to know how it operates in my own county. I will give three instances: In the case of one small farm the landlord receives £35 and has to hand over £18 for tithe; in the next case the rent is 20s. an acre and the tithe 10s.; and in the third (these are only, my Lords, some of many similar instances) the rent which the landlord receives is 12s. per acre, of which he has to hand over 8s. to the clergyman, so that he has to be content with 4s. himself. In the case of large landowners that may be a matter of small importance. The most rev. Prelate has told you in a previous Debate how very many tithepayers are small landowners. If you only consider what this burden of tithe is on the land for a moment, I think you will agree with me when I say that it is an enormous and a cruel one, which ought not to be placed on the producers of food in this country. I do say that in dealing with a big subject of this kind, before attempting to give further facilities for inflicting a burden and enforcing such a tax as this, you ought, in the first place, to see that the burden is placed upon a fair and proper footing. Let us have an inquiry; let us have a Commission. That is the proper constitutional mode of proceeding in dealing with a great question like this, in order to ascertain whether there is not land which is too highly rated, and whether there is not land in respect of which the tithe should be much lowered. There ought not to be such a state of things as the Church taking the greater part of the rent, whether only a half or as much as three quarters of the value of the land is taken. Such a condition of things is preposterous; and if it does not appeal to your Lordships now and to the House of Commons, it will come home to you by-and-bye, because it is a cry which will come up again and again until justice is satisfied. The proper course to take would be to inquire, by Commission, into the incidence of the tax, with a view to remedying its inequalities and injustice in many cases. If some such course is not taken now the time will probably soon come when the demand for justice in the matter by the country will force it upon your Lordships and the House of Commons. The noble Marquess has spoken of criticisms on the details of the Bill. I do not wish to detain your Lordships by entering now upon those details. The Committee of your Lordships' House, if the Bill goes into Committee, would be the proper stage at which to consider them. Nor do I mean to detain your Lordships by going into the history of abortive measures in the past. I am satisfied that we have a practical measure to deal with to-night. I have stated what are my objections to this Bill. I believe it is an entire mistake to interfere with a system of arrangement which has grown up by itself, and that very fact shows that it has not been a useless or unpopular arrangement. I believe it is a mistake to place the County Courts in the position in which you are proposing to place them by this Bill, and that it is a still greater mistake to deal with a little bit of this large subject when the Government, with a majority in both Houses, might have taken a comprehensive and effective view of it, and have taken the necessary and proper means to find out where justice lies, and how in this matter justice might be done. I do not suppose that any objections which I have urged against the Bill will be sufficient to induce your Lordships to refuse to give it a Second Reading, introduced as it has been by Her Majesty's Government, but I believe those objections will be recognised elsewhere. I believe they will be felt by the clergy themselves when they find that they are obliged either to forego a claim or to place themselves in irritating and unhappy conflict with their parishioners in the County Courts, and that the clergy, before they have gone very far with the Bill, will find that it is not so acceptable as they have been led to suppose. They may find one difficulty in that part of the Bill which refers to three months' grace being given to the tithe payer. It is necessary that you should give it under the circumstances affecting this Bill. That three months' grace is in substitution for what the noble Marquess in the first Bill proposed—that 5 per cent. should be allowed to the tithepayers who paid within a certain time. That 5 per cent. would have been a boon to some of the tithepayers, and also to the tithe owners, because they would not have been kept out of their money possibly for many months, but would have been paid at once. I think, therefore, the clergy will recognise that this Bill is not so entirely favourable to them as they may have supposed. I believe, also, that my objections to the Bill will be felt by the tenant farmers when they find that, under the proposed system of payment of the tithe, their landlords are obliged to expend large sums, and, therefore, will not be able to extend to them that indulgence and consideration with respect to their rents which they do now at present, when probably a large part of the tithe has been paid by the squire and the larger farmers, the clergyman is able to exercise a judicious clemency as to the rest. But if the squire is obliged to collect and pay it all he will be compelled to press his tenant for, payment in a manner which has not hitherto been done. There is no class, however, that will feel these objections more strongly than the large class of small owners occupying and cultivating their own land. Those men are a very numerous body, particularly in the South and West of England, and they have always regarded the present Government as their special friends, and have supported them accordingly. Here is their reward! The Government forgets or despises and has ignored their complaints, bitter and loud as they have been, in this matter, and has dealt with the question solely in the interests of the tithe owner. This large class must be more than human if they forget this, and if they do not resent such treatment. I am afraid you will drive those men to only one conclusion, the effect of which will be to make them more readily listen to arguments that justice is only to be secured through the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church, that tithe is national property which should be devoted in a just and equitable manner to national purposes, and which must not be imposed in an oppressive manner upon struggling and suffering agriculturists. It may, perhaps, be thought that I am hostile to the Established Church. Not at all. I speak in no spirit of hostility to that Church. I believe the Established Church of England never stood in a stronger position than she does at this moment in some respects; and that in the history of mankind there has never been an Organisation which has made such rapid and excellent progress in good work as the Church of England during the last 50 years. But that is all the more reason why the Church should not be associated with that which I say again is an unjust burden. These payments to the extent of three-fourths of the whole value of the land were never intended to be given. I do not consider now the questions why they were given, or to whom. This question of Disestablishment will be again brought forward, if justice is not done, and before that time comes we shall hear more about this burden if its pressure is not relieved. It is impossible that the small owners in England should be content to go on for ever under this burden. I promised I would not detain your Lordships long, and I think I have kept my word. It is for the reasons I have given that I believe this Bill to be an unwise and unnecessary measure, that I believe the noble Marquess has begun at the wrong end by seeking to impose this tax arbitrarily instead of first putting it upon a reasonable and just basis, and that I feel compelled to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.

Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Lord Brabourne.)

