Lords Sitting of 26 February 1891

COPYRIGHT BILL [H.L.]
Petition that the Bill may be referred to a Select Committee, and to be heard by counsel against; of the Stationers' Company; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
TITHE RENT-CHARGE RECOVERY BILL (No. 38).

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for going into Committee, read.
  LORD BRABOURNE: My Lords, before the House resolves itself into Committee, I should like to ask a question of the Government, if they are able to answer it in the absence of the Prime Minister. There was a little conversation which went on across the Table between the Prime Minister and the Front Opposition Bench, during the discussion of this Bill on the last occasion, one of those conversations which are inaudible to many of the Members of the House, but which are not without importance. I understood the noble Marquess at the head of the Government to say that he intended that important Amendments should be discussed in your Lordships' Committee in full House, and that all other Amendments should be left to the Grand Committee to which this Bill is to be sent. I want to know what position we are in with regard to this Bill. Is there any definite line by which we may know whether an Amendment is important enough to be discussed in Committee of the whole House, or whether it is to be referred to the Grand Committee? I want to know whether the labours of the Grand Committee are to be restricted in any way. I do not think we ought to go on in a slipshod manner, not knowing whether we are to be debarred from discussing here anything that may be important, or whether the discussions are to take place upstairs. A great deal of valuable time will be wasted if we have to go into the matter again when the Bill comes back.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK): As I understood the noble Marquess, what the noble Marquess meant—and I speak from recollection of what I heard, because I was no party to the conversation—was this: that the House itself would decide whether it would or would not take certain Amendments, and whether it would be advisable to go on discussing them here, but that certain Amendments which are more matters of draft and detail than of principle might very well be left for more careful consideration in the Grand Committee. As I understood, the point will be determined by the House itself, as it arises upon the various Amendments by the selection of the House.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I also quite understood it as the noble Lord has said. There was no limit intended or laid down as to what may be done in Committee of the whole House. Of course, when the Committee of the whole House has dealt with the clauses of the Bill the idea is that they may receive in greater detail more careful supervision subsequently. Of course, the Committee would not be limited in any way, as I understand, in going into the matter. It must be dealt with in Committee of the whole House, because, if not, the only result would be that the Bill would come back on Report from the Grand Committee, and the whole of its work might have to be done again.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  LORD BRAMWELL: My Lords, I do not know what description of Amendments your Lordships will deal with in this Committee, but certainly I should at some time or other like to have an opportunity of striking out what appears to me to be an erroneous and mischievous part of Clause 1 in the 1st section. I mean that which says that, notwithstanding any contract, the tithe rent-charge, as defined by this Act, issuing out of any lands, shall be payable by the owners of the lands, notwithstanding any contract to the contrary between the owner and the occupier. The words which I object to are, "Notwithstanding any contract to the contrary between him and the occupier of such lands." No contract to the contrary between the

  1619
  owner and the occupier of such lands could in the least degree affect the rights of the tithe owner, and I think the suggestion that this clause makes that it could is a mischievous one, and that those words should therefore be omitted. Whether the House would think this is a case for having attention called to the matter here, or whether it should be done in the Grand Committee, I do not know.
  LORD BRABOURNE: While the noble Marquess is thinking how he will answer that question I should like to point out to your Lordships that this is the beginning of the difficulty to which I referred just now. You have got here a charge which is now payable by the owner of the land, but which may be payable at present under a contract through his tenant or otherwise. The noble and learned Lord opposite has said this appears to throw doubt upon the validity of the contract between the landlord and tenant. I, not being a lawyer, am anxious to know the legal bearing of those words. The Bill provides that the tithe rent-charge shall be payable by the owner, and what I want to know is whether it is not payable by the owner now. I should desire to be informed whether I am within my legal right when I make a covenant with my tenant, as I have done with several tenants before now, that he shall take his farm at a smaller rent upon his paying the tithe rent-charge for me. Am I in my right in making this proviso: that the tenant shall at the end of the year pay to the landlord a sum equivalent to the tithe rent-charge which the landlord has paid? I want to know whether this section affects that proviso. It has been said that this measure is necessary in order to avoid friction, but how do you get rid of the friction in that way? The tenant will have to pay, and whether it is paid through his hands or mine does not much signify. If there is any friction, that friction remains. I should like the legal luminaries of your Lordships' House to give us an explanation of this part of the section: whether, in the first place, the tithe rent-charge is not really payable by the owner; and, secondly, whether this section will have the effect of making the owner pay it directly with his own hand? Will it not
  1620
  be perfectly competent for me to make an arrangement with my tenant of this kind: "You shall send me a cheque for the rent, and I will send on a cheque to the clergyman?" It does not signify in the least whose cheque is sent. This, my Lords, is only a sample of the enormous difficulty you will have to surmount in dealing with this question and in attempting by legislation to correct a system which has grown up naturally.
  LORD BASING: There is a question arising anterior to this, which seems to me to require explanation, and that is who is the owner of the lands when they have been let for building purposes; whether, after land is built upon, it can be covered by one and the same definition? How would it operate in the event of the land being sub-divided for building purposes, as it is in many cases in regard to lands throughout the Kingdom, and especially round London? Most of this building has taken place since the passing of the Tithe Commutation Act, and I therefore apprehend it is hardly the intention that "owner" shall be taken in reference to the Tithe Act of 1836.
  LORD HERSCHELL: With reference to the point which has been made by my noble and learned Friend, there is no doubt an inaccuracy of language used in regard to this question of the payment of the tithes, but it is absolutely sanctioned by the expressions used in the Act of 1836. It speaks of the tenant being bound to pay the tithe. Now, strictly speaking, the tenant is not bound to pay the tithe except in the sense that the land may be distrained upon. But I would suggest this, whether it might not be better to alter the 1st sub-section in this way: that the
  "Tithe rent-charge as defined by this Act issuing out of any lands shall be recoverable only in manner provided by this Act."
  The 2nd section deals, to a certain extent, with the words "Notwithstanding any contract to the contrary," because it provides what is to be done in that case, and we might avoid all ambiguity by using a general expression of that sort, which I apprehend is what is intended. I would suggest that it might be better to alter the 1st sub-section by making it declare that the tithe should be recover-

  1621
  able only "in the manner provided by this Act."
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETART OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I do not know whether, as this is rather a drafting Amendment, it would not be better to reserve it for the consideration of the Standing Committee.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I think so.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I quite concur in the view that the noble and learned Lord takes, that that will be the most satisfactory way of dealing with the sub-section, which, as it stands, is scarcely sense. The words, "to the contrary," ought certainly to come out. Then, with regard to the definition of "owner," we took that given in the Act of 1836. That is a very wide and extensive definition. I shall be very glad to consider any alteration of it, but I do not think we shall be able to improve upon it.
  LORD BASING: The Act of 1836 certainly gives a very wide definition fo the word "owner."
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: With regard to the definition of "owner," I think that will require to be most carefully considered. The definition of the word "owner" given in the Act of 1836 was for quite a different purpose. I apprehend that the Act of 1836, being an Act for dealing with the tithes, required that every person who, as owner, had any interest, large or small, in the land that was titheable, should have full opportunity of being heard before the authority dealing with the matter. Not being myself a lawyer, I must confess that I find myself totally unable to construe the half page of definition in the Act of 1836, and without in the least intending to say that that definition is not applicable to the present Bill, I think the noble Marquess will agree with me that as this measure is different, inasmuch as it places the direct burden upon the owner, it will require very careful consideration in Standing Committee to see that the definition does that which the Bill intends. I do not think it is possible to do that without further minute discussion of the clause.
  LORD GRIMTHORPE: Under the Act of 1836 it did not signify to the tithe owner who the landowner was,
  1622
  because he could go on the land, and it remained with the tenant to find out who was owner, which, of course, he knew. But when there are two parties both interested in baffling the tithe owner, the question becomes entirely different. It is clearly something more than definition that requires attending to now.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I quite agree as to the necessity for being very careful in this matter, and I also agree that there is one purpose in view now, whereas there was another when the Act of 1836 was passed. The result of a careful study to my mind is, that the definition will not require substantial alteration, but that it will require some words of qualification to this effect: that as between landlord and tenant the landlord shall in all cases be treated as owner and not the tenant. The necessity for that, to my mind, arises chiefly out of the provisions of the Act of 1836 in reference to joint owners. Under the Act of 1836, if a lease is for more than 14 years, and the rent is not two-thirds of a rack-rent, he is made a joint owner; but it is clear, I think, that for the purpose of this Act, that ought not always to be the case.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think it is inconvenient to discuss the sufficiency of a definition without some Amendment being moved upon it. You do not say that the definition is bad, and I do not know how we can discuss it unless somebody will point out the faults to be corrected.
  LORD BRABOURNE: I should be glad to have an answer to my question, which is, I think, rather an important one; that is, that if the tithe is payable by the owner already, how can you enact in this section that it shall be paid by him? If it is so now, what is the use of saying it shall be so hereafter? What I understand the noble Marquess wishes to do is to make the owners pay it direct, and I think if you are going to do that you had better do it in plain language.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not defend the language of this clause. I think it should be considerably modified not as a question of substance, but of drafting. Certainly I think, as the noble Lord points out, we should be re-enacting here what already exists. That is a very harmless practice, though I do

  1623
  not know that it can be said to be a useful one. At all events, I do not understand the noble Lord who raised this discussion to move any alteration in the 1st sub-section?
  LORD BRABOURNE: Not now.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then in line 11, page 1, I move to leave out the words after "but" down to "he" in line 12. That is in connection with another Amendment to leave out the word "that" in line 14, and, after "tithe rent-charge," to insert the words "which such occupier has contracted to pay," so that the clause will read—
  "Such sum as the owner has properly paid on account of tithe rent-charge that the occupier has contracted to pay."
  It is practically merely a drafting Amendment expressing the same thing as has been previously provided for.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HARSCHELL: At this point I wish to call attention to the words immediately following the part of the clause which has just been dealt with in regard to cases where the occupier is liable under any contract, that
  "Every receipt given for such sum shall state expressly that the sum is paid in respect of that tithe rent-charge."
  I gather that the object of those words is to earmark the payment as one which has been made on account of the tithe rent-charge, but there are two objections to those words which occur to me, assuming that intention. One is that the words are not clear, because the payment may have been undertaken by different persons in different ways. Some have thought that the receipt referred to is the receipt given by the tithe owner to the landlord, and some have supposed it is the receipt given by the landlord to the tenant. I think it will be seen on reading the words that it is by no means clear to which of those receipts this proviso applies. That is one objection to the words I have read. The other is this: that they do not provide any means for enforcing it. The clause says that every receipt shall expressly state that fact, but it does not say what is to follow if that is not done. Are we to suppose that the person who does not do it would be indictable for a misdemeanour? But there is nothing said as to what is to follow. I think it
  1624
  is a thing that is either meant to be enforced or not, and some provision ought to be made for that purpose, as, for instance, that "such receipt shall not be adducible in evidence" unless that is done. It is a question which I think is worth consideration, whether having regard to those two objections it is worth while keeping the provision. Some people object to its being retained, inasmuch as ear-marking the tithe rent-charge might have its disadvantages as well as its advantages.
  LORD BRAMWELL: It seemed to me to be open to the same objection, but I understood the noble Marquess that there was an objection to taking it here instead of in Grand Committee. I thought it was not to be considered there.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Not the slightest objection.
  LORD BRABOURNE: It would be absurd to indict a man for the wording of a receipt; and if you are not going to impose a penalty of some kind, and if it is left in that way it will not be done, and the thing is not worth retaining.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It seems that the words "tithe rent-charge" there might point to some particular land. I understand the charge is payable in respect of particular pieces of ground, and not of the whole letting; and therefore the receipt would have to show, if necessary, that the money was paid for some particular piece of ground, and not for the whole of it. That would lead to considerable confusion, and I think we had better drop the words out of the clause that
  "Every receipt given for such sum shall expressly state that the sum is paid in respect of that tithe rent-charge."
  I have moved to omit those words subject to any resolution we may come to afterwards in respect of replacing them by others.
  Moved, to omit after "rent-charge," in line 16, the words
  "And every receipt given for such sum shall state expressly that the sum is paid in respect of that tithe rent-charge."—(The Marquess of Salisbury)
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: On Thursday last the noble Marquess mentioned a good many differences between