٭ THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

My Lords, it is no place of mine to go into the general question of tithe or the terrors we are threatened with. I wish to say a few words upon the question of this particular Bill, and to state what I believe to be the attitude of the chief part of the clergy and loyal Church people with regard to it. The wisest thing that can be done when disorder appears in any part of a body material or a body politic is to attend to the symptoms, in order to ascertain the cause of the evil, and to remedy this as far as may be; and, therefore, although I agree with the noble Lord who has just sat down that friction is not characteristic of the relations between clergy and tithepayers at large, yet I believe that it is well, and absolutely necessary in many cases, to diminish friction where it exists now, lest the same cause should begin to act in other quarters. It is not that the County Court alone will diminish friction, or that payment by the landowners will do so; but it is a judicious combination of these two principles in one Bill which I believe will act very widely indeed in the diminution of friction. If the Bill had been brought in for carrying out either of those two principles by itself, objections might have been taken on the other, but it is the combination of the two principles which gives me hope for the working of this Bill. The noble Lord who has just sat down has commended this Bill beyond its predecessors, which is exactly the line which I myself should wish to take. It deals with the question so far as we are now able to deal with it, and it certainly is the most equitable measure of those which have been before us within recent years. But I cannot help regretting exceedingly the omission of that third principle which was expressed before in the Redemption Clauses. The tithe question will not be really settled till the question of redemption is settled. That is a point in which friction is really felt—the payment of very small sums by very small owners—in all directions. They are both difficult for the clergyman to collect and worrying and vexatious for the small owners to pay. But I am perfectly willing to believe that the Royal Commission which is now sitting on the subject will discover upon delicate questions and phenomena relating to the collection of small tithes, so numerous especially in some parts of the country, some means which will enable the Government to bring in a Bill dealing with that subject in a way, perhaps, possible as yet. One of the most equitable improvements in the Bill appears to me to be the omission of that 5 per cent. which was really to be paid to the landowners as compensation for their taking the liability of the tithe on themselves. It gives me confidence in the justice of the country when I consider why that provision has been withdrawn. It really was not, when the tithe agitation began anew, generally understood that the burden was actually laid by the Tithe Commutation Act on the landowner, and that it was intended so to lie. But the testimony of those who were concerned in the drawing of the Bill upon the fair interpretation of the words in it, such clear interpretation as the noble Marquess has enunciated to-night, has satisfied people in all directions that the liability was always really the landowner's. It is satisfactory to feel, that on a better understanding, that the 5 per cent. has been withdrawn from the Bill. There is another point upon which certainly considerable alarm has existed among the clergy. The private letters I have received, as well as the communications made to the newspapers, exhibit it. This alarm is in regard to the concession made in waiving the amount of the tithe rent-charge which exceeds two-thirds of the rateable value under Schedule B of the Income Tax Act. This has been boldly called confiscation; and if it had been pushed to the extent of deducting everything beyond a half when the tithe rent-charge exceeds a half of the value. I think it would have been very difficult and even impossible to defend the provision. I assent to all the noble Marquess said about the difficulty of precisely fixing the ratio which should be established. But in dealing with this property I am certain that a reduction to a half would be a most unfair ratio; but I confess I do not share the alarm of some of the clergy that they will be made sufferers by the provision that, when the tithe rent-charge exceeds two-thirds of the annual value of the land, the excess shall not be paid to them. I do not share the alarm, because at present I feel that the system, which exists is one which does tend to keep land out of cultivation; and I believe that in some parts of the country land is actually kept by it out of cultivation. It is very desirable to remove that lion out of the path. It is unfair to the whole population in a certain way, and unfair to the occupiers and the owners of the land that it should be compelled to lie uncultivated by the fact that, if uncultivated land is taken up again, the cultivator has to face two years of tithe rent-charge in arrears. I believe that, with the provisions of the present Bill, the tithe owner, having to lose only the excess over two-thirds of the annual value, will find that lands will come back into cultivation which have been lying uncultivated, to the great benefit of himself as well as of the farmer. The farmer will be disposed to take the land back into cultivation from the hope that his share will increase, and he will endeavour to cultivate the land in the best manner. It appears to me, therefore, that, though it is but a rough-and-ready estimate that can be formed in this instance, the new provision will be a distinct advantage to both parties. The cases may be, I believe are, few; but this we really do not know at the present time. It may turn out that more land may come into cultivation under benignant provisions than we know of; but, at any rate, the provision will be a distinct advantage to both sides. There is yet another point which has created, and is creating, a considerable alarm. That is connected with the new clauses which were introduced in the other House relating to rating; and these clauses will, I hope, be explained here by those who are thoroughly familiar with the subject. It is an intricate subject, on which I should not presume to enter minutely now; but lam given to understand that by these new clauses the tithe owner will only be placed in the same position as every other ratepayer is placed in; and, moreover, he will be placed in the position which he was supposed to occupy by all except minute investigators of the law until a recent legal decision was given. In practice the tithe owner in the past has been liable to this provision; and I do not think that it would be at all wise or just for us to desire to place ourselves, as tithe owners, in a different position from the rest of the ratepayers of the country. I should be most loth to do anything or to say a word which would tend to make the passage of the Bill difficult when it goes back to another place; but there are two omissions which I trust the Government will be ready to take into their consideration, and if possible I hope they will introduce some fresh clauses on the subject: The first of these points is the omission of the present right to take possession of land which the farmer has let, or is about to let, go out of cultivation, because he thinks he cannot produce from it a sum which will enable him to pay the tithe. At present the tithe owner then has the right of saying that he will take the land over into his own possession and cultivate it himself. Now, I do not know whether this has actually occurred very often; but I am in possession of cases in which the power to do this has induced the farmer to try again, to his own benefit and to that of the tithe owner. The tithe owner has real property in the land; the farmer is the person through whom he receives its value. If the tithe owner demands his own property, and the farmer replies, "You cannot have it because I cannot produce it out of the land," the tithe owner ought to be able to say, "Then allow me; for I think I can." I know that the saying of this in the past has often produced a fresh application of industry and intelligence to the land, to the advantage of both sides. I hope, therefore, that that provision may be put back into this Bill. The other point I wish to mention is this—I do not know how the difficulty is to be overcome; but it appears to me as a real difficulty, and I hope the Government will consider it—it is this: the owner of the land may make arrangements for his tenant to pay a small or almost nominal rent on condition that the tenant erects buildings on the estate, carries out drainage, or brings a supply of water from a distance. I have been connected with transactions of that kind myself, and they are very advantageous and generally fair and above board. But they might also be used in the new state of things in a collusory manner; and in any case, whether used in a collusory manner or employed in good faith, there ought to be some provision by which the value which is not paid in rent, but which, is actually given in the way of buildings, irrigation, or otherwise, shall somehow be ascertained, and not be withdrawn from what is due to the tithe owner. I certainly hope that these two points maybe taken into consideration by the Government, and that some means may be devised for meeting them. In the latter point there is certainly a most real risk and danger. I will not detain, your Lordships longer on the present occasion.

٭ THE EARL OF SELBORNE

My Lords, I wish to state to your Lordships, and I will endeavour to do so at no great length, my reasons, not only for dissenting from the Motion which has been made to read this Bill a second time this day six months, but also for accepting the Bill as likely, on the whole, to meet the exigencies of a very difficult situation. In the first place, I entirely agree that the Bill is an improvement on those of former years. In two particular points that improvement is marked. One is that it adheres very closely—I am bound to say rather too rigidly, if anything, in favour of the tithepayer—to the principle of the existing Commutation Act, which throws the burden of the tithe upon the property and not upon the landowner personally. One or more of the former Bills proposed to make the landowner personally liable. That certainly was going beyond the provisions and the intention of the Commutation Act of 1836. If anything could have justified the bonus of 5 per cent which the same Bill proposed, I think, to give in certain cases to the landowner, it was the imposition of that personal liability which is now abandoned. There was another provision in the same Bill, and, I think, more recently repeated, which I have always looked upon with alarm as to the result which in working might possibly follow, and that was to make a remission to the landowner, no doubt on the same principle as some remission is made to him now, but in the case of the land not being cultivated at a profit. Now, nothing could, I think, have been more difficult, and nothing more alarming, than an investigation of that question in a contested case; and I am very glad to see that those difficulties are overcome in the present Bill by assessing the value of the land to the landowner in a simpler way, and in a self-acting way, with reference to a known existing standard of value, that adopted for the public purpose of Income Tax assessment. The adoption of that standard is in itself a security against it being warped or misdirected or used for any improper purpose. In that respect the Bill is also an improvement upon its latest predecessor, which proposed that there should be a special assessment of the value by the authority which acts for rating purposes. A special assessment for tithe purposes only would have been a less satisfactory way of arriving at any calculation than that proposed by the present Bill founded upon the valuation made for the purpose of Income Tax under Schedule B. Having said that, I am bound to say that I acquiesce in, rather than approve of, the 5th clause, which does make a certain deduction in a certain case. I acquiesce very much on the ground stated by the Most Rev. Prelate that the cases are not likely to be very numerous, and it certainly is much better that such a deduction should be made than that the land should become waste and be thrown entirely out of cultivation. I cannot at all adopt the point of view of my noble Friend who moved the Amendment, and who would claim not that deduction, but infinitely larger deductions for the benefit of the landowner, whom he considers to be at present injured by the incidence of the tithe, and to have a first claim to consideration. I will not follow my noble Friend in his general observations, but I must express my entire dissent from the principle on which they were founded, and I will endeavour to do so in the words of much greater authorities than myself. In the first place, I will, in support of my dissent, read some words of Lord Althorp in 1834, which I commend to those who, in the interest of the landowners and landlord, suppose that some general re-adjustment of the tithe rent-charge ought to take place for the purpose of practically relieving the landowners from what they consider to be a burden upon their land. The words which I quote show that it is no burden upon their land at all. It is a share and interest in the property of the country which belongs not to themselves, but to others. The passage is very short. He said— Whatever opinion may be held as to the abstract right to tithes, there can be no difference of opinion as to the question that they do not belong to the owner of the land. And even in that event, to which the noble Lord referred as a possible event, if the discontented landowner were driven to extremities—the event, I mean, of disestablishment and disendowment—it would be remembered that to whomsoever the tithes did belong, they did not belong to the owner of the land. Well, then, my noble Friend seems to think that there is a great vice in the Commutation Act, because it has not in some way divided the beneficial interest in the land, in some reasonable proportions, between the owner of the tithe and the owner of the land which is subject to the tithe, and he spoke of the word "tenth" as if tithe originally meant a tenth of the clear net value of the land. It never meant anything of the sort. Whether it was a good form of property or a bad form of property, it never meant any proportion—a tenth or any other of the clear or net value—of the land. The whole cost of cultivation always was upon those who considered it worth their while, and found it worth their while practically, to cultivate subject to the existence of this paramount right to tithe, and no deduction from tithe was ever made on account of the cost of cultivation. It is, therefore, quite clear that it is a transparent fallacy to think that the Commutation Act went on wrong principles, because it did not provide for a division in some reasonable proprotions between the owner of the charge and the owner of the land subject to the charge. Upon that point I will content myself with reading to your Lordships Sir Robert Peel's words on the introduction of the Commutation Act in 1836. He said that— Tithe was a payment founded on the basis of actual profit, but rent was not, and, therefore, the two charges were incommensurate, and that being so, an attempt to establish a proportion between rent and tithe must necessarily end in failure and disappointment. He quite agreed with Lord John Russell that it was proper to abandon the attempt to establish a proportion between rent and tithe. The very idea, I must be permitted to say, is founded upon a total misconception of the relation of the two kinds of property the one to the other. I will not dwell further upon the argument for the rejection of the Bill; but my noble Friend said something as to the tendency of the Bill to increase rather than diminish friction, and he seemed to take exception almost to those who speak of friction as existing to any extent which made any remedy necessary or desirable. He also spoke of the possibility that the County Court, now a popular and successful tribunal, might be more or less discredited by having this additional duty to perform. Now, I do not think the Bill has the slightest tendency to create or increase friction, and I do think that the working of the Commutation Act under recent circumstances and under the pressure of that uneasiness which naturally arises out of the state of distress existing in the agricultural interest, joined to other causes which I would not wish to particularise, has produced in some places an actual friction of a serious and alarming kind, not only serious and alarming to the owners of tithe, but to the general interests of order in the country at large. The state of things which for the last few years has existed in Wales has brought to a point, which the previous circumstances, never did, the question whether it is right, whether it is convenient, whether it is in the interest either of Church or of State that the clergyman's remedy should be against the property of that person who is not treated by the law as the man primarily chargeable with the burden. Now, in that respect, the Tithe Commutation Act was open to some exception, from which it is only relieved by the fact that the difficulty did not arise in practice for a great number of years, during which years enormous benefits accrued to the land, while the Church certainly suffered a very considerable diminution from its former right in respect of income from tithes. But in principle, when the difficulty arises when the friction does take place, when passions are excited, when advantage is taken of that state of things by those, who wish to excite passions, for purposes not in the public interest, is it possible to defend in a manner satisfactory to one's own mind this state of things—that the law says the burden is laid upon the owner primarily, that if the recovery is made from the tenant he may deduct it from his rent payable to the owner, but that if the person who ought to pay it does not pay it the only remedy is by going on the land and taking by distress the goods of the occupier for that which in the intention of law was not the occupier's burden. It may be said, and truly, that that injustice is theoretical and not practical when the occupier has agreed with the owner that he will pay the tithe rent-charge; but it was not meant by the law that it should be his proper burden; and, therefore, any remedy which distinctly applies itself to the interest which ought to bear the burden, and makes the distress available only when it would be available for rent, and when rent is not properly paid, is an improvement upon the existing state of the law, and especially an improvement when you consider who the persons are who are obliged by the present state of the law to put in force that unpopular remedy, which is so easily capable of being represented to the minds and imaginations of men as making a difference in the incidence of the burden from that which the law intended. The clergy as against their own flocks are in this state of the law obliged by their own direct action to put in force that most unpopular remedy, and to encumber themselves with the difficulty and ill-blood which arise from it. Surely it is a great improvement to let that be done when it must be done through the ordinary machinery of a Court as in other cases of the administration of justice, so that there will never be occasion to distrain against an occupying tenant paying a sufficient rent to a landlord, except for that which is due from him to the landlord, and then the Court only comes, into the landlord's place for that purpose. I cannot help thinking that my noble Friend was mistaken in supposing that using the County Court for this purpose would have the bad effects he has feared. It is a great mistake to suppose you will create litigation by giving this form of remedy. Things generally will go on as they went on before. Honest people will pay what is due from them as they paid before; and if the landlord pays through the hand of his tenant—not under binding contracts, for that will now be prevented—as long as the tithe owner gets his money, it is all he can ask for. That is all which anybody can require; and in the great majority of cases, where there is no disposition to put other people's money into their pockets, or to resist other people's rights, things will go on quietly and without litigation, as before. It is only when the man who ought to pay will not pay, and thereby forces others to use legal remedies, that this new legal remedy will come in; and when it does come in, I say confidently that it is likely to work far better and create far less friction and ill-feeling than the existing state of the law. The advantage which persons who are misled by others, or not themselves honestly disposed, can take of the existing state of the law has been proved in Wales on a scale which I cannot but think, from a public point of view, very deplorable and very serious, and which, if permitted to go on, most certainly would spread to other places, because, although those who desire to withhold other men's rights are but a small minority, yet I suppose there is no part of the country where some such do not, unfortunately, exist. Now, with regard to the detailed provisions of the Bill, this is not, of course, the time at which one would go into any minute points. I do not feel sure that I quite understand how the new rules about the House going into Committee first, and afterwards sending such a Bill as this to Standing Committee, will operate. Any Amendments proposed in this House will accord- ingly, I suppose, all have to be gone through over again or be liable to modification.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