  1625
  the Bill which is now before the House and the Bill of last year; but I think he omitted to mention, one portion which is of considerable importance, which makes the landowner liable and leaves him to recover the amount of tithe which the tenant has not paid, as tithe instead of as provided in the Bill of last year making it payable as rent. If this is retained in the Bill it will entirely neutralise the effect of the measure. It will keep alive the ill-feeling existing with regard to tithes, and will make necessary distraint for tithes. There is no explanation given why the Government should have departed from the course they took last year. I was informed by one of the noble Marquess's supporters that the reason was for the sake of novelty; but I have also been informed by one who is not a supporter of the noble Marquess that it was in consequence of a compact made in another place to remove obstruction. But, my Lords, you have nothing to do with obstruction. All you have to do with is to see that the Bill is a measure which is workable, fair, and just. As I have said, this will keep alive all the troubles with regard to tithe rent such as we have seen of late in Wales. Not only will it be an injustice to the landowners, but they will be unable in many cases to make agreements in time with their tenants. They will have paid possibly as much as four half-year's tithe, and it will be putting them to trouble and causing ill-will and making them quarrel with their tenants in order to distrain for tithes if their tenants refuse to pay. We have had an intimation in what has taken place elsewhere that this agitation is not to cease. It is also enacted that the landowners shall be subject to County Court procedure, and they will not be able to avail themselves of the County Courts for that which is a respectable debt, since the tenant has contracted to pay it. I think the noble Marquess must have been put in possession of the detailed objections from North Wales to this measure. It is possible that I see this matter from a different point of view, and that the noble Marquess is only thinking of those persons in the eastern part of the country who would, but cannot, pay their tithes; whilst many of these tithepayers who live in Wales could pay their tithes, but
  1626
  will not. The noble Marquess spoke the other night of the fluctuations of the tithe as being injurious to the tenants. Since 1874, or thereabouts, the fluctuation of the tithe has gone in favour of the tenant, and has been reduced from time to time until now it has come to nearly the lowest point. Though the lowering of the tithe did not, perhaps, keep pace with the lowering in the value of the produce, the tenant has now got the benefit of it. If the noble Marquess has so much sympathy with tenants why did he not abolish Schedule B at the time agriculture ceased to be so profitable. I think the Government ought to have done something when there were no longer any profits to be paid under Schedule B, by which relief should have been given to the tenants. I am afraid I must take the sense of the House on this Amendment.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 1, line 25, Sub-section 3, leave out all the words from the beginning of the sub-section down to ("provided") in line 27, and insert the following words (" (3.) Such sum shall be recoverable from the occupier in like manner as if it were rent in arrear."—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  LORD HARLECH: My Lords, I quite agree with the object which the noble Lord who has just spoken has in view, but I confess I did not catch all his remarks. The object of this Bill was understood to be to put an end to the discreditable scenes which have been going on, and are going on, in Wales. But if this clause is to stand as it is it will settle nothing. The only effect will be to transfer the odium which now rests on the tithe owner to the landowner. I must say that the Government has shown considerable weakness in giving way upon this point to persons who are known to have ulterior objects in view, or they have failed to perceive what those ulterior objects were. The Amendment of the noble Lord will, I think, meet every legitimate object; but if it is too much to expect that his Amendment should be adopted, I would suggest that a provision should be inserted for dispensing with the necessity of notice of distraint being given. It appears that notice in case of distraint for tithes is necessary, where no notice is necessary

  1627
  in cases of distraint for rent. The only effect of notice being given in cases of unpaid tithe would be to give an opportunity for the removal of all goods and articles from the farm which might be subject to the distraint for tithe. It has been argued that it is unfair to put the tenant in a worse position than he was before; but I maintain that he would not be in a worse position than he was before, because, as this clause stands, it would be necessary for the tenant to undergo two processes of law, instead of one, if the tithe is not made recoverable with the rent. Besides that, it would prevent the landowner also from being subject to two processes when one would be sufficient. I beg to support the Amendment moved by my noble Friend.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I cannot myself quite follow the object of enforcing upon the landlord that he must proceed by way of distress. If the noble Lord had contined his Amendment to dropping out the words, "and not otherwise," I would certainly have recommended that that Amendment should be adopted. But even if you drop out the words "and not otherwise," I am disposed to think that that should be made the only mode in which it would be recovered. If the words were added, "as well as by the process provided under this Act," that would perhaps satisfy the noble Lord. I rather concur with my noble Friend that there is no reason why an actual distress should be enforced against the landlord; but if more modes of enforcing payment are open to him, I do not see any objection to the Amendment. I think, however, that the mode in which that should be done had better be left for consideration in the Standing Committee.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I do not quite understand what the mode is to which the noble and learned Lord refers.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That he should be sued under this Act. Upon the hypothesis the tenant would owe a debt to the landlord, and why should not the landlord be at liberty to sue for it?
  LORD HERSCHELL: I think that would be expressly provided for.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then I quite agree.
  LORD BRAMWELL: If the landlord has agreed with the tenant to pay the
  1628
  tithe, he is subject to an action if he does not pay it. I think if the tenants knew that, there would not be much difficulty, and I submit that it is very desirable to make an alteration in this clause. I do not know that I pity very much the man who will not pay and who will have to be distrained upon; but he will be subject to two different distresses; that is to say, to the ordinary distress for rent, and then in respect of the tithe which he has not paid. He will be subject under the Tithes Commutation Act also. That is as I read it. So that this ridiculous consequence would result: That if he owes £50 for rent, and should have paid £10 for tithe, and he has paid £20 on account to his landlord, if the landlord can attribute that to the tithe, one distress would be enough; but if he must attribute it for the rent, there would he a distress for £30 for rent and another distress for tithe. It seems to me a most unreasonable thing to allow this clause to remain as it is when once it is understood what it really means.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I should like, in answer to what has been said by the Lord Chancellor, to observe, that I think my noble and learned Friend over-looked the words at the beginning of the sub-section, which provides that he shall cease to be liable upon that part of his contract. If he ceases to be liable upon that part of his contract an action cannot be brought upon that part of his contract, but the remedy must be only what you expressly give him by this clause, so that, if no further attention is made, the omission of the words "and not otherwise" would make no difference.
  LORD MONK BRETTON: I should like to point out another absurdity, in having different processes. In regard to distraining for rent, you can distrain for one year only, but for tithe, you can distrain for two years' arrears.
  LORD BRABOURNE: One finds that it is never wise to be too simple and confiding. The noble Lord yesterday told me that he was going to move an Amendment which was equivalent to mine; but his Amendment is exactly the reverse of mine. My idea is that to permit two distresses would be very wrong, as well as inconvenient, and that you should give to the landlord the same remedy as you give to a parson. He

  1629
  would have a remedy which the parson has not unless the whole procedure has to be in the County Court, as far as the rent-charge is concerned.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: If I understand the clause as it stands the words have been introduced for this reason: that it was contended that, you ought not to place upon the tenant any burden greater than he now bears. That was the idea. What I mean is that the tenant, in respect of the amount he at present pays for tithe, is liable only under the Tithe Acts, but now he is to be made liable in a different way; and all his property, including the goods and furniture in the farmhouse, would be liable. It is pointed out that under this Bill you should not put an additional burden upon the tenant; and that words should be introduced so that the tenant, in respect of that part of the rent which he formerly paid to the owner, should be put in the same position. But there are great difficulties in the way. I confess that I see now what I did not see before, what was the meaning of the ear-marking paragraph which has been struck out. It is quite obvious that whoever introduced that paragraph saw the difficulty which would arise if you treated the money which the tenant might pay on account of tithe as rent, because there are two different remedies; and unless you know for what the money is paid you do not know to what remedy there should be recourse. That is one difficulty, but there are a great many others, as I maintain, in it. I may say that I am not prepared myself with an Amendment now, but I think the matter is worthy a very careful consideration.
  LORD BRAMWELL: I think the noble and learned Lord (Earl Selborne) has not quits appreciated the words. It provides that the occupier shall cease to be liable under that part of his contract by which he is to pay the tithe rent-charge. He is not to be bound by that, but he is to be liable to pay to the owner such sum as the owner shall properly pay. Now, I venture to say that it is a well-known proposition of law that whenever a Statute gives a man a right, by implication he has an appropriate remedy; and if his right is to a sum of money, he can maintain an action to recover it. Therefore, I think
  1630
  the objection to the 3rd sub-section remains in full force.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think it is evident, after the discussion, we have heard, that these words are subject to the pitfalls of which my noble Friend spoke on the last occasion. At a later period it will be my duty to move that the clause immediately following be struck out; and I think, on the whole, it would be the most convenient plan to strike out Sub-section 3 of this clause altogether, though probably it would be necessary to put in some other words at a later stage. I do not see my way to framing a satisfactory formula across the Table, and, therefore, I think we had better do it in that way. I move that Sub-section. 3 be omitted.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: As I understand the noble Marquess, he has moved two things at once; that is to say, to omit Sub-section 3, the first part of which we object to, and also the concluding lines of the same clause, of which he has given notice.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, I have moved to omit the whole of Sub-section 3.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: That refers to the Amendment of Mr. Taylor, which the Government in another place thought would be reasonable. It seems to me that it would be offering a premium to tenants for dishonesty. For instance, a tenant could go out in September and take away with him all his goods, and when he was called upon to pay in January he might decline to pay, and say he was not liable; but the theory of the matter is that he is responsible for that half year's tithe. Taking the Act of 1836 that it is no longer an annual charge on produce, but on the land, still he has contracted with his landowner to pay for the three months, and yet he would escape. I object to the last part of the sub-section being struck out.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have only to say that I do not imagine anybody could defend the justice of the proviso as it stands. It provides that—
  "The owner of the land may at any time during the last three months of the tenancy pay any instalment of the tithe rent-charge, that such occupier would but for this Act have been liable under his contract to pay, and may,

  1631
  notwithstanding such instalment not being yet due, recover the same from the occupier in manner as in this Act provided."
  It seems to me a proposition which cannot be defended.
  Amendment moved, to omit Subsection 3 of Clause 1,—(The Marquess of Salisbury,)—agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  LORD BRABOURNE: Now, my Lords, I have a very important Amendment to this clause, which I shall endeavour to explain in a few words to your Lordships. I wish, however, to amend the notice which I have given. It is to omit the words "whatever is the amount" in this proviso that the person entitled to the tithe rent-charge in arrear may apply to the County Court, and in their place to insert the words "Provided the sum exceeds £1 in amount." These are the words I propose to insert, "If the total amount due from the tithepayer in arrear exceed the amount of £1." That is to say, in broad language, I propose to exempt the small freeholders throughout the country from this burden of tithes. Of course, I know very well that the agriculturist is in a very unfortunate position just now. He has got on one side the friends of the Church, who exclaim against robbing the Church, and on the other side he has got the gentlemen who believe that tithes are national property, and who are determined that they shall not be depleted.; so that, like the ancient Britons of old, the agriculturists are between the deep sea and the barbarians—I will not say which is which in this case. The effect of the Amendment I move is this: that the small freeholders throughout the country possessed of five, six, or seven acres would be exempted from the very grinding burden which at present falls upon them. Already it is very difficult for them to keep going. They are a class which has been dying out for a considerable period on account of the legislation of Parliament. They are still, however, an important class, and the strange thing is, that while their complaints are not attended to, noble Lords and noble Gentlemen go all over the country declaring that their wish is to see them prosper, and that there shall be a great multiplica-
  1632
  tion of the small owners. Well, here is an opportunity of testing the sincerity of that wish in your Lordships' House. You cannot do a better thing than exempt from this payment this small struggling class. No large landowner will benefit by this legislation. It is only these small people who have got little pieces of land, with a tithe upon it of 4s. or 5s. an acre, who will benefit by it. I ask, where would the robbery be? There will be no robbery. I believe the Church will gain considerably, and when there comes the final battle, as sooner or later it will come, the Anglican Church will be all the stronger if she has got these people on her side instead of against her. I cannot help thinking that this great Church, one of the richest Churches in the world, and claiming to be the national Church of the richest nation in the world, having so much wealth belonging to her, and, with the exception of a few Catholics, counting the whole of the aristocracy and the greater part of the wealthy classes among her members, ought not to put her hand on these small people, but ought to be able to maintain her ministers without coming upon them in the way that is now done. I speak these words in the firm conviction that they are wise words. Do not let us make a mistake. There are great issues coming before the country before many years are passed; Establishments will be upon their trial; and if you wish to maintain the Established Church, you had better sweep away everything that can attach to her as a stigma. Do not let her be weighted by the stigma of putting her hand upon this, small and struggling class. What would be the loss? It would only be a few shillings or pounds here and there—a very little matter indeed to the Church, but of enormous importance to these poor people. It is entirely in their interest that I make this proposal. My belief is that it will be a wise thing to do. All through this Bill there is an attempt to set the interests of the Church against the interests of the people. I am not sure at all that it is a wise thing, this putting an end to the payment by the occupier. My noble Friend smiles at that, but a little straw sometime shows the way the wind plays, and I