They will be liable to be re-considered.

٭ THE EARL OF SELBORNE

The Standing Committee will exercise its discretion; and I suppose, when it comes back from the Standing Committee, there will be a third Committee upon the Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

There will be a Report.

٭ THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I do not know what time the noble Marquess proposes to allow for the consideration in Committee.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

That would be entirety in the hands of the House.

٭ THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I thought that probably Tuesday would be rather too early a day to fix in view of any Amendments which are not yet in form. I think sufficient time should be allowed between the Second Reading and the Committee on the Bill to allow of Amendments being carefully prepared. But, though I do not propose on this occasion to go into details, I wish to reinforce as strongly as I can what was said by the most rev. Prelate upon one point. I do not feel quite so strongly as he does upon the first point he mentioned, and, therefore, I have nothing now to say about it; but that which he mentioned last certainly is one of absolute importance which must, and I venture to say will, be provided for. I refer to those cases in which the remedy given by this Bill might be defeated or postponed by arrangements which may be, and in many cases would be, straightforward and legitimate between landlord and tenant, but which also might be sometimes of a different character. In cases where there may be arrangements of that kind made, if no provision were made for them, you would have taken away the existing remedy without practically substituting any other, and would have enabled the owner and occupier, between them, to keep the clergyman out of his money for an indefinite period of time. There might be a lease granted for a certain number of years rent-free, for family reasons or under certain conditions of service; and though under Clause 5 there might be an amount clearly recoverable against the person liable, yet there would be nothing to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, and, therefore, the clergyman would be kept out of his money during the whole of that tenancy purely by an arrangement between landlord and tenant. There might be cases in which tithe free land and land liable to tithe might be put together, and such an adjustment of rent made that the larger portion should be put on the free part, and the lower portion on the other, and in that way the remedy for the charge would be affected. Another case, not uncommon, of which many of your Lordships may have had experience, (as I have myself) is that in which some outlay is necessary at the commencement of a tenancy to improve the condition of a farm; and the landlord, who will obtain that benefit, grants to the tenant, for one or more years of the tenancy, by the terms of the contract, a remission from or reduction of rent to an extent sufficient to make the rent in those years inadequate for the payment of what is justly due in respect of tithe rent-charge. The appointment of a receiver would not avail, because there would be nothing, or not enough, for the receiver to receive from the tenant, and, therefore, the clergyman would be kept out of his money. The particular mode of providing for that no doubt requires consideration. I lave considered it, but I should be sorry at this moment to commit myself is to the exact mode of doing so, which would be the best. I should desire, if I can, to avoid making any proposition on that subject which the Government might think not so good as some other that might be made, but in some way or other I think the cases which I have mentioned must be provided for.