  1633
  may mention that a farmer said to me the other day, "If this Bill passes and the occupier ceases to pay tithes we shall not have any tithe dinners, and there will no longer be any occasion on which the clergy and the people will be brought together. The only class that are affected by this provision, in my opinion, are the small people. They may not be so important a class in your Lordships' view as they are to the Members of the other House; but I may tell your Lordships that they are watching these Debates with keen anxiety, and if your Lordships will do them the kindness of exempting them from this burden they will be everlastingly grateful. I hope that the special representatives of the Church will be amongst the foremost to support this Amendment. They will, I am sure, see how advantageous to the small people this Amendment is, and I resume my seat thinking that, whatever support I may get or fail in getting, I shall at least have the enthusiastic support of the guardians of the Church.
  Amendment moved, in page 2, line 9, to omit the words "whatever is the amount," and to insert the words" if the total amount due from the tithepayer in arrear exceed the amount of £1," instead thereof.—(The Lord Brabourne.)
  LORD NORTHBOURNE: This Amendment appears to me to be contrary to all principles of taxation whatever. No doubt, for instance, the payers of the Income Tax who pay upon very small sums feel the burden very severely, but I ask your Lordships whether it would be possible upon that account to do away with all small Income Tax whatever. Is it to be supposed for a moment that because a person is a poor man he is not to pay according to his means towards the taxation of the country? I think if we were to go on the principle of the noble Lord we should be committed to a course of legislation which would be altogether absurd. With regard to this Bill, I have given my candid support to the noble Marquess upon it; because I think that the proceedings in Wales have been, as they have been very properly designated by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell), rather a disgrace to the
  1634
  country, and although I do believe that the tithe comes upon agriculturists in a manner and to an extent at the present moment which is very hard upon them, I think it is much better to submit to those two hardships in the matter of tithe than to do anything which would in the slightest degree risk the safety of property or lead to an inclination to tamper with the law. I do not know that I have much more to say upon this point, but I think also that some of the noble Lords who are warm supporters of this Bill, have not tried perhaps quite so much as they ought to have tried to alleviate the pressure of small burdens upon the farmers. I should like to ask the noble Marquess, for instance, whether any attempt has been made to provide for an investigation into the system of averages. There is a strong feeling among the tenant farmers of this country that they are paying their tithe upon an average which is far above what they realise for their corn. It must be well-known to your Lordships, who are most of you land-owners and many of you farmers too, that the farmer very frequently uses a great quantity of low-priced corn in his own farmyard. That corn not being fit to come into the market cannot be sold at all, and its value is very small. I contend that, according to any principle of ordinary justice, this corn ought to come into the average. It does not, and the farmer is obliged to pay the tithe upon an average which is very much larger than what he actually receives. I do not know whether Her Majesty's Government can do anything in that matter. There are other matters with regard to this question of tithe average which I think your Lordships would do well to consider. I would suggest, also, that you should not consider merely the tithe owner, but the tithepayer. I know that in my own immediate neighbourhood there is a clergyman who hardly gets any tithe at all. I think the living is £300 a year, but I believe that gentleman has only realised for his total income between £30 and £40. Unquestionably that is a sad case for the clergyman. But, my Lords, it is highly desirable that in these matters we should hold a just balance between the two interests, and that we should, as far as we can, do what is just not only to the tithe owner, but also to the tithepayer.
  LORD BASING: My Lords, I think my noble and learned Friend's Amendment will require a little further amendment before it can be put to the House in order to secure the beneficent object which he has in view. Although it might be very well to excuse small holders on the ground that their payments would form but a small portion of the tithe, those insignificant portions may be very important to the owners of the rent-charge. I have received a letter from Lancashire in which a tithe owner tells me he has to collect about 190 tithe rent-charges, every one of them below 20s., and it is in reference to those cases of which I believe there are a great many that I would suggest that the word "owner" might be defined in the interest of such persons, seeing that under the operation of this Bill they might be placed in a very difficult position if they have to serve notice in every one of 190 cases in which tithe is due. The taking away from the owners these small tithe rent-charges would, in a vast number of cases, be of very great importance to them indeed.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY: My Lords, I think we ought to remember that the small owner in many cases in all probability bought his plot of land for less in the market because it was subject to the charge, it might be, of £1 per acre; and I do not see what right he has to take that £1 more than his neighbours. If you once adopt this principle that because a debt is small it ought to be remitted, I do not see where you are to stop; therefore, I do not think we should adopt the proposition of the noble Lord, though, of course, we should all be desirous to benefit small holders as far as possible.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: This is really a proposal to take away the property of the tithe owner when it happens to be very small in amount, and to give it to the landowner. I should have thought if the County Court was good for anything at all it would be good for the recovery of small debts. It seems to me these are cases in which the County Courts could most easily act. I am not sorry the noble Lord has raised a discussion upon the point, for this reason: that it gives me the opportunity of expressing my earnest hope that the question of the redemption, and it may be
  1636
  the compulsory redemption, of these small sums may be considered at an early period. The Commission over which my noble Friend Lord Basing presides will have a much larger subject to consider than this matter itself involves. I would venture to submit that if it were possible for the question of the redemption of these very small rent-charges to be taken in hand first, and made the subject of a special Report, we might hope to have early legislation upon that part (which is really a very important one) of the general question. I should not like to sit down without saying a word upon what my noble Friend (Lord Northbourne) said with regard to averages. I do not see how it is possible to go into that question now; or, if you did, that it would ever be possible to construct any system of averages which must not proceed upon the selling value of what is brought into the market, and is the subject of actual Statistical Returns. My noble Friend said that certain things were not brought into account; but a great many other things were not brought into account under the Commutation Act, particularly those things which have latterly been most profitable, the increase of cattle and live stock. I do not think it would be possible to go into that without disurbing the whole settlement.
  LORD BRABOURNE: Of course, the few words spoken by my noble Friend Lord Basing will have shown that this Amendment would have a much wider effect than I thought, and it will certainly want re-casting. I should not think, therefore, of asking the House to divide upon it as it stands; but I would make a few remarks, in reply to the noble Lord opposite (Lord Northbourne), before parting with it now. One is with regard to the small tithepayers being exempted. The practice has already been put in force with regard to small payers of Income Tax, and, therefore, this would not be a novelty. In the next place, as to relieving the small tithepayer, I would point out that the tithe owners have very greatly benefited; and my contention is, that this tithe being national property the Representatives of the nation could not do better than say that it shall be partly applied in relieving

  1637
  the small tithepayers. Under the circumstances, I propose to withdraw the Amendment.
  LORD GRIMTHORPE: The noble Lord has mentioned the Income Tax as having a supposed analogy to tithes; but there is this difference: the Income Tax was a new imposition by the State for public necessities, whereas tithes are not a tax, but property almost as old as any in the Kingdom.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: There is also this point, that a certain amount of the tithe is in the hands of lay owners who have paid money for them.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think, my Lords, it would be slaying the slain to further discuss the noble Lord's Amendment. I only rise to answer the noble and learned Lord opposite who spoke with regard to the inclusion of redemption clauses in this Bill. The objection to these clauses which were originally in the Bill is purely Parliamentary. This dealing with the question of redemption, as the Government proposes to deal with it, is exposed to very considerable difficulties, more particularly in another Assembly, where the time at their disposal is not quite equal to the work to be done. If a measure does little or nothing, it has a good chance of passing, because it is only opposed by those who want it to do more. If it does much, it likewise has a chance of passing, because the only people who oppose it are those who want it to do less. But if a Bill is a moderate measure, it is opposed by those who want it to do more and by those who want it to do little, and, therefore, the chances of its passing are less. The noble Lord denounced the Bill generally, because he said that its tendency would be to drive the occupier from the Church. I may suppose, then, that my noble Friend's definition of marriage would be that it is a relation in which one of the parties has a right to levy something on the other. That is a new definition of marriage and divorce, but I can hardly think the occupier will love the Church less because he has less to pay her.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I have to make an observation upon Sub-section 2 of
  1638
  Clause 2. This sub-section gives to the officer the same powers of restraint under the County Court proceedings where the owner is in possession as were conferred before in respect of the tithe rent-charges. I will call the noble Marquess's attention to a matter to which my attention has been drawn. Section 84 of the Tithe Rent Act gives a greater power of distress in the case of Quakers than in the case of anybody else. As regards the rest of the world, you can only distrain on the land out of which the rent issues. In the case of Quakers, it is provided that you may distrain on the goods and chattels of such persons, whether on the premises or elsewhere, and consequently, as regards Quakers, you may distrain upon their goods anywhere in respect of tithes which are due anywhere. My attention has been called by some of the members of the body of Quakers to this fact, and I would suggest that when you are dealing with this remedy over again, you should not re-enact this provision relating to the Quakers, and which renders their position different from the rest of the world. They do not see why their goods should be liable to be distrained upon any more than the goods of the rest of the community. I only desire to call the noble Marquess's attention to the existence of that difference.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is very clear that a remedy ought to be applied for that, but I think we had better reserve it for the present.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I have four Amendments connected with Clause 2, and I believe that the first three will not be objected to on the part of the Government. I do not know how it may be with the last. With regard to the first, I will explain it in a few words. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, on the Second Reading, said he had received many representations to the effect that in cases where the lands were practically left waste, there might still be instances in which the remedy now provided by the Tithes Act of taking possession might be valuable as leading to the cultivation of the land in one way or another. I do not think myself, that, if we had to deal only with large cases, it would very often be for the benefit of the tithe owner to avail himself of that