٭ LORD BRAMWELL

My Lords, I hope, and believe that your Lordships will read this Bill a second time now. I cannot think you will be deterred by anything that has been said by the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, and I think I can show, why you ought not to be. This is a matter of procedure entirely. It is not a matter of substance. It does not put a burden upon any particular person mote than exists now, and it does not take away from anyone any advantage or privilege or right that he has now in substance. There is a different mode of getting at the due of the tithe-owner and a different procedure is adopted; but it is, as I say, entirely a matter of procedure. Now, the principal argument of the noble Lord who moved the Amendment was a sort of objection to tithe in general, especially to the arrangement that had been made in the year 1836, as between the tithe owner and the landowner, and a kind of suggestion that some alteration ought to be made in the Commutation Act unfavourable to the tithe owner, favourable to the landowner. I trust your Lordships will never accede to an argument of that description. That Tithe Commutation Act was a bargain between the tithe owner and the landowner, ratified by the Act of Parliament itself. Parliament, in fact, made a bargain between the man who had a right to the tithe and the man who had a right to the land, and it was, I do not scruple to say—for I remember perfectly the passing of the Act and what was said at the time about it and what was known by everybody—a most advantageous arrangement for the landowner. I do not ask your Lordships to take my poor word for that, though I remember it distinctly; but you may remember that the present Earl Grey has recently expressed an opinion to the same effect, and he had to do, and very much to do if I remember his own statement on the matter, with the passing of that Act. It may have been a benefit to the tithe owner, and probably was; and it is an exemplification of that which some people cannot apparently be brought to understand, that a bargain between two people may be advantageous to both of them. That bargain was no doubt advantageous to both parties. It was said by the noble Marquess, "If that agreement is to be set aside let us revert to that condition of things which existed before the agreement was made, and the tithe owner will then be entitled to take his tithe in kind." It might not be so advantageous to him as the present condition of things. I believe it would be; but, on the contrary, I believe it would be much more advantageous to the landowner than the present condition of things. And I want to make another remark about tithe in general. The noble Lord who moved the Amend- ment has called it a cruel burden upon the landowner. It is no burden at all. I daresay the landowner would rather keep the value of tithe in his own pocket than distribute it to any one, but it cannot be called a burden. Suppose there are two persons who are entitled to a piece of land in equal moieties—joint tenants—has either of them the right to say, "That other tenant being entitled to a moiety is a cruel burden upon me." Each of them would be a burden upon the other according to that, and I think the noble Lord would not agree to such a statement of the case. Does it make any difference if the interests of the owners, instead of being divided into moieties, was divided into tenths? The tithe owner has a great deal more than the value of the tenth of the produce, for it is not produced at his expense. But the landowner holds his land upon the terms that the tithe owner is entitled to that share which the law gives him. I cannot think, then, that your Lordships will be influenced by any of those considerations of the character I have referred to which have been presented to you by the noble Lord. I venture to repeat that the question is one of procedure. But the noble Lord proceeded to say there is no question of alteration in the procedure, or, if there is, this is not the best alteration, and he seemed to say that everything went on as pleasantly now as could be except for an occasional little disturbance in Wales. My Lords, I will venture to say that those occurrences which have taken place in Wales have been a perfect discredit to this country, and that something ought to be done to prevent their recurrence by finding a remedy for the dissatisfaction which is the cause of them. Although the noble Lord has paid a very high compliment to the Church of England, and has said that her clergy and their parishioners are on the best possible terms—and I trust they are on very good terms—does anybody doubt that those people, the Welsh farmers, who do not belong to the Church, pay those tithes with the greatest reluctance? The notions of the tithepayer are such that he cannot be got to see that it is not a question between himself who actually pays and the tithe owner, but that it is a question between his landlord and the tithe owner. That they cannot be got to see, and they believe they are supporting a Church, from which they differ, which they think is wrong. Therefore, upon all those considerations it seems to me most desirable that some alteration should, be made in the law, and I think that nobody who has heard the noble Lord's speech can doubt the expediency of some such alteration being made. For my own part, I have a great misgiving whether the man from whom the tithe is due should not be liable to an action if he does not pay. Everybody else from whom anything is due is liable to an action if he does not pay, and I do not see that tithe is a less respectable debt than any other debt. I know that it might be attended with this consequence: that the tithe owner might be able to maintain an action against a solvent person; whereas if he had nothing but his old remedy of distraining there might be nothing for him to distrain upon. But a remedy for that condition of things might be given by the County Court Judge, and I think it would be a much less elaborate and expensive process if such a remedy as that is given against the landowner. I know that there is a notion prevalent that the landowner might be imprisoned for the debt. Nobody is imprisoned for debt. People are imprisoned for dishonesty. That is to say, when a judgment is got against them, and they have the means of paying the debt and do not pay it, they are sent to prison not because they owe the debt, but because having the means they dishonestly omit to pay it. I cannot see why a tithepayer who is in that position should not go to prison just as much as anybody else. Here I may be permitted to say that I am by no means sure this system of taking out judgment summonses for sending people to prison is an advantageous thing to the community. Upon this subject I would like to call attention to a very admirable article by Mr. Chambers, which appeared in the Fortnightly Review about three or four years ago. I will not trouble your Lordships with any observations upon the details of the Bill, which can be more conveniently discussed in Committee; but I think it might be well to say a few words upon the proposal in Section 5, in cases where the tithe exceeds two-thirds of the value of the land. I do not pretend to say whether two-thirds is the right figure, or whether three-fifths or a half would be a better. That I do not know. I am content to take the judgment of those who have considered the matter and have presented that figure to your Lordships. I want to make two remarks upon that subject. One is this, which the noble Marquess omitted in his statement in support of that clause, that the one-third which is left may very probably be consumed by rates and taxes; so that I think the third is left as a margin partly to give some temptation to the landlord to let his land, though he may get very little for it, and partly as a precaution in order that the tithe and the rates and taxes together shall not exceed the entire value of the land. There is one other remark I would make upon this head. I have suggested it before. As the matter at present stands the question would have to be considered annually. Of course, it is perfectly possible that a reasonable tithe owner and a reasonable tithepayer would go on from year to year unless there was some reason to the contrary; but what I think would be a very good thing to do would be to enable them to come to an arrangement which would last for some years, whether three, five, seven, or what not, and to safeguard it in the same way as leases granted by ecclesiastical owners are guarded. I hope I make myself intelligible. Whether it would be worth while to do that I do not know. I think it would, and I cannot see that any mischief would result from it.