  1639
  remedy; but I can conceive that in cases of small parcels of land, it might be a remedy which would operate as a considerable inducement to the person who ought to make the payment to do so: and even in other cases, it might operate to produce payment without being put into actual operation.
  Amendment moved, in page 2, line 23, insert at end of line, as a fresh sub-section—
  "Provided that if such officer satisfies the Court that there is no sufficient distress on the said lands, the Court may authorise the owner of the rent-charge to sue out a wait of habere facias possessionem in accordance with section eighty-two of the Tithe Act, 1836; and the owner of the rent-charge on obtaining possession shall, in accordance with the Tithe Acts, pay the surplus (if any) after payment of the tithe rent-charge and expenses, to the owner of the land, and shall, while in possession, be under the obligation not to permit or commit any waste."—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is no doubt as to the reality of the grievance pointed out by the noble and learned Lord. The precise remedy to be afforded has been a matter of considerable discussion. There are two ways more or less imperfect of getting at the owner under those circumstances; but I think, on the whole, the one proposed by the noble and learned Lord is the one that is exposed to the least objection. I may say, in assenting to it that I will leave the advocacy of it in his hands.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: With regard to the next Amendment, I think that needs no remark, as there will probably be no difference of opinion about it. It is to provide for the case where lands are held at one rent with other lands in a different parish; that in such cases the Court shall apportion the rent between those lands according to their rateable value. That is clearly necessary; and it is not at present provided for by the Bill.
  Amendment moved, in Sub-section 3, page 2, line 28, at end of line 28, insert—
  ("And where any of such lands are held at one rent together with other lands in another parish, the court shall apportion the rent between the said lands and the lands in the other parish in proportion to their rateable value.")—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I must say something on Sub-section 5, which I think needs consideration. It provides that, where the occupier of lands is liable under a contract to pay a tithe rent-charge, and is liable to pay the amount to the owner, steps are to be taken which will enable notice to be given to him. It is not any point of substance which I am desirous to raise any question about; it is only in order to carry that out—that before an order is made under this sub-section there shall be such service on the owner as may be prescribed. Now, supposing the landowner does not serve such notice on the tithe owner, there is no sanction to the contract; then the tithe rent-charge owner will, of course, have no evidence of the existence of any such contract on the part of the occupier, and that which has been done previously will have no effect; because the object here is that, where the occupier is the person liable under a contract, he shall have due notice of the proceedings, so that he may be able to raise any objection on the hearing. There is a provision that the landlord shall give that intimation to the tithe rent-charge owner, but you do not say what shall happen if he does not do it. The occupier, of course, will hear nothing about it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Does the noble and learned Lord propose any words to modify that?
  LORD HERSCHELL: No; I only wished to call attention to it. No doubt it will be considered by the Government draftsman. I thought it might be convenient to call attention to some of these points, because it gives an opportunity to those who draft the Bill of considering how they should be dealt with.
  LORD BRAMWELL: I was going to make an observation upon that clause. I suppose it was intended as a sort of third party clause under the Judicature Act; that is to say, where a man is interested in a litigation between two other persons, and is responsible for the ultimate decision, he shall have notice and be able to interfere. I suppose that is the object of the clause; and if that is so, there should be some specific provision made for binding the occupier.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN:I should like to point out to the noble Lord that his objection might be met in this way—if in Clause 1 Sub-section 2 where the occupier has been liable, and it is provided that he shall cease to be bound, and so on, words were inserted—
  "Provided that he should have received the notice he shall be liable to pay the amount to the owner;"
  that is to say, notice hereinafter referred to.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I have to propose another Amendment at the end of Sub-section 6. The Bill is framed in a peculiar manner in one respect. It does not fix a particular time for the Act coming into operation, otherwise than by saying in the 7th section that it shall extend to every sum on account of tithe rent-charge, which first becomes payable on or after the half-yearly day of payment of such tithe rent-charge which occurs next after the passing of the Act. Therefore the Act cannot operate upon any tithe rent-charge within a shorter period than three months, because the tithe rent-charge must be under the previous provision in arrear for three months; but, as far as appears, the Act may come into operation at or about the end of three months from the time of its passing. Now, the Act cannot possibly be brought into operation at any time until those matters are provided for which are attempted to be provided for by the Amendment which I now move. The 6th sub-section says that Rules of Court may be made on certain subjects, with the most pressing of which this Amendment deals. As the Bill stands, those rules will be made, like all other rules affecting County Courts, by a certain Committee of County Court Judges, who act for that purpose, subject to the approval of the Lord Chancellor. I have great doubt whether it may not be desirable, though I have not proposed it at present, on account of the peculiarity and importance of this subject, that the rules should be made by the Lord Chancellor himself in a different way, with whatever assistance may be necessary. But, however they may be made, there is nothing in the Bill to cause their being made at all before the time at which the Act may
  1642
  come into operation: and, until they are made, it is necessary to provide for those points which are mentioned in my Amendment. All that Amendment does is, to give power to the Court in the meantime to do what in that state of things would be absolutely indispensable for the working of the Act. I propose to add words, as stated in my notice, which will enable the Court in such cases to proceed upon an application against an owner not named, and in such cases, and also in the cases of owners who are abroad, or whose place of residence is unknown, or who for any reason cannot be served in the ordinary manner, to direct what service shall be considered good service for the purpose of the Act. It has been suggested that no doubt rules will be made within the three months after which the Act may come into operation. I hope they may. I presume that there would be a sincere desire to make and publish them as soon as possible. But the rules will not be confined to these particular indispensable matters, they will extend also to other matters which will require a good deal of consideration and a good deal of deliberation; and if they are to be made by the County Court Rule Committee the members of that Committee are gentlemen whose ordinary duties may make it sometimes difficult for them to assemble, and they must afterwards be carefully considered by the Lord Chancellor. I think, therefore, that looking at the consequence of bringing the Act into operation before such rules are made, some security ought to be taken against the contingency which may happen of the rules not being made within the necessary time. I cannot conceive any objection to my proposal beyond this: that if the rules are made it will not be necessary; if so no harm will be done; but if they are not made it is a point which really requires to be provided for.
  Amendment moved,
  In sub-section (6), page 3, line 11, add at the end of the sub section ("In the meantime, and subject to such rules when made, the court may, in any such case as aforesaid, receive and proceed upon an application against an owner not named, and may, in every such case, and also in the case of an owner who is abroad, or whose place of residence is unknown, or who for any other reason cannot be served in the

  1643
  ordinary manner, direct what service shall be good service for the purposes of this Act.")—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  EARL STANHOPE: I trust this Amendment will be accepted by Her Majesty's Government, because, by a subsequent clause every Rule of Court made for the purpose of this Act is to be laid before Parliament within 40 days next after it is made, and thus a great deal of time is wasted. I quite see that what with the Easter Recess and other causes (though I sincerely hope the Act will come into operation at an early date), such a proposition as the noble and learned Earl proposes is necessary. A great deal of consideration will be required, and I suppose the Lord Chancellor will probably frame such rules as are necessary. They will be considered by the County Court Judges throughout the Kingdom. Many matters will have to be considered, and, taking all these objections into consideration, I trust some sort of provisional arrangement may be accepted by your Lordships which may bring this Bill into earlier operation than would otherwise be the case.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think what the noble Earl says is perfectly true. I do not deny that some provision is desirable; at the same time, I would suggest to him that I think a wider provision than this might be made, and I should be willing to undertake, on the part of the Government, to bring forward in Grand Committee something in substitution for it. I doubt very much whether this rule-making power is completely workable. There must be some alteration in that rule-making power, but how that may best be done is a matter for consideration afterwards. My noble and learned Friend is in error in supposing that all the County Court Judges in the Kingdom have to concur, It is only a Committee of five who have to concur in the rule. But what struck me about it is, that the language of the noble Earl's Amendment says that the Court may in any of those cases proceed on the application, and so on. That means the County Courts generally, and would apply to any one of the County Courts in the Kingdom. It might be extremely inconvenient, and might give rise to unpleasant consequences, particularly in Wales, and I think the
  1644
  Amendment might be open, therefore, to exception. However, I will undertake, on the part of the Government, to bring forward something on the point in Grand Committee. I should prefer to lay the proposals of the Government on the subject before the Grand Committee. I hope, therefore, the noble and learned Lord will not think it necessary to press his Amendment to a Division.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am perfectly satisfied with what my learned and noble Friend has said. Of course, if he should not succeed, I should have an opportunity of proposing the same Amendment, or something else.
  LORD HERSCHELL: With regard to this rule-making power, I should certainly like to earmark this from the ordinary rule-making under the County Courts Act. The ordinary County Court rules deal with litigation, and I think the further removed you can make this procedure from the rule procedure, the better. The simpler you can make it, and the cheaper, the better it will be. When you have the ordinary rule-making powser, I do not think that is sufficiently impressed on the minds of those who have to make the rules. I think something might be done here to point that out, and also to make the rule-making authority the Lord Chancellor, in consultation with the rule-making Committee, so as to make it a distinct rule-making for the purposes of this Act.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee withdrawn, and Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I now beg to introduce a clause to meet those cases to which attention was called by the most rev. Primate, as well as by myself, on the Second Reading, that is to say, the cases in which the old remedy being taken away by the Bill, the new remedy might, if it were not provided against, be defeated or obstructed by arrangements between landlord and tenant. That, of course, cannot be the intention of the Bill. The Archbishop of Canterbury mentioned that subject as one of which the importance had been represented to him from several quarters. It has been represented to myself also, by more than one clergyman writing in a most reasonable spirit. The difficulty with which my Amend-

  1645
  ment deals might arise both when there was good faith on the part of the landlord and tenant, and still more, if there were any attempt to use their powers for the purpose of defeating or obstructing the tithe owner's right. Where from perfectly honest motives, beneficial leases, or family leases were granted rent free or at nominal rents, either for money paid down, or on some condition of service, or without any consideration at all, the effect of the Bill in all those cases, unless they were provided for, would be to take away the existing remedy, and give one which for a long time would be absolutely illusory and nugatory. And the same thing would happen, though perhaps for shorter periods of time, and to a more limited extent, in the more ordinary case of a tenancy rent free or at a low rent for one or more years, in consideration of some outlay to be made by the tenant upon the land. I have considered this whole matter as carefully as I could, and I put down first on the Notice Paper a clause on which the wording was not as good as it might be made. I have now put it down in the present improved form, which I hope the House will accept. The substance is, that in those cases where from any cause land is held without rent, or where it is held at a rent so inadequate that taking into account everything else which the receiver can realise it is by reason only of such mode of letting made insufficient to produce the amount recoverable under this Act by the owner of the tithe rent-charge the occupier is to the extent of the deficiency in any year to be treated as the owner, and the proceeding is to be the same as if he were the owner. I hope your Lordship will accept the clause, and I express that hope with the more confidence, because the noble Marquess opposite recognised the necessity of providing for these cases on the former occasion.
  Amendment moved, after Clause 2, and before proposed new Clause A, add new Clause B—
  "In any case in which a receiver of the rents and profits of any land shall have been appointed under the last preceding section, if it shall appear that the occupier holds under a landlord, either for the whole of his tenancy or for one or more year or years thereof, rent free or at a nominal rent, or at a rent so far below the annual value of the lands estimated as herein-1646
  after mentioned that by reason thereof the rent payable to the landlord during any years or year while there is such receiver shall be insufficient, after taking into account all sums recoverable in respect of the rents and profits of the other lands (if any) included in the receivership, to pay the amount recoverable during such years or year by the owner of the tithe rent-charge under this Act, then and in every such case, so far as may be necessary for the recovery of such amount, the occupier shall be deemed to be an owner under this Act, and the Court shall have power to order the receiver, for the purpose of recovering the amount of the deficiency so caused, to proceed in the same manner as is by this Act provided in the case of lands occupied by the owner thereof: Provided that any such occupier shall be entitled (subject to the provisions of Section 1 of this Act) to deduct from any sums at any time becoming due from him to the landlord under whom he holds, any amount which shall have been recovered from him under this section in respect of tithe rent-charge or coats."—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I should like to ask my noble Friend before the noble Marquess replies, what he meant by "the annual value of the land as hereinafter mentioned." There is no figure mentioned in the clause. It may refer to Schedule B.
  THE EARL OF SELBOKNE: It refers to Clause 5, Schedule B, the valuation according to Schedule B.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: If so, the reference is a good way off, and it may cause confusion.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: If that particular phrase seemed open to any misinterpretation, though I do not think it would be, it could be dealt with in Standing Committee.
  LORD MONK BRETTON: Before the noble Marquess replies, I should like to point out this: the landowner having to pay the tithe, a receiver is appointed, and the receiver having been appointed finds that the land is let at a peppercorn rent, or, at all events, below the amount of the tithe; there upon the clause provides that for the amount of the tithe rent-charge, for which the rent is insufficient, the receiver shall distrain upon the tenant, and that the tenant shall be able to recoup himself by deducting in future years from any increased rent or payment he has to make to the landlord, the amount he has been so called upon to advance in payment of a debt which was not his, but his landlord's. It is obvious that he may be kept out of that money for several years. He may have a lease

  1647
  for 21 years, and during the first seven years the rent may be a very low or nominal one, and he will not have the opportunity of making any deduction therefore for several years. It appears to me reasonable, and I think the House will think so, that he should have interest on that money. I should propose a moderate rate of interest, 4 per cent. per annum, on the amount which has been so taken from him for the landlord's debt. I will ask my noble and learned Friend whether he would be inclined to accept that?
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I have no objection.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am rather doubtful whether that would be a just demand. It seems to me, when the occupier is making his bargain with the owner, and makes such bargain, that no rent is payable. The two are practically dealing with money which does not belong to them; they are dealing with the tithe rent-charge, which is due to the tithe owner, and, therefore, he clearly would have no claim to be recouped for making the payment out of his own money within the contract made. However, I am in the hands of the House with regard to the proposed clause, and I do not venture to raise any great objection to this proposition. I am prepared to accept the proposal of the noble and learned Lord on the whole. After the matter has been enormously discussed in private, though no doubt it is surrounded with difficulties on every side, no remedy has been proposed that is entirely satisfactory. Although it is somewhat clumsy, and will operate rather by deterring the owner than by any effect of its own operation, still it will practically prevent that which we have reason to apprehend, namely, a collusive arrangement of the terms of occupancy for the purpose of evading payment of the tithe rent-charge. When my noble and learned Friend first brought this question before the House, I thought it was rather like the question of the Confessor who asked the groom "whether he ever greased the horses' teeth in order to prevent them from eating oats."—"No, but I will take care to do it next time," was the answer of the groom. I thought that the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord was due rather to his own enormous ingenuity, and
  1648
  would rather have a tendency to raise in the minds of evil-thinking men some idea of evading the rent-charge by a method which they never would have thought of themselves. When the noble and learned Lord had once raised it he was certainly bound to find a remedy, and I think the remedy proposed would be satisfactory. The only alteration I would suggest would be that he should not rely on the words "as hereinafter mentioned" for indicating the kind of annual value on which he means to rely. It comes too far afterwards in the Act, and would I think be open to ambiguous interpretations. Otherwise I have nothing to say in objection to the clause. Unless I find the House is otherwise minded I should be indisposed to resist the clause proposed by the noble Lord as not being required.
  LORD MONK BRETTON: As to the legitimacy of the contract, of course if there was collusion between the owner and tenant that the land should be let at a nominal rent for the purpose of defeating the tithe owner's claim, it would be an illegitimate act on both sides. But in an ordinary case the illegitimacy of the letting, if there be any, would be, as it seems to me, on the part of the landowner, and not on the part of the tenant. It might be said it was the duty of the landowner not to let his land at such a rent that there would not be sufficient margin to meet the tithe owner's claim—not to let his land at too low a rent. But I think it might be rather hard to say the same of the tenant who took the land perhaps in ignorance that the rent would not meet the tithe.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I thoroughly sympathise with the object which the noble Lord has in view. I suppose no one would wish to countenance any arrangement between the owner and the tenant for the purpose of defrauding the tithe owner; but I must say I am a little alarmed at some of the statements which have been made, because it seems to me they assume that after this Act is passed every landowner is bound to provide sufficient rent on his land to meet every claim that may be made upon him. That is putting an entirely new restriction upon owners. At present if a man chooses to let his land in con-

  1649
  sideration of receiving a fore gift, as it is called, of, say, £100 down, he may do so; he may let his land for years at a peppercorn rent, and there are cases in which that may be a transaction which the landowner may find it convenient to resort to in order to obtain advances of money. He may be very glad to forego his rent for a number of years, and to receive it in that way in advance, but it appears to me that the Bill would lay down that the landowner is to be deprived of his discretion in dealing with his land because he is to be placed under the obligation to see that always upon his land there shall be a sufficient amount of rent to meet the demands under this Bill. That seems to be a serious difficulty arising from the difficulty of placing upon the owner the liability of paying the tithe; because if it is to be accompanied by this restriction upon an owner in dealing with his land in the most advantageous manner, then I think it is a restriction upon his rights, and that neither the Church nor anyone else has a right to take from the owner what is clearly part of his right and incident to his property. I agree that the question might not often arise, and so far I do not feel apprehensive; but I do feel apprehensive in regard to the doctrine being laid down that any landowner, after this Bill is passed, is to be liable for anything except to pay the tithe. He is to be liable to pay the tithe, but not to pay it in a particular manner, and if it is necessary to provide for cases in which the landowner has chosen, at his own convenience, to let the land in a particular way, it would be, I think, better to lay down in a plain and direct manner that where the owner has made such a contract he should be liable to see that the tithe is paid. I know it is difficult to pass such a clause, but I think that you should not restrict the powers of the owner over the letting of his land. There is another objection to the clause. It says at the end of the new clause—
  "Provided that any such occupier shall be entitled, subject to the provision of Section 1 of this Act,''
  to make deductions. It may be my own want of understanding, but I do not see how this clause is to be read in conjunction of Section 1 of this Act. I suppose it has some reference to the liability of the occupier to pay an addi-1650
  tional rent. I suppose that is the meaning of it; but I have considerable doubts as to the operation of it, and I think it would require to be considered, though I dare say my noble and learned Friend has a ready answer to my remarks.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think my noble Friend somewhat misunderstands the clause. Section 1 applies only to existing contracts in force at the time the Act is passed, by which the tenants may have agreed to pay the tithe rent-charge. It merely provides for the case in which the tenant has agreed to do that. Section 1 says that the landlord paying the tithe rent-charge is to recover it from the tenant, and you will not want in that case the double operation—first of the tenant deducting from future rent and then the landlord making him pay over again. With regard to the other observation of my noble Friend, I cannot help thinking he was misled by an illustration that was used by a former speaker to take a view of this clause, which it will not at all bear. Your Lordships must recollect that as things now stand no landlord can do what is contemplated here, either in good faith or otherwise—either in the way of the most reasonable arrangement in the world with his tenant, or the most unreasonable, so as to defeat the tithe rent-charge, because the owner of the tithe rent-charge has always his remedy against the person in occupation. Well, let us distinguish the cases which may happen, and suppose, first of all, the case of a tenancy existing when the Act is passed. It is 10 to 1 that when a beneficial lease of this sort, either for the whole of the term or for part of it, has been given, the landlord has stipulated that the tenant shall pay the rent-charge, in which case it is clear that the operation of this clause will be in conformity with the tenant's contract. On the other hand, if we are to suppose a special covenant by the landlord to pay the tithe and to indemnify the occupier, that covenant would remain, and the clause would not take away the right of suit under it, but would give the additional remedy of retaining it oat of future rent. Then, in regard to all future contracts, they would have been made in view of this state of things:

  1651
  that if the tenant arranges so that he gets the whole usufruct of the land without paying anything, or so much of it as is measured by the difference between a full and a low rent, he will remain under the same liability as he would have been before this Act passed for the deficiency which the landlord does not pay, and will have his recourse over; the landlord being no longer able, by making a new contract, to arrange that the tenant shall pay the tithe.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I think it is rather inconvenient that we should be discussing this clause here, because in reality the purpose of this clause which is proposed to be inserted is to prevent a mischief which might arise under Section 5. Under that clause if the owner shows that the rent which he receives is so small that the tithe rent-charge will be twice as much (because that is what it comes to) as the remainder, then the tithe rent-charge is to be diminished in proportion to the rent received. In ordinary cases one can understand how that would work, but in such a case as that of a beneficial lease the freeholder will appear in Schedule B for Income Tax as only receiving this supposed peppercorn rent. Of course, I am under correction if that is not so, but in that case it would be entirely gone, and there is a great danger that the tithe rent-charge may disappear altogether. What I want to find out is this: there are properties in which the land will not appear in Schedule B at all, and the consequence will be that as there is nothing in Schedule B the tithe rent-charge will go under Clause 5 entirely. I think that ought to be provided for and I should very much have preferred that all these questions should have been discussed and considered in connection with Clause 5.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I cannot agree with the right rev. Prelate. I do not propose by this clause to interfere at all with the operation of Claus' 5. Clause 5 does not proceed upon the actual rent but upon the annual value under the Income Tax Act, Schedule B, which provides that if the letting be not at a rack-rent, then you take the annual value at what the land might be fairly let for, and if, under Clause 5, there should be a remission allowed that would be a
  1652
  reduction under the Act. What the clause aims at is this: The sole remedy which you give, when the occupier is not also owner, is a receiver of rents and profits. Let me suppose, as an illustration, a lease for seven years at a peppercorn rent or at no rent at all; a receiver is put in; what is he to receive? He cannot turn the tenant out, because the tenant has got a seven years' lease, and I presume that, as between him and the tithe rent-charge owner, it is unimpeachable. In that case, unless it is provided for in the way that I propose, or in some other way equally effective, there is nothing whatever for the receiver to receive, and either the clergyman has to run up from year to year a charge against some future rent, which may have to be paid at a distance of time to the same or some other landlord, or else he is to be kept out of his money entirely, a ruinous, delay under any circumstances, and under some circumstances an absolute and total loss. Cases in which such might be the effect of arrangements between landlord and tenant must be provided for in some way, so as to prevent that consequence; and no injustice can arise from dealing with them as I propose: for, so far as the occupier has, by such an arrangement, a beneficial usufruct, he is in substance an owner; and this Amendment will impose upon him, at the most, the same liability to which he is now by law subject.
  LORD BRAMWELL: I cannot think that this clause will have the disastrous effect which the noble Lord (the Earl of Kimberley) anticipates from it. It would be a disaster if it were attended with such a consequence. There is a dilemma—either the tenant whose rent is not sufficient to satisfy the tithe rent-charge has. agreed with his landlord to pay it, which he may do, and then he cannot complain of this clause, or he has not agreed, and in that case, if he is distrained upon or compelled to pay it, he will have a remedy against his landlord not quâ landlord, but quâ a man who ought to have paid that debt which he has been compelled to pay. Every lawyer of us well knows that it has been repeatedly decided that if a man is compelled to pay a debt which is due by another and not due by him, he has a remedy over against the man who ought to have paid it.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I think this question is one of considerable difficulty, though I do not object in principle to the proposal of my noble and learned Friend. I do not think there is any real difficulty where the land is held rent free or at a nominal rent, because where land is so held you might reasonably and properly define an "owner" to include any owner who shall hold. The definition would render liable a person who is letting at no rent at all or at a nominal rent. The difficulty, of course, arises when you have a letting which is simply a letting for an annual value. Of course, it may be a letting so far below the annual value that it is not what one may call the ordinary letting value of the land, the ordinary arrangement between landlord and tenant in which the payment of the rates is dealt with in the ordinary way; but the difficulty is where to draw the line, and I cannot help thinking that some difficulty would arise out of my noble and learned Friend's Amendment. I would suggest for his consideration whether for those purposes it might not be possible either to draw the line as to the proportion of the annual value, which shall cause a man to be regarded as the owner, and propably he might in that way include all, or almost all, the value. Or if he does not do that, then—the object of this Bill being to avoid a distraint upon the occupier—whether it might not be better in those cases where the owner has entered into a contract with the occupier different from the ordinary contract of letting, to make the owner directly and personally liable for the rent-charge. Of course it is an exceptional case which, under these circumstances, might be exceptionally dealt with; but I cannot do more now than call attention to some of the difficulties which arise on that portion of the clause which provides for cases where the rent is so far below the ordinary rent that it will not meet the tithe, because that might vary in different cases very materially. I thought that my noble and learned Friend might like to consider that question, though I do not myself feel any real difficulty about it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am told by those who are learned in the views of the other House that the particular remedy suggested by the noble and learned Lord, namely, to make the
  1654
  owner in such cases liable, is precisely what that House will not have. We are rather in an inverted order of things here. This House is usually considered to be one in which landowners are strong and their interests fully guarded, yet in this House I have had no difficulties in regard to this Bill; but in the other House they are exceedingly jealous of the rights of property in this matter, and I am not sure whether, if such a proposal as this were inserted, it would pass in the other House. It is rather for that reason than for any other that I prefer the proposal of the noble and learned Lord, which I think would be more readily accepted. If you wish to make the owner liable you have a simple way of doing it by stating that in those cases the owner shall be treated as a Quaker is under the principal Act.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I should like to say, with reference to what the noble Marquess has stated, that I should be far from favouring any proposal to make the owner personally liable generally. What I threw out was with regard to the alterations which would make an exceptional case.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Certainly.
  Amendment and Clause agreed to.
  Amendment moved, at the end of the new Clause last agreed to, to insert the words "With interest thereon at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum."— (Lord Monk Bretton.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, the Bill as it stands contains a sub-section to the effect that the sum ordered to be paid for costs shall not be personally recovered. I never saw such a clause before, and I cannot think it sound in principle even with regard to ordinary costs. Still, with regard to ordinary costs, as importance was attributed to it in the House of Commons, I am not disposed to create any difficulty. The words (in Sub-section 8) are these:—
  "Nothing in this Act shall impose or constitute any personal liability upon any occupier or owner of lands for the payment of any tithe rent-charge or any other sum recoverable or payable under this Act."
  As to the tithe rent-charge, there is no personal liability now, and it is not intended to create one; and in deference to