٭ EARL STANHOPE

My Lords, I must be allowed to say a few words to express the great satisfaction with which I have listened to the noble and learned Lord's speech, partly on account of the great weight and judgment with which he comes before your Lordships, and partly because I rejoice that he has changed his views during the last year or two. Some five or six years ago I had the honour to introduce a small and very modest Bill on this subject, which was to the same effect as the measure at present before this House, namely, to try and impose the burden of the tithe upon the owner instead of upon the occupier. On that occasion the noble and learned Lord took a very strong and hostile view of my proposal, and, in fact, doubled me up altogether. Very pleased I am now to find him blessing altogether the Bill which Her Majesty's Government have introduced. My noble Friend (Lord Brabourne), who opposes the Second Reading of the Bill, will not, I trust, get much following in your Lordships' House. He has not even remained, I regret to see, to listen to the arguments of noble Lords opposed to his views. He asked, in the first place, who is it who presses for this Bill? Why, my Lords, in the interests of law and order we all wish to see the disturbances which have lately been quite a scandal in the Principality of Wales put an end to. Lord Brabourne says it is only to the application of tithes which the Welsh people object. Well, that is so; but the payment of the tithes is made the stalking-horse, and it must be in your Lordships' recollection that so grave had the position of matters become in the year 1887 that a special inquiry was instituted to make out whether or not a real grievance existed. Sir John Bridge, a well-known and leading Magistrate of the Metropolitan Police Courts, went down and made a most exhaustive inquiry and heard evidence. The result of that inquiry, which was held on the spot in the most disturbed districts, was that the alleged grievance was not a real one, and in his Report he puts one sentence which, I think, will answer one objection of my noble Friend Lord Brabourne. After hearing evidence most carefully, he says— It is most important that this question of tithes should be settled at once, and not mixed up with graver questions. That was the opinion of a gentleman accustomed to take evidence, who was not biassed one way or the other, but had in a judicial capacity heard the evidence given in the disturbed districts themselves. Further than that, I must say a few words when the question of settlement is alluded to. Your Lordships must know there has been under the Law of Distraint difficulties found to arise in this country. Distraint is an odious form of the law, and where enforced is often opposed most vigorously. I can say that has been so in the Home Counties, because distraint was felt to be a hard system, and especially so in the recovery of tithes. My noble Friend Lord Bra- bourne said this measure would render the County Courts unpopular if this unpopular system were connected with them. I have yet to learn that the County Courts have ever elicited much public interest. They were instituted for the recovery of small debts; and I assume that it will be very seldom that cases will arise where the remedy of application to a County Court will be invoked for the recovery of tithe. I quite coincide with the most rev. Primate's opinion that this Bill is only in part settlement of the general question. The larger question of the redemption of tithe is now before a Royal Commission, and I have every hope and confidence that some means may be found, as has been found in Ireland, by which the tithe may be spread over years, and so gradually redeemed without either being a burden to the landowner or doing any injustice to the tithe owner. I have every confidence that some measure of the kind will be carried out. I very much rejoice, and I hope it is a detail of the Bill which will remain unaltered, that two-thirds of the value is enacted in the 5th clause as the full measure for the recovery of tithe—that when no more than two-thirds of the rent is paid, one-third shall be remitted as an abatement in the collection of tithe. Another question has been alluded to, that of rating under the 3rd clause. That will, of course, come before the House in Committee on the Bill. It was raised in another place in Parliament by the hon. Member for the Ashburton Division of Devonshire. I think, though at first sight it may appear a hardship, that the Act which we all stand by, the original Act of 1836, should be altered; because, undoubtedly, that gave a sort of favoured nation clause advantage to the tithe owner, yet it is only equitable and right that all the ratepayers should be put on a similar footing. Not only in another place, but here, exemptions are not considered favourably, and therefore I think, on the whole, that that clause may remain as it is, as I believe cases will arise very seldom indeed where the rates will be demanded much before the actual receipt of the tithe. I am exceedingly glad that this Bill, which I, too, venture to think a very great improvement on the former Bill introduced by Her Majesty's Government, has received the con- currence of the House of Commons, and I earnestly hope that the Amendment of my noble Friend, though it has been ably argued and well brought forward by him, will be rejected by the House.

٭ THE BISHOP OF LONDON

I do not desire to detain your Lordships above a very few minutes, because everything that has been said in favour of the Bill runs very much in the direction in which I should myself have spoken if I had spoken earlier. I believe the Bill will be an exceedingly useful measure; I believe it is, on the whole, a just measure; I believe it will be a very great help to a large number of the clergy in disputes in these matters; and that it will tend very largely indeed to bring peace, where at present there has been a great deal of disturbance and trouble. It may be said that disturbances in Wales ought not to affect us here; that they have not happened in England; but the sentence— Mea res agitur cum proximus ardent, applies to this case with a great deal of force; and when you have these disturbances in Wales, if you allow them to go on it is quite certain they will not be confined to Wales. It is the plain duty of the Government to provide against such a danger, and it is necessary to secure that the administration of justice shall be made as effective all over the country as it can possibly be made. I venture to think the method proposed is the best method that can be adopted. It is, in reality, nothing more than putting the law into such a shape as to make the real incidence of tithe visible to all concerned. It is a matter of great importance to do this, because there are so many who act upon the mere appearance of things and will not be induced to consider anything which gives the opposite impression to that which they think the law at first sight appears to convey. I shall have some observations to make upon the details of the Bill—not that I wish to say anything which would in any degree embarrass the Government in carrying the Bill through Parliament. One of the things which struck me most—namely, the operation of Clause 5—has been already dealt with in such a way that I am quite sure the Government will carefully consider the effect of that clause. But there is another thing which has been cursorily touched upon by the Primate and by Lord Stanhope just now, which I should like to say a few words about, because I have received so many earnest letters from the clergy concerning the subject. It is proposed to make a great change in the old law in regard to rating. The rate which has always hitherto been properly by law levied on the occupier is now to be levied on the tithe owner: he is to pay it directly. Your Lordships will observe by this change the tithe owner becomes what he has never been before—personally liable for the rate. At the same time you are taking great care that the landowner shall not be personally liable for the tithe; but you are putting upon the tithe owner a personal liability which is altogether new. This is entirely a new departure in the law, and, of course, ought to be very carefully considered, for it will unquestionably operate very hardly in certain cases. The landlord wants time for the payment to be made by him, but meanwhile there is no provision as regards delay in the collector collecting the rate; and I think it is only just that the tithe owner should have the same delay of three months before the rate is collected from him as the landowner has in regard to the payment of the tithe. I would like to point out that in Clause 3, Sub-section 2, it is acknowledged that the ultimate source from which the rate is to come is the landowner. The tithe rent-charge is in his hands. If it cannot be got from the clergyman the rate collector is then to have the power of taking the tithe in the landowner's hands and demanding that a sufficient portion of it shall be paid to him. I cannot see why the rate collector should not go directly to the landowner in the first instance, and tax the tithe there, instead of first going to the clergyman and then going to the landlord afterwards. Difficulty, of course, will only occur in very rare cases. In most cases the clergyman will be able to pay his rates as he has hitherto paid them, and he will pay them without demur; but when it becomes a case of real difficulty, and the man has not the money to pay, what does the new proposal mean? What is the result? Why, the rate collector is to have the power to come in and sell the poor man's property—his spoons, his crockery, and the like— in order to satisfy that rate; and then, after the poor man has been sold up, the collector is to go to his property in the landowner's hands. Why is there to be this intervening step? Why sell up the poor man first, and then go against the tithe which all the time is his property, though he has not yet received it? It is obvious, also, that the proposal may work injustice in another way, and that is in cases where there is a remission by the Court under the 5th clause. There will be the assessment upon the tithe owner already made; he will be charged a rate upon property which is not his at all, which under the law is taken from him. That seems rather a hardship. I am told that there must be hardships every now and then. That is true certainly, but I do not see why hardship should fall upon a poor clergyman in such a case. It is not merely the hardship of being required to pay a rate in advance before he has received that upon which it is levied, but of being required to pay a rate levied upon property which was supposed to be his, but which the Court may pronounce not to be his at all. I do not propose to introduce any Amendments myself in this matter; but I want to see it very carefully considered, because from the letters I have received, I know the clergy are very sore upon this matter. I have received a very large number of letters within the last few days from clergymen, and I have no doubt some consideration will be given to their complaints, and some attempt made to meet the objections which I venture to put before the Government. I regret very much that we have only the clauses contained in this Bill, instead of having in it the redemption clauses, which I believe to be almost as necessary for settlement as the questions which are dealt with by the Bill, because the mischief which is caused by the trouble and friction of collecting very small sums in the way of tithe—5s. from one man and 2s. 6d. from another—is very great indeed, and some mode of redemption, by which all those small sums should be compulsorily bought up and so the difficulty entirely put an end to—some measure of that kind is, I think, really needed to make this work complete. I cannot help feeling also that it would be a real advantage if we could still retain, at any rate in certain cases, as the Primate has pointed out, the power of seizing the land. I do not see how the power of seizing the land and working it could do any harm, at any rate in cases where the land is going out of cultivation. If it is to be given up and not cultivated at all; in such a case it seems not unreasonable that the tithe owner should be allowed to step in and see if he cannot get his tithe out of it. These, however, are matters which ought not to impede the progress of the Bill, and I am too grateful to the Government for having introduced it to have any wish to put any impediment in its way.