  1655
  the feeling of the House of Commons, I should not take exception to a provision that ordinary costs should follow the tithe rent-charge, and be recoverable in that way only. But, my Lords, it is possible that when persons are in litigation or litigiously disposed, and still more when the power of the purse is upon one side and not upon the other—and yet further, if to those circumstances is added some motive to defeat the right of the owner of the tithe rent-charge costs may be vexatiously and oppressively occasioned. I cannot think it was the intention of the House of Commons to exclude the power of the Court if it is specially found that costs had been so occasioned, to order them to be paid by the person who was acting vexatiously and oppressively in so causing them. I cannot help thinking that is a case which has been lost sight of, and, at all events, I am quite sure that justice does require that there should be power to order such costs to be paid in the ordinary manner.
  Amendment moved, to add, after the new Clause agreed to, the following new Clause:—
  "Costs Vexatiously Occasioned,—Notwithstanding anything in this Act contained, the Court shall have power to order any costs which it shall find to have been vexatiously or oppressively occasioned to be paid and recovered in the same manner as in the case of an ordinary action in the Court."—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have nothing to say against the argument of the noble and learned Lord. I have only to repeat, in regard to this clause, the consideration which I employed just now—that I cannot forecast in what way this addition is likely to be received elsewhere, in view of the fact that the whole subject, as the noble and learned Lord is well aware, has been canvassed at considerable length and with considerable heat. But reserving to myself the right to form what opinion I may, if this clause should be altered or objected to elsewhere, I cannot say that I think I ought to advise the House to reject it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have now something of the same kind to move to insert. I move after Clause 2, page 3, to insert the following clause:—
  1656
  "An application to a County Court for an order under this Act may be made on behalf of the tithe owner by his agent, although not a solicitor, and on such application the costs either of a solicitor or of a witness shall not be allowed in any case where notice of defence has not been given, and when such notice has been given the costs of a solicitor shall only be allowed for work done subsequent to the notice."
  I am not myself familiar with the technical proceedings, but I do not imagine that any hardship can arise under this clause, while on the other hand it will prevent poor tithe-payers being exposed to unnecessary costs.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I have no objection to the substance of this clause, but, as regards the wording, I do not think it should be "where notice of defence has not been given." That seems rather to encourage the notion of litigation, which I am very anxious to avoid as far as possible under this Bill. It will not be so where there is a defence, I suppose. The noble Marquess means probably notice of opposition to an order or something of that sort. I think it would be desirable to alter the wording in that respect so as not to encourage litigation.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The wording can be altered at another stage.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The noble Lord will, no doubt, consider whether it should exclude necessary costs. The words are where notice of defence has not been given—
  "The costs either of a solicitor or of a witness shall not be allowed, and when such notice has been given the costs of a solicitor only shall be allowed for work done subsequent to the notice."
  The costs are given in ordinary cases where the money has not been paid upon proper application. This cuts off the first costs and throws them upon the owner. There may be reasons for doing that, but I think questions may arise in many cases where costs must be incurred. I do not say that in a very simple case it would be necessary to employ a lawyer, and then there would be no costs of this kind at all; but supposing the case is not so easy and one in which a prudent man would hardly do without a solicitor, it does seem a little hard in all such cases to throw the preliminary costs upon the tithe owner. The words disallow these preliminary costs in all cases; not only when notice of defence has not,

  1657
  but even when it has been given. I can well understand that there may be cases where there would be some presumption that there was no necessity to incur such costs; but I cannot understand why costs incurred previous to the notice should not be allowed as well as those incurred subsequently.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I hope the noble Marquess will adhere to his clause. It is exceedingly desirable, when we are bringing in another kind of litigation for the first time, that every possible means should be taken to discourage the employment of solicitors, and to prevent the imposition of costs upon those who pay very small sums. I cannot help thinking the noble Marquess's benevolent intentions ought to have been persevered in in this clause.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I quite appreciate the necessity of avoiding more than is necessary the employment of solicitors, and I think, on the whole, it is better to hold to the clause. It is impossible in framing clauses for the working of a new experiment to ensure absolutely that no hardship shall fall upon the tithe owner, but I think we must not omit to take into consideration the possibility of hardship upon the tithepayer too.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 3.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, there is a general feeling on the part of the clergy, and I may say that I have received a large number of letters upon the subject from them, that they are hardly dealt with in this rating clause. Of course I am aware that there is a great deal to be said on both sides, and certainly I have no desire to press any Amendment which appears to the House not to be reasonable. But the case is this: that in this respect the tithe owner is put to considerable disadvantage in comparison with all other ratepayers, and that, too, in a way which constitutes an entirely new departure as regards the rating of tithe rent-charges. The tithe owner is put in this position: that he may be called upon to pay a rate upon a tithe rent-charge which, nevertheless, he is not able to recover. He may be called upon to pay this rate, not only with the possibility of not recovering his tithe rent-
  1658
  charge, but he may be called upon to go into Court for it. The tithepayer has three months' time, but the tithe owner has no time allowed him at all, and he may be called into Court and required to pay his rate, although the tithepayer is meantime quite free for three months from the necessity of making the payment out of which the rate is to come. It seems to me it is only reasonable that you should give to the tithe owner the same limitation of time that you give to the tithepayer. If the tithepayer is to have three months' time let the tithe owner have just a little margin over that three months' in order that he may get his tithe in in those cases where there may be a little unwillingness, or possibly a very great unwillingness, to pay it. What I propose here would come very much to this: supposing a tithe rent-charge was due in January, and supposing the rate was made in the February or the March afterwards, I should say that the tithe owner ought to be allowed to pay his rate in the succeeding May. By that time the three months will have gone by. He will then be able to proceed against the tithepayer, who is the owner of the land, for his tithe, and then he is in a position to pay the rate. If the rate be made in such a case as that after the lapse of the four months, then of course he ought to pay directly if he is called upon to do so, and I should not wish to put any obstacle in the way of the demand that is made upon him. But it seems to me it is very hard indeed that the tithe owner should be placed in a different position as regards the debt due to him from that in which every other ratepayer is in, and yet that he should be subject to precisely the same liability as any other ratepayer. It is urged that they all ought to be upon an equality. If you put them both on an equality that would be reasonable; but you allow any other ratepayer to get in his money by an action, whereas you do not allow the tithe owner to recover by action, and you do not allow him to recover at all for the three months. That seems to be a very great hardship, and I propose to insert a new sub-section to remedy it. I will not answer for the wording, because in these cases the wording may require very careful consideration, so as to exactly convey what it is that is

  1659
  intended. I propose in page 4, line 2, to insert this new sub-section—that,
  "No rate assessed on a tithe rent-charge shall be recoverable until four months after the said tithe rent-charge shall have become due."
  I mean by that, that if the rate is made between the two times at which the tithe rent is payable and is paid it should not be recoverable until four months after the first of those two times. If the tithe rent-charge is due in January and July, then the rate should not be recoverable until May or November, whenever it is made between those months. If it is only made in May or November it would be recoverable, of course, without delay. If it were made in February, for instance, still it would not be recoverable until May, and so on, making the recovery of the rate depend upon the date at which the tithe rent-charge shall have become payable. In the vast majority of cases this will not interfere with the ordinary practice in the least, because in most cases they will probably go on just as they have done for a long time, since 1836 or almost since 1836. But there are extreme cases, as we perfectly well know, and there is now and then a strong animus, there may even be a desire to put the clergyman into difficulties, and I think what I am putting before your Lordships is no more than justice. The next Amendment which I have to propose goes a step further still; but in regard to this one, I hope that if the noble Marquess cannot accept it he will be willing to consider the matter, and see how justice might be done in this particular case of a property which is liable to rates, but which is not like any other property capable of being recovered in the ordinary manner. Perhaps if it cannot be done in this way it may possibly be done in some other manner.
  Amendment moved, in page 4, line 2, before sub-section insert new sub-section—
  "2a. No rate assessed on a tithe rent-charge shall he recoverable until four months after the said tithe rent-charge shall have become due."
  And, in line 3, leave out the words ("if the collector of the rate") down to (" owner of any tithe rent-charge") in line 5, and insert—
  1660
  ("If the owner of the tithe rent-charge shall certify to the rate collector that his tithe rent charge has not been paid, and that he has commenced proceedings in the County Court to recover it, the rate collector shall apply to the Court and.")—(The Bishop of London.)
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Before the noble Marquess answers that, I should like to say a few words in support generally of the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate. The only point about which I feel doubt at present is whether four months may be necessary; but for a delay of three months I think the case is very strong. The present situation in point of law as to rates on tithe rent-charges is this. It was decided two years ago, in a litigated case which went to the Court of Appeal, that when the rates upon the tithe rent-charge were not paid by the owner of the tithe rent-charge the remedy by law is by distress against the occupier. So that, in point of fact, at present a distraint against the tithe owner's goods, such as will be given by this clause, is not law; he is not liable to it; and the rate is made by the present law a charge upon the present tithe recoverable in the same way as the tithe rent-charge itself, and therefore the tithe owner is not compelled to pay it except out of the tithe rent-charge. That is the present state of the law. This Bill postpones, in the case where the tithe rent-charge is not voluntarily paid, all practical remedy for its recovery until the tithe rent-charge is three months in arrear. A question may be raised as to what the effect of that will be. I own that I think it very likely it will be treated by land agents and others as making payment before that lapse of time unnecessary; and in many cases, at all events, the rent-charge will not be practically receivable even when paid voluntarily until the end of three months; and we know this has been and is felt rather strongly by many of the clergy as putting them to considerable disadvantage in comparison with the present state of the law, which gives them a right to recover in 21 days. I think they have done wisely, and that their friends have done wisely, in acquiescing in that; because some reasonable consideration must be given to the position and convenience of the owner when a change in the law of this kind is made,

  1661
  and I understood the noble Marquess to express the opinion that the landowner might reasonably want some such enlarged time as that which the Bill gives him. But all this tends to the conclusion that advantage may be taken of that provision in perfect good faith, and that the clergyman may not receive his tithe rent-charge for three months. Under those circumstances, it seems to me that it would be a very great injustice indeed if he could have his goods distrained upon in respect of the rates made on the rent-charge before he could in the ordinary course of things get the rent-charge in, certainly before he could have the legal right to recover it. I think the right rev. Prelate has spoken with undue modesty with regard to the framing of his Amendment; as I have myself received many letters pressing upon me this view of the case, and I must confess I do not think I could have prepared it better than it has been done by the right rev. Prelate, or by those who may have assisted him in preparing the Amendments. I think, whether the time given be four months or something else, that not less than three months ought to be given when you are altering the law in this way, and making the tithe owner liable in a way in which he has not been liable before. I do not see why he should not be proceeded against for rates like anybody else, but let it be upon property which he has received, or is at the time when the proceeding is taken in a position to receive. Perhaps it may not be inconvenient that the proposed Amendment should be considered in connection with the right rev. Prelate's other proposed Amendments. I presume the object of making the time four months instead of three was to give a margin within which it might be ascertained whether the owner would be driven to take proceedings in the County Court or not. I am not quite sure whether so large a margin is necessary. However, I think on principle, if he is kept out of his money and obliged to go to the Court, it would be most reasonable that in that case the rating authority should have power to recover through the means of the Court, so that whatever is recovered by the Court should through the Court pay the rate. That
  1662
  is the substance of the second proposition, that upon the existence of a litigation being certified the rate is, in substance, to be recovered through the Court out of the money upon which it is levied. For that there appears to be an additional reason to which I cannot myself see the answer at present. Under the 5th clause of this, Bill the Court may reduce the amount. The rate may have been made upon the whole rent-charge, which primâ facie the tithe owner is entitled to receive. Under the 5th clause of the Bill, when the case comes into Court, the tithe owner may claim a remission. Of course, until you know what will be the amount of the tithe rent-charge you do not know that the rate has not been imposed upon a larger amount than it ought to have been. The third Amendment provides for that in the proper place, and, upon the whole, I shall be disappointed if I do not hear that these Amendments are accepted in principle, and, as far as my judgment goes, I think they are quite rightly put forward.
  LORD MONK BRETTON: I should like to say a few words before the noble Marquess rises to reply, and they will be to urge that, notwithstanding the high authority of the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken, the House will very carefully consider what it is about to do. It seems to me a proposition of a most serious character. I think it conflicts with the principle on which our system of rating is based. The assessment is made upon the existing state of things, and the existing value may be arrived at by looking at what have been the recent receipts of any property. You never look forward to ascertain what are likely to be the receipts in the next half year in assessing property. You are not to make the assessment in prospect; you are not to listen to suggestions of what is likely to happen, but the question is what is the property to be assessed worth at the present moment. What has been received lately in respect of it? That is one piece of evidence, or may be so, of what the actual value is. You are to determine the existing amount, upon that a rate is fixed of so many shillings or pence in the £1, calculated to meet the immediate wants of the parish, and this rate is due from every one on a certain date. The

  1663
  proposition here is that in the case of one particular class of persons, the tithe owners; before the rate is paid the tithe owner may Wait till his next tithe comes in and see whether it comes up to what is estimated by the proprietor. Now that is entirely a new proposition, and I confess I can hardly see the difference between saying that you are to give the tithe owner four months in order that he may wait for the next receipt of tithe and see whether it comes up to expectation; and saying the same thing in the case of a landowner. The landowner might say, "I want to wait till I get my next half-year's rent in hand, or till I have realised my next half-year's profit, and then see whether it comes up to what I expect." The rate, your Lordships observe, is made, and is due on a certain day and ought to be paid. So much is that the case, that I believe I am correct in saying if a ratepayer appeals against his rate, and the appeal is still pending, yet he is called upon to pay the rate on the day on which it is due. If the appeal goes in his favour, and the rate is reduced, in some cases the difference will be refunded, but, I believe in general, it is credited to him in regard to the next rate. Then it is said that the tithe owner is being put in a different position, because formerly he received his tithe in 21 days, and now he will have to wait for it three months. In former cases the tithe might not have been received before his rate became due. He still would have to pay it. I would point this out, that though the tithe owner is by the present law entitled to his tithe in 21 days, he is more often nearly three months than three weeks in getting his tithe in, and, therefore, the change made in fixing a period of three months is not practically so great as has been supposed. Stress is laid upon this, that there might be an abatement made after the rate is paid. That may be so; but the rate he is called upon to pay is based upon past receipts of tithe, and if the next receipt is abated, his proper remedy will be to get his assessment reduced. This question appears to me to be so material as affecting the principle of rating that I should venture to hope that the Committee would be inclined to think this is a matter which should be very carefully inquired into
  1664
  and left for the consideration of the Standing Committee.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I wish to remark that I did not intend the three Amendments I put down to be bound up together of necessity. There is another one on Clause 5 which is quite distinct from what has been said against the first Amendment on Clause 3. The first Amendment on Clause 3 stands on quite a different footing from the last one. It may be quite true that on the mere principle of rating you ought to make the man pay the rate on that which he does not really receive, and I should be quite willing to bow to the authority of those who thoroughly understand the subject upon that point. But that does not apply to this allowance in respect of rate where the tithe is yet to be received, because the property is not yet in the man's hand. It is property out of which the rate is to come, but which he has not got, and he is put in a difficulty with regard to the sum he has not got which no other ratepayer is under. No other ratepayer is required to wait three months before the property belonging to him can be got in; he can go before the County Court the moment it is due, and, therefore, in that respect the injustice of this payment upon tithe seems to me to be plain. The payment of rate upon tithe appears to stand by itself in that respect. Then with regard to the difficulty of collecting the rate; the rate collector can go to the Court and get his money there. There is this difference between this particular class of ratepayers and every other ratepayer: Other ratepayers are assessed upon the visible property which they hold; it is theirs and in their possession, and it is seized, if necessary, by the rate collector from them; but here the property upon which the man has to pay the rate is not in his possession at all, and he cannot get it except through the Court. It is only reasonable, therefore, that what is the ultimate source—that is, the land from which the rate is to come, should be called upon to pay the rate as it is called upon to pay the tithe.
  LORD BASING: My Lords, I concur generally in the argument of my noble Friend against this proposition, which seems to me to proceed on a fallacious view of what rates are. They are not a

  1665
  charge on income or profits—they are a contribution in each parish towards the common funds. It does not follow that other occupiers in the parish have any independent fund which enables them to pay the rate. On the contrary, the occupier of a house has to pay the rent of his house, yet he is charged to the rates in respect of the value of that occupation. And so tithe owners, as well as other ratepayers in the parish, are assessed in respect of the value of their occupation. It does not follow that the rates should not be paid until the means have actually accrued and have passed into the pocket of the ratepayer. That is quite a new doctrine to me, and I cannot understand it. It is very true that the Bill proposes that a margin of three months shall elapse before the necessary payment shall be exacted; but three months' time is not only given now by tithe collectors, but six months, or even 12 months, elapse. Many, no doubt, ask for it as soon as they can get it, but that is very seldom within three months. On the other hand, it is a fallacy to suppose that rates are paid within as short a period as the three weeks now suggested. I do not know what may be the case in some parishes, but I have never certainly heard of a severe or peremptory remedy being taken for the payment of rates within that period. A few weeks' delay is not regarded as a very great matter by the rate collector. Then, again, it proceeds on the hypothesis that all the ratepayers in the parish have combined to withhold from the tithepayer the means of paying his rate. Supposing one tithepayer is in arrear, the tithe owner may have money coming in from other sources; and to assume that the whole body of tithepayers in the parish, who may be a large number of persons, are going to combine to withhold from the owner the means of paying his rates, seems to me the strangest and wildest supposition possible. I trust, therefore, the Government will not consent to this Amendment.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My noble Friend has anticipated a good deal of what I was about to say. I think in the arguments hitherto the ratepayers have been entirely neglected, and you are bound to consider their interests. In any given parish or union
  1666
  all the ratepayers ought in justice to be on an equal footing, and it would be perfectly unjust that contributions should be obtained from one kind of property at one moment and that they should be postponed in regard to other kinds of property in other cases. The contributions ought to be levied equally and at the same time from every person who contributes in the parish, and that without reference to whether the property is tithe or of any other description. The ratepayers otherwise will be paying a portion of that rate which they have a right to look to to meet the expenses of the parish. I do not see how you can, with any justice, postpone by law the payment of the rate when the rate becomes due. Though I do not deny that there may be some hardship in this case upon the tithe owner, I think, as the noble Lord pointed out, it is not likely to be so great as seems to be anticipated under the provisions of this Bill, because I do not think the tithe owners get their tithes by any means punctually at present, nor do I think it is the custom to demand it the moment it becomes due. The tithe owners give a certain amount of law, as it is called, to the tithe payers, just as landowners do. Speaking from my own experience, I believe the time for the collection of tithe is generally a month after it becomes due. If it is necessary to make any special provision in this case it seems to me it is the owner you ought to look to, because in point of fact the property has accrued at the time when the tithe is demandable; that is to say, it is presumed that there is that value existing, though the payer for his own convenience does not pay for three months. Let me ask, is not there a very strong analogy between these cases and the position of the occupier who pays Income Tax under Schedule A? Under Schedule A every occupier of agricultural land is bound to pay the landlord's Income Tax levied under that Schedule, but he cannot escape one single penny of that until he produces the receipt. When the tenant pays his rent to his landlord the receipt is given for so much as the Income Tax amounts to. Supposing he does not pay his rent for a year he still cannot recover one shilling of the Income Tax, and the reason he cannot recover it is that he has not paid his rent; simply

  1667
  for his own convenience the rent is postponed, and until he does pay he cannot recover the Income Tax. Therefore, although I have not the slightest desire to increase the liabilities of owners under this Bill, partly perhaps because I am an owner myself, and partly because I believe on grounds of policy it is desirable not to increase them, it seems to me that if anything is to be done, the most obvious and just mode of doing it would be that the owner should pay the rates, and deduct them when he himself pays.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON: That was practically what I meant by my proposition.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, this is not a lively subject, but it is a very difficult one. It seems more difficult to adjust it than any other point which has yet arisen. This clause in its wording certainly seems to go a great deal too far. It would enable the tithe owner to be in arrear with his rent for four months, even though he had received every penny of his tithe up to date. I think that must be dismissed at once as an unreasonable proposal. Then you must go next to the case where he does not receive the tithe until the full limit of three months. Ought he on that account to receive any law when the rate is levied some time before? Undoubtedly my noble Friend behind me (Lord Basing) and the noble Lord opposite (Earl Kimberley) are quite right in their reasoning upon the general principles by which rates are levied on property. If I possess and let a furnished house the rates may be levied four months before my rent comes in, but no law or consideration is given me on that account. But, then, that argument leaves out of sight the other peculiar circumstances of the case—that a personal liability is being put upon the tithe owner, to which he has never before been subjected, and that should be taken into consideration. I certainly think the position of the tithe owner is one deserving of consideration, because the money is levied on the rent-charge as it arises, so that by an automatic process in former times that very law was given him which is now being asked for him. But there is a third case in which his claim seems to be much stronger. A rate
  1668
  is not levied upon a man in respect of property which he does not possess. It is provided by this Bill that in certain instances the tithe owner shall not possess his property—that in certain cases the County Court shall come in and say that the land is not strong enough to pay, and therefore the tithe may be remitted. It does, therefore, seem somewhat hard upon the tithe owner that he should have to pay a rate on a tithe rent-charge which he will never receive. However, I should like to have further time to consider the matter; and if it is the view of the Committee, I should be inclined to accept the suggestion which has been made, but on the distinct understanding that the Government will not be bound in any way in regard to it, and that they will be at liberty to thresh the matter out in order to arrive at some arrangement, if possible, in Standing Committee.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I hope the noble Marquess will pursue that course, and allow this to be discussed in Standing Committee. I feel that there is some difficulty about it, and that it is quite open to some of the remarks that have been made. Therefore, I think if the right reverend Prelate would not press the clauses now, but will be satisfied to move them in Standing Committee, that would be sufficient.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As that is the view of the noble Lord opposite, I would recommend the right reverend Prelate to adopt that course.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I am quite content with what the noble Marquess said. I only want the case to be thoroughly sifted; and, provided it is fairly brought before the Standing Committee, I am quite content. I will, there withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5.
  LORD BRABOURNE: My Lords, I have an Amendment upon Clause 5 of a very simple character, and I hope it is one that will commend itself to your Lordships. This clause enacts that when the total amount paid on account of the tithe rent-charge for 12 months pre-

  1669
  ceding the date on which the sum claimed becomes payable will exceed two-thirds of the annual value of the land, there shall be a deduction, or remission, of so much as is equal to the excess over the two-thirds. I do not know why this precise figure was fixed upon, nor do I feel quite sure that I have correctly read it; for really this is a Bill which it would require a skilled lawyer to understand and dissect in all its various clauses. Now, the annual value of land for the purpose of assessment under Schedule B seems to be rather an extraordinary thing. Schedule B, as I have always understood it, is Schedule A plus the tithe. Well, how would this work? Supposing you have a farm which is let for £100; under Schedule A there would be Income Tax payable. Now, two-thirds of that would be £66 13s. 4d. Under Schedule B on, say, £120, the amount would be £80. Now, what I want to know is, how muck do these gentlemen think they ought to have more than the tenth, which is the amount of the tithe? It appears to me if you have a rent of tithe £60, the tenth of which would be £6, the tithe owner will be doing pretty well if he gets five times the amount of that; that is to say, £30. If the amount of tithe rent-charge comes to half the annual value, is it not right that the deduction should begin then? Is it not a reasonable thing to say that the tithe owner shall be satisfied with a reduced amount of tithe rent-charge if it should be half the annual value of the land. The argument might be carried a very long way if one were to go into the whole history of tithe, and the purposes for which it was originally granted. In that case the argument would be interminable, and, after all, we should leave off very much where we commenced; but, in this case, I think your Lordships will agree with me that when these tithes were granted those who granted them never believed or supposed they were granting half the value of the land. I therefore put it to your Lordships whether, when it is half the value, it would not be a reasonable thing to allow it to go no higher?
  Amendment moved, to substitute in Clause 5, Sub-section 1, line 35, the words "one-half" for "two-thirds.—
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I quite join in the noble Lord's indisposition to go back into the early history of tithes; but I think we may go back far enough to learn that tithe is a tenth part of the gross annual value of the land, and not of the annual rent. That is the basis of tithe. He has again and again complained that the tithe owner receives more than a tenth part of the rent. That has nothing to do with it, and I am quite sure that those primæval donors to whom he refers had no idea of annual value under Schedule B when they gave the tithe of the land. The calculation on which this proportion of two-thirds rests we have already discussed. Several noble Lords in this House feel rather strongly upon the subject of admitting any diminution from the value. The only thing to be said in that behalf is that the land is not as valuable to the tithe owner if he either takes it under process into his own hands or places it in the hands of a receiver, as it is to the occupier; and that both with respect to the burdens upon the land, and the difference in value in consequence of that change in cultivation, some allowance seems to be necessary if you intend to prevent the land going out of cultivation. I do not pretend to defend with any warmth the accuracy of this calculation of two-thirds; but it seems to me more near to what is just after the argument which I have heard than any other figure that can be suggested, and I certainly think the noble Lord's proposal to insert, instead of it, "one-half" would not afford a satisfactory substitute.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I would ask upon his clause a question on one matter which has been brought to my notice by a great many incumbents in the Midland Counties. I want to ask what would be the effect of Sub-section 4 of this clause? This sub-section provides for ascertaining the annual value of any lands which do not appear in Schedule B. What is represented to me is this: that in mining districts it is very often the case that a very large quantity of land is laid waste by mining operations, and that in consequence all the surface has gone as far as regards the purposes of cultivation. Those lands