٭ THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

I do not know whether the noble Lord opposite intends to press his Motion to a Division, but if he does, I must tell him that I shall consider it my duty to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill, and upon the one plain principle that in future it places the liability for the rent-charge on the landowner instead of directly and independently upon the occupier. If I could find anything in the details of the Bill with the object of placing the payment not absolutely on the owner, I should be in favour of the noble Lord's Motion and not for the Second Reading. Probably this Bill would never have been heard of had it not been for the unfortunate disturbances in Wales. I agree with my noble Friend opposite, who moved the Amendment, that there is no serious dissatisfaction existing in England between the payers and the receivers of tithe. As a general rule the tithe is paid freely, and, although there may have been a certain amount of grumbling, especially on account of the working of the seven years' average, which has, for a considerable time, caused the tithe to be high when prices of the produce of the land are low, I do not believe that on the whole there would have been any necessity for a change in the law, though there might have been a desire for some improvement in its operation. In passing, I may say I regret not to see in the Bill a proposal made by the Government in one particular as was done in one of the former Bills, to alter the seven years' to a three years' average. I know there was a difficulty in regard to that, but if it could have been done without injustice to present tithe owners and payers it would have been an advantage to have made a provision of that kind. While, on the one hand, a seven years' average presses hardly on the tithe payer, it presses hardly also on the tithe owner, if the prices of produce were now to rise it would be a long time before the clergy got the benefit of them, and I think, therefore, it would be much better to have a three year's average. I only mention that in passing. Apart from the principle of the Bill, which I believe to be sound, and apart altogether from the disturbances in Wales, I do not believe the Bill is of great importance as regards England. As regards Wales, I believe it is. I feel the greatest regret, as everyone must, at the state of things which has prevailed in the Principality, and I most sincerely hope that this Bill may succeed in pacifying the agitation which has prevailed there, though I have considerable doubts whether it will succeed in doing so. I am not personally much acquainted with Wales, but I should imagine that a great portion of the lettings there are from year to year, and not under lease. If that be so, under the provisions of this Bill the tithe will have to be paid, in fact, under another form, that of rent, and, therefore, I exceedingly doubt whether this will, in point of fact, persuade payers of tithe. It may to some extent lighten the difficulty, because the landlord will be interested in getting a settlement of the matter, and in some instances he may have to forego payment. If one of the earlier clauses was rightly read by the noble Lord, and if the payment is to be earmarked upon the receipt as a payment of tithe, a provision for which I do not see the necessity, then I think you will have provided for almost the same amount of friction between tithepayers in Wales, who are largely Nonconformists, and tithe owners, because they will say to the landowner: "This is for the tithe, and we refuse to pay it." That would be a result which, I think, every one would greatly deplore. It may, I think, be found in Committee that that is not the right reading of the clause, but if it be, I commend that matter to the attention of the Government, as I think it might be a serious difficulty in the measure. My noble Friend Lord Bramwell argued the question of tithes on high and some what abstract terms, and had we been discussing the question together at the Political Economy Club I might have agreed to a great deal of what he said; as, for instance, when he spoke of tithe not being a burden upon the land. Scientifically speaking, the arguments of the noble and learned Lord were, no doubt, perfectly true; but these matters are not settled upon scientific principles. We must deal with facts as they are. What we have to deal with here is the existence of a number of men with small holdings throughout the country, and I venture to tell my noble and learned Friend that his arguments will not be of the slightest avail with them. What everyone desires is that there should not be friction between the tithe owner and the tithe payer. I agree with my noble and learned Friend that this tithe is in no sense the property of the owners. They have no right to it, and so far from desiring to whittle the tithe down, if I may use the expression, I am as strongly against it as anyone. I am free to confess that subject to its present use by the Church I regard tithe as national property, and regarding it as national property I certainly could not be a party to reducing it below its fair and real value. With regard to what the noble Marquess said as to the present value of the tithe, which I think he came to the conclusion would probably be more if calculated according to the method employed before 1836 than under the present system, I think he omitted from his calculation one consideration, and it is this: one of the principal arguments, and a very strong and sound one for the measure of 1836, was that the tithe being levied upon the gross produce of the land discouraged expenditure in the improvement of it. That was a perfectly sound and just argument. What I would point out is this—partly from other causes and partly from the relief which has been given to landowners, very large sums indeed have been expended in improvements upon the land. Drainage, for example, has amounted to from £6 to £7 an acre, and in the East of England, where I live, which is most heavily burdened with tithes, enormous expenditure has been made upon buildings. That expenditure upon buildings and drainage must, I contend, be taken into consideration in comparing the old tithe system with the present, because, to my mind, the Church has no right, under the agreement of 1836, to look to the result of those improvements as conferring value upon the land in which the Church ought to share. Therefore, to that extent, I think the calculation of the noble Marquess should be reduced. I do not say, of course, that in some cases the amount of tithe, if calculated on the old system, would not now be more, but I think you must give full consideration to the large expenditure made by landowners for what has been necessary in the shape of permanent improvements upon the land. Now I come to what the noble Lord opposite said as regards the very heavy pressure of the tithe upon some, and especially upon the smaller landowners. I do not think it is quite a sufficient answer to say that there was a bargain made in 1836, and that a bargain having been made in 1836 there is no kind of reason now to complain. If you look at the thing as a whole, if you look at the payments to the Church and the value of the land throughout the country as a whole, I am not disposed to say that there is anything in the agreement which was then made that ought to be disturbed. I quite admit that it is a very dangerous thing to disturb particular portions of a large composition. If you disturb it on one side you ought, in strict justice, to disturb it on the other. If the Church is to be deprived of a portion of her right where the value of the land has fallen, she ought to be compensated in other cases where the value has risen. But there is one class of cases in particular in this country where the hardship is very much felt, and that is the case of land the value of which depends specially upon the price of wheat. There is some land in England which is properly burdened with a very high tithe because it produced a large amount of wheat, as is the case in the East of England; but it so happens that the greatest fall which there has been in agricultural produce has been in wheat, and land which formerly produced a very high rent for the production of wheat has fallen in value to such an extent that, as in Essex for instance, it has not been cultivated at all. There is no doubt that in the case of those particular lands the heavy tithe imposed, because they were thought to be specially valuable, does fall with crushing weight. That I think is the defence, and a very sound defence, for the clause in the Bill by which the Government intend to introduce, at all events, a certain amount of remedy for those hard cases. The right Rev. Prelate who has just sat down referred to some of the details of the Bill, and thought that in one or two of the points he mentioned they were well worthy of consideration, and there are other points of detail which, of course, at another stage will require to be looked into carefully; but as they do not involve any question of principle, I need not trouble the House on those points of detail. Sending the Bill to Standing Committee may be found to be very salutary, because the Bill contains some pitfalls—not, I think, intentionally left, but arising from there not having been sufficient consideration of the various cases which may arise, and they will require to be dealt with. There was one point specially mentioned by the noble and learned Lord Selborne as to cases in which very little would be left for the clergyman, and I quite conceive that there might be some cases in which there would be nothing left for the clergyman at all. Those are all points of detail which will require very careful consideration. Upon the whole I think the Bill will be an improvement in the law. I do not think it will be a hardship upon landlords to pay directly what they have always had to pay indirectly. They must always have paid it in the long run. Also in England I think it may remove any ill feeling on the part of occupiers that they are specially burdened. It is a singular thing that some people have conceived the notion that the burden falls upon them, whereas it is quite obvious that the burden ultimately falls upon the owner. It is a distinct advantage that the law should really and in fact correspond with the fact. That in itself would be, I submit, a useful change; but, as I said before, I am greatly afraid that the Bill may not be found to have the effect which we desire in Wales, and I hope that those parts of it which seem to press on the occupier as apparently making him pay rent in the form of tithe or anything that might tend to excite his jealousy will be carefully considered with the object of removing the difficulties which now exist, in order to render the relations between tithe-payers and tithe owners less strained and to restore good feeling between them. We are all interested in seeing that order is preserved and that no more unseemly riots and disturbances shall take place, such as those which have occurred in Wales of late in these matters.