  1671
  are waste lands, and they will not appear, therefore, in Scedule B at all as I understand. In that case I should like to know what would be the guide to the Commissioners in ascertaining the value of the land. Will the owner of the mine be considered as the owner of those lands, and will he be made liable under this sub-section for the payment of the tithe, or will it be the lessee who is liable? Unless there is some provision distinctly made for such cases, the clergy are afraid that whatever happens in that respect, at all events, the tithe rent-charge will altogether disappear under the application of this clause.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My answer to the question must be to refer the right rev. Prelate to the condition of the tithe owner before the Act of 1836 was passed. If the land was so laid waste by subterranean processes and produced nothing, it is obvious that the tithe owner would get nothing by distress upon the land, and his rights would disappear. You may say that would be hard upon him, but I do not see how you can bring into the value the land that is used in working mines which lie beneath its surface. Those mines are not in any sense titheable as I understand, and you would be departing from the whole principle of your Tithe Acts if you attempted to levy a tithe upon them. It is possible that the wording of Sub-section 4 may require revision, but I do not see my way to giving any tithe upon waste land, even though the land has not been laid waste with the consent of the tithe owner.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I should like to point out to the noble Marquess that one of the operations of the Tithe Act was to exempt from loss of tithe any land which became no longer available for agricultural purposes. Before 1836 land occupied by buildings in the ordinary way ceased to be titheable; but that was changed as part of the legislation, and there are some cases in the Midland Counties where the operation of this clause would be simply to deprive the incumbents of the tithe they have enjoyed ever since 1836.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I think there is a question upon this which will have to be considered, because it is not at all an uncommon case that land does not become absolutely waste by means of
  1672
  the mining operations carried on beneath, though it may nevertheless become of very little value agriculturally. It is very common in mining districts for the mining lessee to have considerable surface rights, and of course he can use the surface for spoil banks, for his pits, and for other purposes. As regards that land, I do not know whether in ascertaining the annual value under Subsection 4 the use of the land in that way would be taken into account. It is possible it might be, and it is possible that all those cases might be, excluded by reason of this section not applying to those lands or to any except such as are used solely for agricultural purposes. In such a case, though the power of distress would have been a remedy which might have produced nothing, you had prior to the passing of this measure the remedy of suing out a writ habere facias possessionem. So far as the land is regarded agriculturally, the value may be very low indeed, yet nevertheless the landowner does in many cases receive consideration for it. He gives this surface as part of the consideration which he receives for the mining rights the lessee obtains, although the agricultural value of it is very small. I think there should be some provision in those cases which would enable the tithe owner to recover against that rent.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think the noble Marquess in what he said addressed his mind rather too exclusively to the supposed rule of the whole rent-charge being claimed out of land lying absolutely waste. There might be a rent-charge due upon land which was only partially waste from this cause; and what is waste only because it is used in a way more beneficial to the owner than husbandry cannot justly be made the ground of a claim for remission under Clause 5. This particular kind of remission I cannot help thinking was intended for land under husbandry, and ought to be confined to such land. One reason for thinking that it could not be intended to apply to land occupied in connection with mines, to my mind, is this: The Income Tax Regulations are not very easy to understand, though by long practice they may possibly be understood by those who have to do with them. Under Schedules A and B, with one of which we are now

  1673
  concerned, provision is made for assessment upon the principle of annual value; but there are special cases, for which exceptional rules are made; and the case of mines in particular is subject, generally, to an average of five years. In the case of Schedule B there are introduced general words to the effect that the duties under Schedule A and B, except where other provisions are made for estimating particular properties, shall be estimated according to the general rules in the clause: those general rules being inapplicable to land used in connection with mines. I have no doubt myself that this remission clause here can only work under that general provision which applies to agricultural land, and that it was never meant to apply to land which is practically used in connection with mines. Those lands are not absolutely waste in the sense of not producing profit. I would submit for the consideration of the noble Marquess that it might be well to say that this clause is not applicable to cases which do not come under the general rules for assessing annual value for the purposes of the Income Tax Acts.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is a difficulty which occurs to me in taking the course recommended by the noble and learned Lord precisely, and that is that the lands so diminished in value are not thereby taken out of the category of lands subject to husbandry. They may be, and often are, pasture lands—a certain amount of grass may still grow upon them, and, as far as my personal experience goes, that is the commonest case. In those cases the tenant asks for indemnification in consequence of the injury done to the land; but I think in this discussion we are going a little further than it is possible to go satisfactorily in dealing with the matter across this Table. It is a question, therefore, which I hope the right rev. Prelate will bring up at a future stage in the Standing Committee.
  LORD HERSCHELL: There is a point on this clause to which I should desire to call your Lordships' attention in a word or two. Subject to the technical knowledge which will be at the command of the Government, the test here is the assessment to the purposes of Schedule B. Under
  1674
  Schedule B there are certain provisions that the assessment shall be abated in any year, if owing to floods or other disaster the crops have been injured or destroyed. Notwithstanding the abatement of the assessment, of course it may happen that the rent has not been to anything like the same extent obtained as the amount to which the assessment goes. We will suppose the landlord gets his full rent. There will be no reason why, because of the abatement, the tithe owner should be deprived of his tithe. I do not know whether that abatement is actually entered in the book for that year, and whether then you go back to the old assessment, supposing that to be the case. But I think that would have to be looked into carefully to see whether you can apply to each year the particular assessment for that year, or whether it is not intended to be taken at the general assessment, which lasts, of course, for five years. I really do not know what is the practice followed. It may be there is nothing in the point, but I think it needs to be considered.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It may be that it is not very important, but there is a suggestion which occurs to me upon this clause—I may be wrong—which would remove any objection to the definition under the Commutation Act. The Tithe Commutation Act has stated shortly the definition of owner thus, that it includes "every person who shall be in the actual possession or receipt of the rents of profits of any lands except," and so on. Then the exceptions are, tenants for lives or years holding under lease or agreement on which a rent of not less than two-thirds of the clear yearly value is reserved, and all tenants whatsoever holding for less than 14 years, reckoned from the commencement of their term. Then it goes on to say that in the excepted cases, that is to say, of tenancies for more than 14 years, at less than two-thirds of the annual value of the land, the tenants and the landlords are to be joint owners. Now there is this difficulty arising upon that. If, for example, a lease of 21 years is granted at a reserved rent of two-thirds of the annual value, but an amount abundantly

  1675
  sufficient to pay the rent-charge, it cannot be intended that the remedy is to be against the lessee as well as the owner. What I would suggest for the purpose of removing the difficulty arising out of that part of the definition would be this, to add to the words at line 16, after the words "Tithe Act, 1836"—
  "And when the occupier is a tenant holding under a lease or agreement the landlord shall be deemed to be the owner for the purpose of this Act."
  I do not think it can be intended in those cases to make both the landlord and the tenant owners for the purpose of the Act, and yet they are made joint owners by the definition in the Act of 1836. If the noble Marquess thinks that is a matter which had better be reserved for the Standing Committee, I should entirely acquiesce.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As this raises a very difficult question of construction I think it would be much better if the noble and learned Lord would bring it before the Standing Committee.
  THE EARL or SELBORNE: Then, my Lords, I have another Amendment, which, at all events, can do no harm.
  Amendment moved, in Sub-section 2, page 6, line 15, after ("cass") to insert ("unless the context otherwise requires.'') —(The Earl of Selborne.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7.
  LORD BRABOURNE: I do not know whether the noble Marquess will regard this Amendment of mine with more favour than the last. It is simply to this effect: that the payments to be made up to Michaelmas shall becarrted on under the present law until the next year's tithe begins. I move to substitute the words "11th day of October, 1891," for "passing of the Act." I think that would be a convenient time after Michaelmas Day when rent and tithe become due, and would give landlords and tenants, whose annual agreements had terminated at Michaelmas, the opportunity of making some arrangement with reference to the new law. It appears to me a reasonable Amendment, and I hope the noble Marquess will accept it. I will say no more.
  Amendment moved, in page 6, line 34, to leave out the words ("the passing of this Act"), in order to insert the words ("11th day of October, 1891.")—(The Lord Brabourne.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I cannot help thinking that an Amendment postponing the operation of the Bill until a particular date is very reasonable, and I had that in my mind when I referred to the proposal of the noble and learned Lord opposite with regard to intermediate proceedings. Whether this particular date should be accepted is another matter; but I do think that it is necessary that the Bill should not come into operation the moment it is passed, and that some qualficatiion should be accepted.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It would be absolutely necessary to enable the Rules to be made that the Bill should, for that purpose at all events, come into operation immediately. I think, speaking from what I have heard, it is not desirable that the time should be postponed for any period so long as that which the noble Lord opposite suggests. Those persons who are chiefly affected by the mischief which the Bill is intended to cure are desirous that it should come into operation as soon as possible; and if any time is fixed, I should be inclined to think that as soon after the Rules can be satisfactorily framed would be best; the earlier the time that can be fixed the batter.
  LORD BRABOURNE: That is not at all my view in moving the Amendment. What I mean is this: there are a vast number of agreements through the country from Michaelmas to Michaelmas. Why should you put people to a totally unnecessary inconvenience by altering their contracts which expire next Michaelmas? When rent becomes due tithe becomes due in most cases, and I think it is better to give the landlords the opportunity of arranging with their tenants, so that then they may be able to start afresh. How that can be effected by the necessity of certain Rules being adopted I do not understand. This Amendment is not directed against the Bill. I shall reserve what I have to say against the Bill itself for larger audiences and for those whose ecclesiastical sympathies are less developed than those of your Lordships.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I think the Government should consider this point. Where you have a measure of this kind, by which you get rid of existing machinery and substitute an entirely new one, there will be a great tendency, if you postpone the day, on the part of certain persons to raise difficulties during the interval prior to the Bill coming into operation.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I hope the Government will give more time before insisting upon the operation of the Act after it has been passed. A great number of people will not have had time to make arrangements with their tenants. I would suggest that instead of putting the 11th day of October that the 12th or 13th of November should be substituted, as that is the time fixed for giving notice to quit in some parts of North Wales.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There seems to be a good deal of doubt on the subject. I do not know whether it ought to be fixed so soon after passing. When that will be must depend on the other House. I do not feel quite so sanguine about it as my noble and learned Friend, and I should feel inclined not to put in a precise date now, but to leave it to be fixed. I should deprecate its being fixed, seeing that the passing depends upon the state of business in the House of Commons. I think it would give rise to a considerable amount of discontent on the part of many if their rates were subjected to such a proviso.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am a little doubtful whether it is desirable to invite general negotiations between landlords and tenants throughout the country in reference to the particular date as proposed, the 11th October. I think many noble Lords might find themselves in a somewhat difficult position. At any time they like to make fresh contracts they can do so; but to fix the date of the 11th of October as the time when there shall be fresh agreements made throughout the country would be more likely to cause embarrassment than to facilitate what we all wish should be done.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: This is a Bill which will certainly alter the relative rights of a certain number of persons all over the country. Your
  1678
  Lordships may think there should be some kind of notice given as to when that is to take place, and that they should not have to wait for months until the date shall be fixed at which under the Bill their rights are to be turned upside down.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I would suggest that a date should be fixed when the Bill has reached the last stage in this House.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: On Third Reading.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Verbal Amendments made.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I wanted to ask a question which has been put to me by a great many clergymen with regard to the effect of the Bill in cases of tithe-rent issuing out of lands held by Railway Companies. They seem to think they will have no remedy in that case.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Lands held by Railway Companies are not generally the subject of agricultural interests, and I do not think land of that description is very often held otherwise than by the owner as occupier. Therefore that case seems to me not to require special provision.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON: If there is no tithe rent-charge issuing out of such lands held by Railway Companies this question would be superfluous; but if there is, why should not they be subject to the ordinary law? I do not know what the state of the law is with regard to that exactly.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Railway Companies are in each case governed by certain Acts of Parliament. When those Acts were passed the lands were subject to tithe, and the clergymen may have been paid off, or there may have been a rent-charge reserved to them on the railway. If that is the case, you will, I think, get into some confusion if you include in the Bill a matter so contrary to the ordinary provisions.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. (No. 46.)
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.