٭ EARL FORTESCUE

I will not detain your Lordships for many moments, but I wish to express my entire concurrence with the noble Earl who has just sat down, in considering that this Bill, if passed, as I trust it will be, is a decided improvement; upon the law as it stands. I desire to say particularly that I speak with absolute disinterestedness on this subject; its passing into law will not affect either my payments or my receipts in any respect. I thought it as well that one who is absolutely disinterested in the matter should bear his testimony in favour of this Bill. The wisdom of my predecessors ever since the passing of the Act of 1836 led them, and I have merely followed their example, to undertake the payment of the tithes on their estates and thus to let their farms tithe free. The result is that there is no ear-marking of tithes in the rent and I have no intention of introducing that alteration in my dealings with my tenants. I am bound to say that though this Bill will leave me absolutely unaffected in pocket and in every respect I prefer it, speaking as I have explained quite disinterestedly to the Bill which would have given landowners the benefit of a certain per centage; because the object of my predecessors in establishing, and mine in continuing, this practice was to remove, as it happily has now for over half a century, occasions of difference and complain I between a number of tithepayers and tithe owners in the different parishes by the landlord taking upon himself the burden of paying the tithes, thus facilitating good relations, which I am happy to say I have the testimony of several clergymen showing that it has and does between them and those members of their congregations.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, the Bill has been received so favourably that I am not tempted to take great advantage of my right of reply. As to giving time for the consideration of Amendments I shall be very lad to postpone the Bill to Thursday, if that will suit the noble and learned Lord in order to give sufficient time for consideration before Committee. I do not think it is necessary that I should refer to many of the observations which have seen made. There is no doubt there are pitfalls in the Bill, as the noble Lord opposite (Earl of Kimberley) has just said, or the avoidance of which we must examine the clauses very carefully. No doubt they might raise serious difficulties, and none more serious than that pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, which, I think, it will tax all our ingenuity to provide a remedy for. But I hope the Bill will be rendered more workable in that respect. The Right Rev. Prelate who presides over this diocese has raised some important points, and I do not in the least dispute that in those directions we may find some Amendment necessary. I thought there was a good deal of force in his request that the clergyman should not be exposed to the demands of the rate collector until he has received the tithe for which the rate is levied. There might be some inconvenience and injustice in that respect. I should like to have considered carefully also the power of re-introduction and taking over the land. At present a receiver has the power of taking the land, and if necessity arose would probably, therefore, take it. So that practically the remedy provided by the Act of 1836 is given in this Act. Whether it should absolutely be introduced into this Act is a question which I should desire to reserve for Committee. With regard to the assessment, I hope the Right Rev. Prelate will not interfere too much with Clause 3. I regard that as a very precious clause. It provides that any rate to which the tithe rent-charge is subject shall be assessed in like manner and by the like process as in the case of any occupying ratepayer. It is within the knowledge of your Lordships that that is not the way in which tithe is assessed now, that it is assessed upon very different principles, and that the tithe owner is the one owner in the country who pays on his gross receipts. I hope that grievance will be remedied in Committee, but I hope nothing will be done which will affect the principle of the Bill.

٭ THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

Does the noble Marquess mean a deduction for the cost of curates. I should object to that.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

What about the cost of collection? However, I do not think there is any other matter which it is necessary now to refer to. When we are in Committee of the whole House we shall be able to deal best with any considerable Amendments, while matters of mere detail and drafting had better be reserved for the Standing Committee.

On Question, that ("now") stand part of the Motion, resolved in the affirmative: Bill read 2^a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.